I'm not trying to say that loosing the 'environment' at this rate is not a cause for concern. I've always been in favor of reducing our footprint on the planet as a whole.
Honestly, I think as we progress, society will go down the road where we have cars that run on a battery as small as my hand. We will be able to reduce the amount of emissions we create. But we can't expect that to happen overnight.
10 years ago, nobody would have dreamed that the Chevy Volt was going to come out in 2010. Who knows where we'll be 20 years from now.
Agreed Azure, however, governments and corporations have been in cahoots for a number of years to make sure that happens later rather than sooner. We're behind where we should be.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
Well said. I think if some of the more vocal doomsdayers would tone it down and talk in terms of what is happening now instead of what could happen in the future, they'd get a more favorable response and more action.
I don't know how to interpret the "domesdayers" bit but IMO it is very important to communicate and discuss future impacts based on observed changes, what the models are suggesting and apply the precautionary principle. If the models suggest e.g. sea level rise and increased storm surges and the impacts are negative it is what it is. Bad news. Should be noted that as well as negative impacts there will also be opportunities presented through CC (e.g increased navagitability of Arctic marine waters).
Risk assessment and adaptation are an essential part of what is considered by many to be a real threat and something that is observed to be happening whether one believes they are anthropogenic or not. Often adaptation measures aren't something that can be done on a whim or as a knee jerk reaction. The potential risks need to be assessed and where possible mitigated against years in advance.
The problem is that as more data is added, models are refined leading to differing results from previous models leading to (and fairly so) skepticism regarding the accuracy of the models. This makes the perceived risk harder to sell. It also leads to changes in management/adaptation plans.
e.g.
Quote:
London is less vulnerable to rising sea levels caused by global warming than experts realised, according to a new analysis.Experts at the Environment Agency said the Thames Barrier will protect the city for decades longer than engineers thought, with a six-year study revealing that the barrier's original designs overestimated the threat from climate change.
Rather than becoming obsolete by 2030, as its designers thought, the barrier will not need to be replaced until 2070, the agency said today.
Chris Burnham, who worked on the Environment Agency project, called the results "good news". He said the barrier's designers had overestimated the likely sea level rise in coming decades when they gave the flood defence a best-before date of 2030.
"London is defended. We can deal with it," he said.
A decision on whether to modify or replace the barrier will not be needed until the middle of the century, the agency said.
If one ignores the anthropogenic debate it still leaves us with the observed fact that the earth is warming up and with it there will be associated physical and biological changes. How countries and sectors/individual businesses adapt to those changes will tell its own story. Interestingly enough the two sectors that are taking adaptation to future projected changes the most serious are the banking and insurance sectors (sorry no link).
Can those on the skeptics side explain something for me. . . .
If:
(a) in the 1970s/80s the scientific consensus was that global cooling was a serious threat, and that a new ice age could be looming if we didn't change our ways; and
(b) the way "big science" works is that views outside the mainstream constantly get shouted down, are dismissed out of hand despite their objective merits, etc. because science is just about getting funded and published and only consensus views get funding and publication,
then how did we ever go from a mainstream of global cooling being a threat to global warming being a threat? Shouldn't global warming science have never gotten beyond a few fringe scientists shouting from outside of the institution of self-perpetuating mainstream science?
Can those on the skeptics side explain something for me. . . .
If:
(a) in the 1970s/80s the scientific consensus was that global cooling was a serious threat, and that a new ice age could be looming if we didn't change our ways; and
(b) the way "big science" works is that views outside the mainstream constantly get shouted down, are dismissed out of hand despite their objective merits, etc. because science is just about getting funded and published and only consensus views get funding and publication,
then how did we ever go from a mainstream of global cooling being a threat to global warming being a threat? Shouldn't global warming science have never gotten beyond a few fringe scientists shouting from outside of the institution of self-perpetuating mainstream science?
To try and answer your question as a complete novice on the subject, I believe back in the period from the early 40's to the mid 70's there was an overall cooling trend which the scientists used to justify their theory of global cooling. However, I believe there still was a fair number of scientists on the other side of the debate at the time.
Then since the early 70's the increase in temperature, the associated extreme weather, and the improved technology to explain what was happening, made the scientists swing from global cooling to global warming. I would think the costs associated with things like hurricanes, floods, mudslides, crop failures, etc. would have increased the funding to try and understand what was going on. I believe the accumulated knowledge has made almost 90% of the scientists swing to the global warming side.
However, I believe the overall weather science is so complex that a possible swing back to a cooling period for a period of time is not out of the question.
In the meantime, the increased awareness of what man is doing to his environment is a huge eye opener. And hopefully we will learn by it and adapt accordingly.
While I'm not saying I know what they are doing... Chemtrails can't be good for the environment. I just heard about them recently and still not sure what to think... I'm waiting to see the planes on a hot dry day fly by. It is messed up however.
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” - Prince Philip
While I'm not saying I know what they are doing... Chemtrails can't be good for the environment. I just heard about them recently and still not sure what to think... I'm waiting to see the planes on a hot dry day fly by. It is messed up however.
Whist I agreed previously with the water vapor points as well and I chose as shrug it off as junk I looked into it a bit more. The odd thing is that they do not disappear in dry climate. They still hang there. While a local Air Canada plane fly's by and the water vapor it releases disappears but the other trails expand and do not dissipate. This is what I bring to question. Not the topic of what's in it. Weather you believe or don't believe in the topic of it's make up being harmful / helpful. It does not disappear like regular trails. So it is different.
However to keep this post at least from derailing. I sure do not believe in global warming/cooling. But it is quite prevalent that the world is being polluted and not enough is going to happen in time to fix it. We won't change untill money doesn't matter and we are forced to survive.
With the warming theory. Are not all the first 4 planets increasing in temp at about the same rate as each other?
Actually they are talking about something called Chemtrails rather than contrails. They figure there is something more sinister going on than water vapour.
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
Actually they are talking about something called Chemtrails rather than contrails. They figure there is something more sinister going on than water vapour.
There is a difference? ... the last part its so laughable....
This isn't pointed at you, but when people don't understand something, you get religion, aliens and conspiracy theories...
all are junk science
There is a difference? ... the last part its so laughable....
This isn't pointed at you, but when people don't understand something, you get religion, aliens and conspiracy theories...
all are junk science
Hey man, I never said I agreed with it, just pointing out that they are `ruling out` water vapour. I personally like how after an afternoon these chemtrails can make `the whole sky overcast`.
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
Whist I agreed previously with the water vapor points as well and I chose as shrug it off as junk I looked into it a bit more.
How did you look into it? Did you read some books? Study aeronautical engineering or meteorology?
I don't mean to jump down your throat, but when someone claims they "looked into" something like this, it often means they conducted their research at Youtube.
That video you provided was just a bunch of anonymous people (maybe callers to a radio show) saying things about "chemtrails". They didn't even tell us where the footage was shot. My guess it was somewhere near a major airport.
How did you look into it? Did you read some books? Study aeronautical engineering or meteorology?
I don't mean to jump down your throat, but when someone claims they "looked into" something like this, it often means they conducted their research at Youtube.
That video you provided was just a bunch of anonymous people (maybe callers to a radio show) saying things about "chemtrails". They didn't even tell us where the footage was shot. My guess it was somewhere near a major airport.
Didn't you know?
This is the day and age where everyone is a certified investigative engineer than can through internet research figure out what REALLY happens.
And usually, the government doesn't want you to hear about it. Because if the truth really was revealed, there would be massive panics.
How did you look into it? Did you read some books? Study aeronautical engineering or meteorology?
I don't mean to jump down your throat, but when someone claims they "looked into" something like this, it often means they conducted their research at Youtube.
That video you provided was just a bunch of anonymous people (maybe callers to a radio show) saying things about "chemtrails". They didn't even tell us where the footage was shot. My guess it was somewhere near a major airport.
Oh no you are right. I just used that video as a reference. The are no citations or fact in it at all.
I bumped around one night when I couldn't sleep. Found an interesting article of when an area was being sprayed. They took a plane up and grabbed an air sample. That's the one that sticks out for me. But I did begin to read about it more after that... LOL I watched a Prince interview about chemtrails... Now there is a guy everyone needs as a spokes model!
Hey man, I never said I agreed with it, just pointing out that they are `ruling out` water vapour. I personally like how after an afternoon these chemtrails can make `the whole sky overcast`.
I know man, but how did they rule it out? I maybe missing something? Did they drop some acid and fly up in their hippy balloon and take samples?
Can those on the skeptics side explain something for me. . . .
If:
(a) in the 1970s/80s the scientific consensus was that global cooling was a serious threat, and that a new ice age could be looming if we didn't change our ways; and
(b) the way "big science" works is that views outside the mainstream constantly get shouted down, are dismissed out of hand despite their objective merits, etc. because science is just about getting funded and published and only consensus views get funding and publication,
then how did we ever go from a mainstream of global cooling being a threat to global warming being a threat? Shouldn't global warming science have never gotten beyond a few fringe scientists shouting from outside of the institution of self-perpetuating mainstream science?
To try and answer your question as a complete novice on the subject, I believe back in the period from the early 40's to the mid 70's there was an overall cooling trend which the scientists used to justify their theory of global cooling. However, I believe there still was a fair number of scientists on the other side of the debate at the time.
Then since the early 70's the increase in temperature, the associated extreme weather, and the improved technology to explain what was happening, made the scientists swing from global cooling to global warming. I would think the costs associated with things like hurricanes, floods, mudslides, crop failures, etc. would have increased the funding to try and understand what was going on. I believe the accumulated knowledge has made almost 90% of the scientists swing to the global warming side.
However, I believe the overall weather science is so complex that a possible swing back to a cooling period for a period of time is not out of the question.
In the meantime, the increased awareness of what man is doing to his environment is a huge eye opener. And hopefully we will learn by it and adapt accordingly.
You could be right, which would mean that:
1. Contrary to the common argument of many skeptics, there never was a consensus about global cooling; or
2. Contrary to the common argument of many skeptics, the institution of Big Science is completely open to evaluating new data and overturning conventional wisdom when the evidence supports a reversal; or
3. A combination of the two.
In any case, it takes a lot of steam out of some of the common claims of the skeptics.
The chemtrails are sulphur dioxide................yeah the stuff that causes acid rain. They use it because it reflects the suns rays back into space, thereby "reversing" global warming..............thats the theory they are experimenting with.
