Environment Out Of Control?

[Aujuba]

Lately it seems the news has more and more talk related to the weather. In Thailand, the heat seems to be worse than ever. This week in Thailand I am hearing more and more local people complaining about the weather. the first words out of their mouths is how its never been hot like this. One of the talk show hosts on ASTV was saying its getting hard for him to bear. It sounded like he would consider leaving LOS if things didn't change. I guess electricity usage is up too. Anyone else hearing complaints about the weather? Is it affecting you? Is this the beginning of something terrible or is it all natural?

As for me, I feel the heat when I am outside but most of the time I am in air conditioning. In the last few years I've become an air-con addict. Thoughts often cross my mind of going back to the US for cooler weather. If I do I may be an environmental refugee of some sort.

Edited April 24, 2007 by Aujuba

[kmart]

Weather conditions change all the time, and have done ever since the Earth cooled.

The only thing that never changes is people moaning about it.

[Aujuba]

Aren't you supposed to add mark my words? But you may be right.

[PhilHarries]

Weather conditions change all the time, and have done ever since the Earth cooled.

The only thing that never changes is people moaning about it.

And I thought that was a British trait.

Local variations have, as kmart said, been around since the very beginning. Unfortunately these days we have this doom sayer's phrase "global warming" every time the weather is hotter, colder, drier, wetter than normal. I say unfortunately as it all tends to get to be the stock phrase and is becoming rather like the boy that cried wolf but it does sell newspapers. The thing is that our so called norms are based on the last few seconds of the geological clock. Eveybody forgets the 4,600 million years before us when there was nobody around to moan about the weather and mother Earth was just left to get on with it.

That man's activities are changing the environment we live in is reasonably well established. The degree of our effect is open to much interpretation and debate. If you feel bad about the effects of man's activites just turn the a/c down, or even off , you won't die merely sweat a bit more . Think of it as a free sauna.

[Aujuba]

I guess I don't care because I'll continue using my air con. I think there might be something to global warming though. I feel that you can't blame people for using electricity or fuel alone. Someone who has a three bedroom house is worse than someone who uses air-conditioning 24 hours a day in a one bedroom. It's not about using electricity. There is a lot more to consider if giving up something is going to change the environment.

[uptou]

i think global warming is something to be concerned about,maybe not for this generation,but your kids .it just aint cool to admit it.

anybody see the program on global warming on bbc world with david attenborough narrating?

basically the polar ice cap is going to completely melt unless we start decreasing co2 emissions now.once the ice melts,& the sea level rises,the lack of ice reflecting the heat of the sun will heat up the ocean even further,& faster.also,there is the danger of china's economy & population growing at an alarming rate,with no controls on there pollution,with china being the biggest users of coal for fuel.

basically the human race is ####### up the planet.

the scientists now widely agree that hurricanes,floods,& heatwaves are going to increase.

i read one quote from somebody in the news that basically,we,humans,are stupid,& the only way that something major will be done to prevent it,is by some major disaster happening due to global warming.

i will now get off of the soap box,as its so hot in here,what with no air conditioning.i might even get a tuktuk,coughcough & go for a beer.

[kmart]

Amazing to think that we have been on this planet (in our present form) for roughly 40,000 years, and we think we have the power to destroy / save it???? Nope. We only have the power to save or destroy ourselves; the planet and life on it will find a way to survive and thrive in the future. It always has, despite volcanic eruptions; ice ages; meteoric impacts; the production of Oxygen (which wiped out all life before it); etc. etc. The planet is fine, we ain't.

We think of the dinosaurs as a failed species, yet they occupied this planet successfully for nearly 300 million years. Mankind has a way to go to match that.... I'm not sure we will.

[uptou]

did dinosaurs fly in jets,or use microwaves?

[kmart]

did dinosaurs fly in jets,or use microwaves?

They farted quite a lot. Which might have altered their climate. Some scientists say they were wiped out after a meteorite smashed into the Earth, "Armageddon" stylee.... Luckily, if that scenario ever crops up again, we have Bruce Willis to save us.

[GuestHouse]

I see lots of new environmental engineering projects coming up - Global Warming Bad News?... it all depends.

In the industry I work in 'The Future's so bright I've gotta wear shades'.

[larvidchr]

1. Global warming

2. impact of big meteor

3. Shifting of the magnetic poles

This is the latest crop of things to likly happen soon and bring an end to mankind.

It is not that I will say scientist are lying, and I know that they do great services to us all, but isent it a fact that most work on grants!!

Imagine a scientist after 3 years research, concluding that within his field there really isent a problem!! that would end the grant and put him out of work, and it might even end further serius research within his field of expertice all together.

Wouldent that give any man deliberate or not, a very strong, lets say intensive, to after all find some area of koncern that needs further funding and research?? and with the strong competition from other fields of sience, maby allso stress that his partikular field is of greater urgency(read "danger to us all") than the others.

If cooler heads express concern about the findings, who financed a scientists whole exsistence, is he then likely ever, to outright admit he was wrong??

Now thousend of scientist have all comitted themselves to a certain theori about the origins of the changing weather on our planet, and by doing so have secured massive funding for all their different fields, in at least a couple of generations to come, are they ever likely to accept a finding profing them all wrong by some rouge scientist??

I find it all very facinating and wish I would be around when the truth is revealed, however I am pretty sure I wont be, what a bummer

Kind regards

Edited April 24, 2007 by larvidchr

[onzestan]

I'm surprised nobody blames the smokers.

Nearly everything else is.

cheers

onzestan

[jumnien]

I just lost 9 kilos in 30 days and I tell you it's remarkable the difference in perceived temperature. I know it's hot, but I feel cooler than I did back in December-January. Even Al Gore is catching on, I hear he's on a diet.

[qwertz]

I'll bet my shirt that roaches, mozzies, rats and AIDS will survive any catastrophe.

[sceadugenga]

I'm surprised nobody blames the smokers.

Nearly everything else is.

cheers

onzestan

My Mrs is outside sulking now because I gave her the evil eye for smoking between me and the fan.

Global warming will come a few degrees at a time, next year may be the coldest on record and the deniers will go into an orgasmic frenzy. Over a decade the average will rise.

[lannarebirth]

I see lots of new environmental engineering projects coming up - Global Warming Bad News?... it all depends.

In the industry I work in 'The Future's so bright I've gotta wear shades'.

And that's really the crux of the matter isn't it? It's these major global initiatives that are about the only thing that fuel economic growth anymore. I'm not against it mind you. I sure like what they did with the internet for instance (save for Thailand maybe), but I just wish they'd be more direct and honest in their approach.

We go to war to fuel the economy in a downturn. We talk about global warming to peddle the next group of stocks "positioned to lead the post carbon/peak oil world. It's all mostly bullshit isn't it? "Cept for all the money changing hands.

[GuestHouse]

Well I don't disagree with you that nations go to war over resources and trade - The world has never been any different in that respect.

But I do disagree that the warnings over global warning are a prelude, a part of setting the stage to garner support for the next big business (post fossil fuels).

The scientific community (and I note here the crack-pot conspiracy theories surrounding their motives) are warning that WE need to do something about reducing our carbon output to avoid worsening global warming.

The WE here, unlike the WE in the 'We go to war' actually applies to all of us, not just the poor sods who fight wars over oil on our behalf - and coincidentaly protect OUR economies + all our welfare and health services, pension etc - basically all the good things that our oil ecconomies depend on.

That said, the response to global warming will require new industries, new solutions to old problems, new ideas, new commerce, new trade and all that means new jobs, new money.

Bring it on.... The work I mean.... I'm not keen on too much global warming.

[uptou]

i noticed that on fox news (i watch it for entertainment value,& people watching) after the hurricane disasters in the usa,all the weather experts were saying that it was just a phase that has happened before.not sure whether it was biased due to links with the bush administration though.you never really know what is driving peoples statistics or opinions.

[larvidchr]

Well I don't disagree with you that nations go to war over resources and trade - The world has never been any different in that respect.

But I do disagree that the warnings over global warning are a prelude, a part of setting the stage to garner support for the next big business (post fossil fuels).

The scientific community (and I note here the crack-pot conspiracy theories surrounding their motives) are warning that WE need to do something about reducing our carbon output to avoid worsening global warming.

The WE here, unlike the WE in the 'We go to war' actually applies to all of us, not just the poor sods who fight wars over oil on our behalf - and coincidentaly protect OUR economies + all our welfare and health services, pension etc - basically all the good things that our oil ecconomies depend on.

That said, the response to global warming will require new industries, new solutions to old problems, new ideas, new commerce, new trade and all that means new jobs, new money.

Bring it on.... The work I mean.... I'm not keen on too much global warming.

In the year 2100 the temp. will have risen with just about 2 degree centigrade (give or take a little bit), the western world will by then have taxed its populations with unprecedented fantasitrillions of dollars to combat the problem, mostly by trying to reduce the outlet of co2 in their own countrys with neglible effect. A calculation from World Energi Counsel shows that in the year 2100 the effect of Kyoto is 0,15 degree centigrade lower temps. than without Kyoto.

A lot of people dont know that water in the atmosfere konstitutes 98% of the greenhousegasses the last 2 % is split between cfc gasses, metan, co2 and ozon, just to put things in perspective.

The fact of the matter is that Kyoto will cost 2% of the worlds bnp every year, it will not give economic growth but set the western worlds development back 1 year in year 2050, meaning that the stage we would have reached without Kyoto in year 2050, we will first reach in year 2051. Forget the " new jobs, new money" not that the difference is great but it will mean a setback. And dont forget that to competly eradicate the manmade greenhousegas pollution it will take Kyoto+30, it is simply not sane even to contemplate.

Out of the 15 most polluted cities in the world 13 is in Asia, and China and India refuses to do anything remotely effective to combat the co2 pollution, in fact next year China will surpass USA and become the biggest greenhousegas polluter in the world.

All the while we in the west will endure almost all the financial costs of Kyoto, the coorupt leaders of a long line of 3 world countrys and their superrich cronies will party on, allowing heavy polluting industries to set up shop in their countrys, facilitated with millions of black dollars under the tables.

With less that Kyoto costs in 1 year, we will be able to supply everybody in the whole world with clean drinking water for the future, saving 2 million lives and half a billion seriusly ill every year.

With less than Kyoto costs in 1 year, we could facilitate that everybody in the whole world would be given the opportunity of education, so they maby one day would know why they should oust all their dictators and why it also would be in their best interest to combat pollution.

The list goes on and on, millions of saved lives a year from malaria, Hiv, and 680 million starving could have food every day

It would cost less than half Kyoto ( 1% Bnp year), to adapt to the changes a 2 degree centigrade rise in the world temp. (by year 2100) would create, the other 1% Bnp could then be used to take care of the above listed problems.

This is how I for my part would like to se the money used. My own money i would use to buy a big telescope so i could wacth for the giant meteor that will make all the above acedemic, and buy 100 liters of the strongest sunscreen for when the magnetic poles turn and fry us all anyway.

The real ""crack" "pot" heads is in my humble opinion is the people that where ung in the sixties and now walk with a permanent Professor left list, still desperat looking for the barbers shop on the university campus.

Edited April 24, 2007 by larvidchr

[jamesc2000]

"A lot of people dont know that water in the atmosfere konstitutes 98% of the greenhousegasses the last 2 % is split between cfc gasses, metan, co2 and ozon, just to put things in perspective."

I am very glad you put things into perspective! So if water constitute 98% of greenhouse gases then CO2 must be negligible!

“Out of the 15 most polluted cities in the world 13 is in Asia, and China and India refuses to do anything remotely effective to combat the co2 pollution, in fact next year China will surpass USA and become the biggest greenhousegas polluter in the world.”

Now if CO2 is negligible as a greenhouse gas why bother trying to combat it?

And what does it mean that China and India will surpass USA and become the biggest greenhouse gas polluter in the world? If water is 98% of greenhouse gas, does it mean that India and China are pumping water into the air?

[larvidchr]

"A lot of people dont know that water in the atmosfere konstitutes 98% of the greenhousegasses the last 2 % is split between cfc gasses, metan, co2 and ozon, just to put things in perspective."

I am very glad you put things into perspective! So if water constitute 98% of greenhouse gases then CO2 must be negligible!

"Out of the 15 most polluted cities in the world 13 is in Asia, and China and India refuses to do anything remotely effective to combat the co2 pollution, in fact next year China will surpass USA and become the biggest greenhousegas polluter in the world."

Now if CO2 is negligible as a greenhouse gas why bother trying to combat it?

And what does it mean that China and India will surpass USA and become the biggest greenhouse gas polluter in the world? If water is 98% of greenhouse gas, does it mean that India and China are pumping water into the air?

The balance in the atmosfere is very delicate, that is why Manmade pollution of cfc made holes in the ozone layer, and that is why pollution with co2 is raising the global temp. allthough they constitute less than 2% of the greenhousegasses. This is according to broad concencus in the scientific community.

My point with the water, (and it is easy to see just by looking up, you know all the little beautifull fluffy white things is part of all the water in the atmosfere.) is that mans impact maby is not as catastrofical big as some make it sound.

Why combat it? well this is where I belive that the money spend on trying to do that, could be used more effective by taking care of more immidiate problems where the money would have a really big impact here and now. We do have to reduce co2 pollution and we in the west are doing so allready, and we can do more without the astronomical costs of panic measures like Kyoto that only gives 0,15 degree reduction in the global temp in year 2100.

China alone will surpass the US next year and become the worlds biggest contributer to manmade greenhousegasses. All the water in the atmosfere comes from evaporation from the seas, and is a good thing, we could not survive without it.

In the year 900 to 1400 it was quite a bit warmer on earth than it is now, from the year 1500 to 1800 it was cold as hel_l, now they claim that we humans is solely responsible for the rising temps. in our age and time, maby just maby, we think to much of ourselfes, and maby we humans just have to adapt to the changes on earth, and not try to make the earth adapt to us.

People desagree strongly on this subject, and that is the beauty of living with freedom of spech, it is allowed.

[altman]

The balance in the atmosfere is very delicate, that is why Manmade pollution of cfc made holes in the ozone layer, and that is why pollution with co2 is raising the global temp. allthough they constitute less than 2% of the greenhousegasses. This is according to broad concencus in the scientific community.

from the al gore movie, 'an inconvenient truth', this graph.

according to the movie, and no one to my knowledge has yet to refute this claim, it is based on solid science from 650,000 years of antartic ice core samples.

650,000 years is a period of time, relative to my own life span, that is virtually inconceivable. it covers several ice ages and would seem to 'level out' numerous cyclical changes.

the graph shows the level of co2 concentration and the temperature. the red line is co2, the blue line temperatuere. at no time in the past 650,000 years has co2 concentration exceeded 300. i have added a green line to show the 300 level. the lower yellow mark on the right is the current (now) co2 level. it is about 450. the top yellow mark is the projected co2 level in less than 50 years. this is all based on currently accepted science. (for those unable to access the link it is at http://euthanasiaclinic.com/gore1.jpg)

now it may be true that currently accepted science is wrong about the conclusions to be based on this data, but the data stands. and 650,000 years is a pretty strong base line for comparrison. and the massive change in co2 levels appears to coincide with human population and energy growth.

if one is more concerned with the taxes they pay than the future of humanity it would be in their interest to try and debunk the available science. just as it was, and remains, in the self serving interest of those who choose to ignore the evidence of evolution. you can make a case, it just isn't very reasonable.

[larvidchr]

The balance in the atmosfere is very delicate, that is why Manmade pollution of cfc made holes in the ozone layer, and that is why pollution with co2 is raising the global temp. allthough they constitute less than 2% of the greenhousegasses. This is according to broad concencus in the scientific community.

from the al gore movie, 'an inconvenient truth', this graph.

according to the movie, and no one to my knowledge has yet to refute this claim, it is based on solid science from 650,000 years of antartic ice core samples.

650,000 years is a period of time, relative to my own life span, that is virtually inconceivable. it covers several ice ages and would seem to 'level out' numerous cyclical changes.

the graph shows the level of co2 concentration and the temperature. the red line is co2, the blue line temperatuere. at no time in the past 650,000 years has co2 concentration exceeded 300. i have added a green line to show the 300 level. the lower yellow mark on the right is the current (now) co2 level. it is about 450. the top yellow mark is the projected co2 level in less than 50 years. this is all based on currently accepted science. (for those unable to access the link it is at http://euthanasiaclinic.com/gore1.jpg)

now it may be true that currently accepted science is wrong about the conclusions to be based on this data, but the data stands. and 650,000 years is a pretty strong base line for comparrison. and the massive change in co2 levels appears to coincide with human population and energy growth.

if one is more concerned with the taxes they pay than the future of humanity it would be in their interest to try and debunk the available science. just as it was, and remains, in the self serving interest of those who choose to ignore the evidence of evolution. you can make a case, it just isn't very reasonable.

I do not dispute that the level of co2 has gone up due to mans precence on earth, but it would be the greatest ever waste of money in the histori of man to try to get rid of it the Kyoto way, with the big and extremely urgent humanitarian problems we have now this day, it would in fact be almost a criminal waste.

Now go and tell the starving children that you wont give them any food because you have spend your money on "the future of humanity" im sure they will understand and just lie down and die with a smile on their faces knowing that somebody is taking care of humanitys future

[esprit]

It is unfortunate that the worst contibutor, in Al Gore's film, is the US, A country whose President was financed in the main by the O & G industry, whose products and processes contribute so greatly to the impact of global warming.

It is also unfortunate that due to human greed whatever industry can generate mega-bucks, will thus seek to influence major political decisions albeit fossil fuel production and use or the internet. No major nation actually gives a fig about the less fortunate. Plenty of good words paying lip service yes and the odd few million in aid which invariably gets filtered away for other uses in some countries.

My personal view is that until it becomes politically unacceptable to the majority of voters for big business to donate huge sums of money to any political party or person, with the obvious main aim of protecting their own interests, then nothing substantial will happen, either to alleviate the production and use of fossil fuels or to the other humanitarian interest, assisting poor nations to have the ability to feed themselves.

Global warming and humanitarian assistance may be a headline grabber and many voters listen to the arguments, but unfortunately it is quite often the apathy of many that do not care to vote for a change in political direction that hinders the development process towards a more environmentally aware society. The shame of course is that it is all too easy for us to sit back and reap the rewards in the present whilst believing that in the future some "miracle" will happen. But that is all part of human frailty.

Edited April 25, 2007 by esprit

[lannarebirth]

It is unfortunate that the worst contibutor, in Al Gore's film, is the US, A country whose President was financed in the main by the O & G industry, whose products and processes contribute so greatly to the impact of global warming.

It is also unfortunate that due to human greed whatever industry can generate mega-bucks, will thus seek to influence major political decisions albeit fossil fuel production and use or the internet. No major nation actually gives a fig about the less fortunate. Plenty of good words paying lip service yes and the odd few million in aid which invariably gets filtered away for other uses in some countries.

My personal view is that until it becomes politically unacceptable to the majority of voters for big business to donate huge sums of money to any political party or person, with the obvious main aim of protecting their own interests, then nothing substantial will happen, either to alleviate the production and use of fossil fuels or to the other humanitarian interest, assisting poor nations to have the ability to feed themselves.

Global warming and humanitarian assistance may be a headline grabber and many voters listen to the arguments, but unfortunately it is quite often the apathy of many that do not care to vote for a change in political direction that hinders the development process towards a more environmentally aware society. The shame of course is that it is all too easy for us to sit back and reap the rewards in the present whilst believing that in the future some "miracle" will happen. But that is all part of human frailty.

It's not about the oil and gas industry or even the environment. It's about "creative destruction". The primary force in capitalism. It's primary beneficiary is banks and the companies (new) whose paper they peddle.

[Ulysses G.]

When it was miserably hot 100 years ago, all our forefathers had to blame it on was bad luck. Now-a-days, we can blame it all on "global warming" and George Bush.

Life just keeps getting better and better.

[the gent]

and the deniers will go into an orgasmic frenzy. Over a decade the average will rise.

I too am a stockings man and it certainly does something for my warming particularly when orgasmic frenzies occur then it's not only me average rises

Al Gore is the equivalent of the snake oil salesman of yesteryear in the wild and woolly west who cannily sold to the gullible what they believed they wanted.

Man is riven with vanity and the quaint notion that he could be instrumental in the planet's destruction through production of CO2 emissions is perhaps the greatest. Ultimately, it is the promise of salvation that redeems us and religion used to be the main route. Now in more sophisticated times ( sic ) the armageddon of environmental hel_l is the biggest bogey but the prophets of the new religion, such as Gore and the huge poltically motivated industry that he represents, will of course deliver us from such perdition provided of course we continue to honour them and subsidise their tedious proseletysing.

One wonders what the next fad will be?

[uptou]

if anything is to be done about global warming,(if indeed you think something needs to be done) surely it has to come from the goverments.

the average bloke is not going to care much for something he cant see.people are naturally selfish,& most have to much to think about to worry about global warming everyday,unless it comes from the top & everybody starts taking notice.

leaving tv's on standby,evidently has a real increase on tons of co2 per household.it shouldnt be to difficult to start producing envioromentally freindly products as standard.not much but a start.

[Gerontion]

^^So are you claiming that concentrations of atmospheric CO2 haven't increased by a third on pre-industrial levels? Or are you saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Or am I missing something? You see, when you get rid of all the rubbish about environmentalism being a religion or how awful Gore is or the how Kyoto was industrial sabotage aimed at the Americans, there are some basic facts that have to be dealt with. On the other thread about global warming, I posted a quotation from a joint statement issued by the scientific academies of dozens of countries, all of whom agree that the consensus view of the scientific community is that anthropogenic climate change is real and dangerous. Even the American military (well known tree-huggers to a man) acknowledges this. If, however, you are privy to information of which the Royal Academy is ignorant, do please post it.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Gerontion

[britmaveric]

Read State of Fear, very convincing and lot based on fact. Food for thought - and remember environmental groups without a cause have no dosh, so in the end its all about dosh to them, not how green things should be.