QuoteFrom phys.org - August 2, 8:43 AM
Our planet is undergoing one of the largest changes in climate since the dinosaurs went extinct. But what might be even more troubling for humans, plants and animals is the speed of the change.
If this trend continues at its current rapid pace, it will place significant stress on terrestrial ecosystems around the world, and many species will need to make behavioral, evolutionary or geographic adaptations to survive. Although some of the changes the planet will experience in the next few decades are already "baked into the system," how different the climate looks at the end of the 21st century will depend largely on how humans respond.
The findings come from a review of climate research by Noah Diffenbaugh, an associate professor of environmental Earth system science, and Chris Field, a professor of biology and of environmental Earth system science and the director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution. The work is part of a special report on climate change in the current issue of Science.
Diffenbaugh and Field, both senior fellows at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, conducted the targeted but broad review of scientific literature on aspects of climate change that can affect ecosystems, and investigated how recent observations and projections for the next century compare to past events in Earth's history.
For instance, the planet experienced a 5 degree Celsius hike in temperature 20,000 years ago, as Earth emerged from the last ice age. This is a change comparable to the high-end of the projections for warming over the 20th and 21st centuries.
The geologic record shows that, 20,000 years ago, as the ice sheet that covered much of North America receded northward, plants and animals recolonized areas that had been under ice. As the climate continued to warm, those plants and animals moved northward, to cooler climes.
Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"QuoteFrom phys.org - August 2, 8:43 AM
Our planet is undergoing one of the largest changes in climate since the dinosaurs went extinct. But what might be even more troubling for humans, plants and animals is the speed of the change.
If this trend continues at its current rapid pace, it will place significant stress on terrestrial ecosystems around the world, and many species will need to make behavioral, evolutionary or geographic adaptations to survive. Although some of the changes the planet will experience in the next few decades are already "baked into the system," how different the climate looks at the end of the 21st century will depend largely on how humans respond.
The findings come from a review of climate research by Noah Diffenbaugh, an associate professor of environmental Earth system science, and Chris Field, a professor of biology and of environmental Earth system science and the director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution. The work is part of a special report on climate change in the current issue of Science.
Diffenbaugh and Field, both senior fellows at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, conducted the targeted but broad review of scientific literature on aspects of climate change that can affect ecosystems, and investigated how recent observations and projections for the next century compare to past events in Earth's history.
For instance, the planet experienced a 5 degree Celsius hike in temperature 20,000 years ago, as Earth emerged from the last ice age. This is a change comparable to the high-end of the projections for warming over the 20th and 21st centuries.
The geologic record shows that, 20,000 years ago, as the ice sheet that covered much of North America receded northward, plants and animals recolonized areas that had been under ice. As the climate continued to warm, those plants and animals moved northward, to cooler climes.
Solitary
The Earth changes and always has, although not at rate with man made changes compounding it. Humans won't be around forever. We evolved in a benign environment, and we are much dependent on that environment. We can't stop the Earth from changing. I think the best case I could make against environmental neglect is that doing something would postpone monumental physical and financial hardships to following generations, but really few people care about anything beyond their own lifespans, certainly even fewer care what happens to their great grandchildren, so I don't think we will stave this thing off. There just isn't enough incentive.
I posted a user comment on a yahoo article about global warming awhile back. Some guy responded, "Oh yeah? Did you ever hear of the Sun? That's where our warming comes from. You can't stop it."
I don't know. Maybe he meant it as a joke, but I don't think so.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Solitary"QuoteFrom phys.org - August 2, 8:43 AM
Our planet is undergoing one of the largest changes in climate since the dinosaurs went extinct. But what might be even more troubling for humans, plants and animals is the speed of the change.
If this trend continues at its current rapid pace, it will place significant stress on terrestrial ecosystems around the world, and many species will need to make behavioral, evolutionary or geographic adaptations to survive. Although some of the changes the planet will experience in the next few decades are already "baked into the system," how different the climate looks at the end of the 21st century will depend largely on how humans respond.
The findings come from a review of climate research by Noah Diffenbaugh, an associate professor of environmental Earth system science, and Chris Field, a professor of biology and of environmental Earth system science and the director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution. The work is part of a special report on climate change in the current issue of Science.
Diffenbaugh and Field, both senior fellows at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, conducted the targeted but broad review of scientific literature on aspects of climate change that can affect ecosystems, and investigated how recent observations and projections for the next century compare to past events in Earth's history.
For instance, the planet experienced a 5 degree Celsius hike in temperature 20,000 years ago, as Earth emerged from the last ice age. This is a change comparable to the high-end of the projections for warming over the 20th and 21st centuries.
The geologic record shows that, 20,000 years ago, as the ice sheet that covered much of North America receded northward, plants and animals recolonized areas that had been under ice. As the climate continued to warm, those plants and animals moved northward, to cooler climes.
Solitary
The Earth changes and always has, although not at rate with man made changes compounding it. Humans won't be around forever. We evolved in a benign environment, and we are much dependent on that environment. We can't stop the Earth from changing. I think the best case I could make against environmental neglect is that doing something would postpone monumental physical and financial hardships to following generations, but really few people care about anything beyond their own lifespans, certainly even fewer care what happens to their great grandchildren, so I don't think we will stave this thing off. There just isn't enough incentive.
I posted a user comment on a yahoo article about global warming awhile back. Some guy responded, "Oh yeah? Did you ever hear of the Sun? That's where our warming comes from. You can't stop it."
I don't know. Maybe he meant it as a joke, but I don't think so.
There was a recent breakthrough, I believe in Colorado, by scientist that have found a way to use the sun to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water that will make hydrogen powered machinery possible. This could help if the problem of it speeding up is cause by modern societies. Just think, no pollution from fossil fuels. :-D Anyone want to make bets the greedy bastards who own or have stock in oil companies won't stop it from happening? :evil:
I knew it wouldn't take long: Some Vt. utilities try to put brakes on solar boom
Small companies are seeing financial losses from renewable energy use and production.
:roll: :roll: :roll:
yeah, there's no stopping it. it's the evil AI of capitalism that makes the decisions, and using up all the oil and producing massive amounts of cow and pig shit is part of this gods grand plan for all of us. i can't wait to hear what they find in the mass of land under south pole.
Quote from: "SGOS"I think the best case I could make against environmental neglect is that doing something would postpone monumental physical and financial hardships to following generations, but really few people care about anything beyond their own lifespans, certainly even fewer care what happens to their great grandchildren, so I don't think we will stave this thing off.
There are those who would probably consider me to be one of those who doesn't care what happens beyond my own lifespan. I'm not going to speculate about why other people take that attitude but here's where I'm at with it. No matter what we do, we're not getting out of this alive. We as individuals aren't getting out alive. We as a species aren't getting out alive. We as a planet aren't getting out alive.
Sometime between 5 and 7 billion years from now the sun is going to run out of hydrogen. When that happens, the sun is going to get a lot hotter and a lot bigger. So big that it will swallow up our entire planet. So the Earth and everything on it are quite literally toast no matter what we do. Its only a matter of time.
In addition, while evidence of life on Earth dates back 3.5 billion years or so, humans have only been around for a couple hundred thousand years. A lot of species came and went long before we showed up. So it stands to reason that humans are probably going to go the way of the dial up modem for any one of hundreds of reasons long before the sun swallows us whole.
So ultimately we have a choice. We can be completely environmentally irresponsible and life will begin to suck sooner and die out sooner. Or we can do everything in our power to put off the inevitable and life will suck sooner for other reasons but last longer. And the difference between dying off sooner vs dying off later? Lets be optimistic and say its a few million years. So we say fuck it and trash the planet as fast as possible and we don't make a million years. Or we all hug every tree 23-1/2 hours a day and we make it 2 or 3 million years.
In the grand scheme of the universe the difference between half a million years and 3 or 4 million years is not much different than a few seconds in the grand scheme of the life of a person. Its not enough to bat an eyelash at.
So while I think its stupid to be environmentally irresponsible, I also think its pretty pointless to live a less enjoyable life in the name of trying to 'save the planet'. What this means for me in practice is that I don't burn rainforest and I try to avoid products and activities that can lead to rainforest being burned or anything else equally harmful to environment taking place. But at the same time, I don't live on grapenuts and limit my transportation options to a recumbent bike made of hemp and old soup cans.
I drive a car, I wash clothes after I've worn them once, I refuse to allow environmentally friendly light bulbs in my house unless they give off light that looks exactly like incandescent bulbs and I don't ever lose a moments sleep over not having done more.
Quote from: "Johan"There are those who would probably consider me to be one of those who doesn't care what happens beyond my own lifespan. I'm not going to speculate about why other people take that attitude but here's where I'm at with it. No matter what we do, we're not getting out of this alive. We as individuals aren't getting out alive. We as a species aren't getting out alive. We as a planet aren't getting out alive.
Taken to the ultimate, you're going to die, so it doesn't make any difference if I let you live until your body quits functioning or I shoot you now.
I don't think you agree with that.
Quote from: "Colanth"Taken to the ultimate, you're going to die, so it doesn't make any difference if I let you live until your body quits functioning or I shoot you now.
I don't think you agree with that.
It'll matter to me and handful of other people now. Wait 100 years and no, it will not matter to anyone in the least so yeah, I pretty much agree with it.
I don't believe for a minute that environmentally responsible behavior is inversely proportional to economic prosperity or enjoyment of life. It's unfortunately a long-standing fallacy that clouds the entire issue.
Lets see, we are all going to die anyway, so lets just give up and die now. Wonderful! I think it is cowardly, and I don't use that word lightly because I've been brave and cowardly in my lifetime. I prefer to fight until I can't any longer, or lose the will to live. I will not go silently into the night. 8-) Solitary
5 to 7 billion years is a long time though. I think we're gonna be able to colonize other star system by that time, if not the entire Milky Way galaxy.
First industry told us climate change was a hoax, and the Republicans said yes, yes, it's not real. Then industry told us that... well, it was real, but it was not caused by man, and the Republicans said yes, yes, man has nothing to do with it. Then industry admitted that man did have something to do with it, but it was too late to do anything about it, and the Republicans said we need to build an oil pipeline. Now industry is saying it doesn't give a shit about climate change, and Republicans are saying yes, yes, we never gave a shit to begin with, but we didn't want to say it, but now it's currently fashionable to be honest about it, and saying we don't give a shit still pisses off liberals, and besides, Rush Limbaugh doesn't give a shit either.
Quote from: "Solitary"Lets see, we are all going to die anyway, so lets just give up and die now. Wonderful! I think it is cowardly, and I don't use that word lightly because I've been brave and cowardly in my lifetime. I prefer to fight until I can't any longer, or lose the will to live. I will not go silently into the night. 8-) Solitary
That is not at all what I said. Not even close.
Quote from: "Atheon"I don't believe for a minute that environmentally responsible behavior is inversely proportional to economic prosperity or enjoyment of life. It's unfortunately a long-standing fallacy that clouds the entire issue.
Well I don't believe I said anything about economic prosperity.
As for quality of life, there are so many good examples of what I'm saying out there that its almost insulting to have to explain any of them. But I'll give you an extreme example just to illustrate what I'm talking about. I've got some distant relatives (parents of a brother in law) who are trying to live green. As part of their green living, they try not to waste water. As part of not wasting water they have a rule in their house. And that rule is the toilet gets flushed only once per day. So if you need to use the toilet in their house you're going to sit your butt down on top of a bowl of what ever vile stinky mess has been festering in there all day.
If you are so hell bent on being right that you're going to claim having to use a disgusting unsanitary toilet doesn't lower ones quality of life then there is no point in discussing this further. But just in case, I will restate what I said in my previous post. I think it is stupid to be environmentally irresponsible. But I also think it is pointless to live a lower quality of life in the name of trying to save the planet.
IOW don't just cut the lines on that old air conditioner you're throwing away and let the R12 escape into the atmosphere. That's irresponsible. But flush the god damned toilet when you're done using it because its disgusting and unsanitary if you don't and those extra flushes aren't going to make a hill of beans worth of difference in the long run. That is all I'm saying. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Solitary"Lets see, we are all going to die anyway, so lets just give up and die now. Wonderful! I think it is cowardly, and I don't use that word lightly because I've been brave and cowardly in my lifetime. I prefer to fight until I can't any longer, or lose the will to live. I will not go silently into the night. 8-) Solitary
That is not at all what I said. Not even close.
"Taken to the ultimate, you're going to die, so it doesn't make any difference if I let you live until your body quits functioning or I shoot you now."
So what did you mean by that. "I shoot you now?" Seriously.
I agree with you that it shouldn't lower the quality of our lives to go green. Solitary
Being a parent, I'd just as soon work to ensure that the next generation gets the best Earth possible.
One of my jobs is in a nature preserve, where I get to see the real beauty of life. I'd hate to see that bulldozed for the sake of profit, and I'm certainly not about to let a misguided nihilism silence me. Of course we're going to die, both individually and collectively. That's no reason to make one's peace with shitting up the nest.
Environmentalism is not about cheating Natural Selection. It is about the quality of life, right now. That is why that reasoning fails, to my mind.
And being a non-parent by choice, I have already done far more to save the environment for the next generation and beyond than any number of saved toilet flushes ever will.
And in a round about way, that illustrates my point. Saving the environment has nothing to do with why I choose not to have kids. But the fact remains that not having kids is good for the environment on many levels. Now I don't think anyone is suggesting we start a movement to try and get people to choose not to have kids in order to save the environment. That would be silly because it would be living a lower quality of life assume you wanted kids and were otherwise able to have them.
And that is all I'm saying. Do what you can when you can. But don't get so over the top about it that you deny yourself the things you really want because it might help preserve the environment in some extremely small way. More importantly, don't get all up in someone's grill because they might prefer the light of halogen bulbs in their creative workspace instead of the horrible green tinge given off by those god forsaken compact florescent bulbs. Do what can when you can. Leave others be to do the same and keep the big picture i.e. its all turning to dust eventually no matter what, in perspective.
Quote from: "Johan"And being a non-parent by choice, I have already done far more to save the environment for the next generation and beyond than any number of saved toilet flushes ever will.
And in a round about way, that illustrates my point. Saving the environment has nothing to do with why I choose not to have kids. But the fact remains that not having kids is good for the environment on many levels. Now I don't think anyone is suggesting we start a movement to try and get people to choose not to have kids in order to save the environment. That would be silly because it would be living a lower quality of life assume you wanted kids and were otherwise able to have them.
And that is all I'm saying. Do what you can when you can. But don't get so over the top about it that you deny yourself the things you really want because it might help preserve the environment in some extremely small way. More importantly, don't get all up in someone's grill because they might prefer the light of halogen bulbs in their creative workspace instead of the horrible green tinge given off by those god forsaken compact florescent bulbs. Do what can when you can. Leave others be to do the same and keep the big picture i.e. its all turning to dust eventually no matter what, in perspective.
I wasn't meaning to get up in anyone's grill. I was just explaining my own opinion.
I don't get preachy about it, but I don't agree with your view that because extinction is inevitable we should not think about the possibilities. My own view is that when considering MMGW, we'd ought to take a Pascal's-Wager approach to it, to wit,
even if this current trend is not caused by man's industry, we're better served by minimizing the environmental impact of our activities.
This is what won't help the problem: Some Vt. utilities try to put brakes on solar boom
Small companies are seeing financial losses from renewable energy use and production. :evil: :roll: Solitary
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I don't get preachy about it, but I don't agree with your view that because extinction is inevitable we should not think about the possibilities.
Where did I say we should not think about the possibilities? I never said that.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I don't get preachy about it, but I don't agree with your view that because extinction is inevitable we should not think about the possibilities.
Where did I say we should not think about the possibilities? I never said that.
It's implicit in this passage:
Quote from: "Johan"So while I think its stupid to be environmentally irresponsible, I also think its pretty pointless to live a less enjoyable life in the name of trying to 'save the planet'. What this means for me in practice is that I don't burn rainforest and I try to avoid products and activities that can lead to rainforest being burned or anything else equally harmful to environment taking place. But at the same time, I don't live on grapenuts and limit my transportation options to a recumbent bike made of hemp and old soup cans.
You're clearly evacuating the middle right here in order to disparage those who might disagree with you,
a priori.
Certainly the choice is not between rainforest-burning and eating grapenuts. There's a wealth of options in between, which are
possibilities, which you are ignoring.
I think you're reading a lot into that post which simply isn't there. I have not said I think people should ignore possibilities and I do not think they should. I cannot state it any more plainly than that.
Quote from: "Solitary"This is what won't help the problem: Some Vt. utilities try to put brakes on solar boom
Small companies are seeing financial losses from renewable energy use and production. :evil: :roll: Solitary
Remember the old Jack Benny joke about the victim and the mugger? "Take my life, I need my money for my old age"?
They may keep from suffering financial loss now, but how much financial loss do you suffer when Alaska becomes the tropics?
Quote from: "Colanth"They may keep from suffering financial loss now, but how much financial loss do you suffer when Alaska becomes the tropics?
Which will be when?
Quote from: "Johan"I think you're reading a lot into that post which simply isn't there. I have not said I think people should ignore possibilities and I do not think they should. I cannot state it any more plainly than that.
Fair enough, then. My apologies.
Quote from: "Solitary""Taken to the ultimate, you're going to die, so it doesn't make any difference if I let you live until your body quits functioning or I shoot you now."
So what did you mean by that. "I shoot you now?" Seriously.
Those aren't Johan's words. That's Colanth's interpretation of them.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Colanth"They may keep from suffering financial loss now, but how much financial loss do you suffer when Alaska becomes the tropics?
Which will be when?
That depends on what we do between now and then. It could be by the end of this century, it could be never.