Overwhelmed Planet?

[PhillipBlunt]

Hurricanes are needed:  To cool the earth down by cycling the air, to break droughts, and to form coral reefs.

Weather control will eliminate the need to cool the earth down, and would solve droughts, leaving the coral reef issue, which is more affected by pollutants and ocean acidification.

Note that we would not to end all hurricanes.  Just reduce the damaging effects of the most threatening ones.  This is going to be needed for much the same reason that weather control on the whole is going to be needed.  For purely selfish reasons.

Fear it or not, geoengineering is definitely on the way.  So hopefully it works out for the best.

We may think that we are in charge, but we'll find out soon enough how little we truly control.

[TOMapleLaughs]

This has nothing to do with fear...Your whole argument is like reducing the rat population by bringing in cats, and then reducing cats by bringing in dogs, and then reducing dogs by poisoning their food, etc etc etc. It's a ridiculous premise. 

Yeah, well we've already been doing this forever, and we've already negatively affected our environment by quite a bit, so what's the difference? There is none.

Again, like it or not, geoengineering is coming.  So it's probably best that the world's scientific leaders do it rather than some half-cooked third world countries do it for us.

[inane]

Yeah, well we've already been doing this forever, and we've already negatively affected our environment by quite a bit, so what's the difference? There is none.

Again, like it or not, geoengineering is coming.  So it's probably best that the world's scientific leaders do it rather than some half-cooked third world countries do it for us.

This is the laziest, stupidest argument I've heard in quite some time. Congrats.

[TOMapleLaughs]

This is the laziest, stupidest argument I've heard in quite some time. Congrats.

No it just makes your argument irrelevant.  

I've already addressed the 'need of hurricanes'.  Solved.  Only thing left is fear of environmental change and damage, which we've already done.  So... Yeah.

[inane]

No it just makes your argument irrelevant.  

I've already addressed the 'need of hurricanes'.  Solved.  Only thing left is fear of environmental change and damage, which we've already done.  So... Yeah.

lol

[Nuxfanabroad]

In answer to your original question Nuxfan, I think many people have a sense of futility when it comes to Climate Change. We might recycle and conserve, take the bus instead of the car, (or walk if possible) yet still wonder if it has much of an effect in the grand scheme of things.

While we a average citizens do what we can, we see powerful multinational corporations spend massive amounts of money to maintain the status quo, or at the very least, to elect governments that view action on Climate Change as they do: an impediment to "progress", which is a euphemism they like to use that translates into an impediment to them making money.

At least here in Canada, we can say that we did something positive. (and hopefully something that will have more far-reaching effects than taking our cans and bottles to the recycling depot) 

We ousted the party that was going out of it's way to muzzle the scientific community and replaced it with the party led by the guy with the nice hair. Hopefully, Justin is "ready" to do something significant to try and slow down the pace of Climate Change and mitigate it's effects.

@Riffraff: Another option would be to replace your current fridge and give it to someone who's fridge really does need to be replaced. That's recycling as well.

Thanks for reply Rupert, & I agree about this sense of futility. In all honesty, feel bad for today's youth, as we're entering an age where humanity will be at the mercy of what's in store.

 

I've been away from western media(TV, especially) for decades, but from following eco-blogs/sites, one gets an acute sense of intense frustration with media-denial. Environmentalists have long lamented the inability of MSM to connect our changing planet with the effect of mankind's FF overindulgence.

 

As usual, it becomes a 'follow the $' endeavour, where the link between large corps/big oil & media grows ever stronger. For the aforementioned youth, the least we owe them is the truth.

[Amish Rake Fighter]

the Apocalypse is starting on the west coast of Mexico tonight

[Nuxfanabroad]

So we're all into discussing terror..how about the environmental devastation we wreak daily upon this beautiful planet?

COP 21 mtg just occurred in France, yet there seems nary a mentioning. Saw one humourous 'Onion' article announcing Obama arrived back home carrying 2 60W bulbs.

But surely we'll have this war machine up & runnin' in no time. It's BAU for the MIC & PTB.

[falcon45ca]

To be fair, the planet Earth is doing just fine & hasn't been "damaged" in any meaningful way.

It's just getting harder for its residents to live here.

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

10 minutes ago, falcon45ca said:

To be fair, the planet Earth is doing just fine & hasn't been "damaged" in any meaningful way.

It's just getting harder for its residents to live here.

 

[falcon45ca]

18 minutes ago, Mr.DirtyDangles said:

 

The irony that you have gif of spiral galaxies colliding, yet think humans have any real ability to damage the planet....humans can't even drill half of half way through the crust...on a cosmic scale we have no ability whatsoever to damage the Earth.

 

Humans can, however, make life impossible for aerobic life forms...anaerobic life gets along just fine with the pollution humans create.

[inane]

10 minutes ago, falcon45ca said:

The irony that you have gif of spiral galaxies colliding, yet think humans have any real ability to damage the planet....humans can't even drill half of half way through the crust...on a cosmic scale we have no ability whatsoever to damage the Earth.

 

Humans can, however, make life impossible for aerobic life forms...anaerobic life gets along just fine with the pollution humans create.

Oy. Reading this board is sometimes just....yikes.

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

On 2015-12-06, 8:32:58, falcon45ca said:

The irony that you have gif of spiral galaxies colliding, yet think humans have any real ability to damage the planet....humans can't even drill half of half way through the crust...on a cosmic scale we have no ability whatsoever to damage the Earth.

 

Humans can, however, make life impossible for aerobic life forms...anaerobic life gets along just fine with the pollution humans create.

Yes because converging galaxies is the same as cleaning up your backyard

We dont live in the earths mantle, we live on it's surface. I once thought the same. How could humanity only occupying 1% of the total surface of the earth could make any measurable difference to the environment.

Well in the last 100 years we have eaten nearly everything into extinction.

Empirical proof C02 is not escaping the atmosphere causing the most rapid changes overall. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.

Oceans are becoming carbonated. Go down to the beach an scoop up a glass see what I am talking about. I grew up on the beach and never once saw a fizzing coastline. Well guess what that has happened only in my lifetime.

The PH level of the oceans is becoming extremely acid as well. Forever changing seas life globally.

Do you know what an ocean dead zone is ? Mans endeavors to grow food has resulted in billions of tons of fertilizer spilling into the oceans yearly causing massive phytoplankton blooms bringing hungry sea life to these areas causing ocean hypoxia. The sea life cannot breath so they die in these killing fields. There are over 50 massive dead zones where there is no sea life anymore.

 

Do I have even have to go into deforestation ? Mineral and resource extraction ? Genetic manipulation of any and all organic life ? 

There is mountains of proven data to support these findings. One only need to look in any direction on the web.

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

 

 

Edited December 8, 2015 by Mr.DirtyDangles

[Nuxfanabroad]

Great post, D2.

[falcon45ca]

2 hours ago, Mr.DirtyDangles said:

Yes because converging galaxies is the same as cleaning up your backyard

We dont live in the earths mantle, we live on it's surface. I once thought the same. How could humanity only occupying 1% of the total surface of the earth could make any measurable difference to the environment.

Well in the last 100 years we have eaten nearly everything into extinction.

Empirical proof C02 is not escaping the atmosphere causing the most rapid changes overall. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.

Oceans are becoming carbonated. Go down to the beach an scoop up a glass see what I am talking about. I grew up on the beach and never once saw a fizzing coastline. Well guess what that has happened only in my lifetime.

The PH level of the oceans is becoming extremely acid as well. Forever changing seas life globally.

Do you know what an ocean dead zone is ? Mans endeavors to grow food has resulted in billions of tons of fertilizer spilling into the oceans yearly causing massive phytoplankton blooms bringing hungry sea life to these areas causing ocean hypoxia. The sea life cannot breath so they die in these killing fields. There are over 50 massive dead zones where there is no sea life anymore.

 

Do I have even have to go into deforestation ? Mineral and resource extraction ? Genetic manipulation of any and all organic life ? 

There is mountains of proven data to support these findings. One only need to look in any direction on the web.

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

 

 

CO2 levels during the Carboniferous Period were 18 times higher (aprox 7000ppm vs 400ppm) than they are today, average global temperatures were about 8 degrees warmer (20c vs 12c), anaerobic bacteria were the rulers of the ocean for hundreds of millions of years. There are no ocean "dead zones", they are rich with anaerobic life, there are "oxygen-free zones". Ocean pH & O2 levels are not permanent & fluctuate easily, the Black Sea recovery in the 90's took about 5 years to see massive changes in biomass.

All the minerals extracted remain on Earth or its orbit (save a handful of probes). Over 99% of all life that has ever lived on Earth is extinct & humans are responsible for a tiny, tiny fraction of that total. The Great Permian Extinction event wiped out anywhere from 80% to 90% of all life on the planet at the time, yet the Earth spun on completely oblivious.

On a macro scale humans are like a tiny child with a plastic spoon, secure in the delusion they can chop down a redwood.

This planet has been hit by asteroids with the force equivalent to several million nuclear weapons detonating at the same time. Humans can kill ourselves & lots of other life on Earth, but we have very little ability to actually harm the planet Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CerozsNjgw

One asteroid with 14,000 times more destructive power than every nuclear weapon on Earth, & life still survived.

If this thread was called "Earth; Getting Hard To Live Here", or "Humans Screwing Things Up For Almost Everyone" I'm on board, but the idea that humans can really damage the planet  is very ego-centric. The Earth will scrub our mess clean a lot quicker than we think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cLSLp5JCL4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DWnjcSo9J0

Edited December 8, 2015 by falcon45ca

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

1 hour ago, falcon45ca said:

CO2 levels during the Carboniferous Period were 18 times higher (aprox 7000ppm vs 400ppm) than they are today, average global temperatures were about 8 degrees warmer (20c vs 12c), anaerobic bacteria were the rulers of the ocean for hundreds of millions of years. There are no ocean "dead zones", they are rich with anaerobic life, there are "oxygen-free zones". Ocean pH & O2 levels are not permanent & fluctuate easily, the Black Sea recovery in the 90's took about 5 years to see massive changes in biomass.

All the minerals extracted remain on Earth or its orbit (save a handful of probes). Over 99% of all life that has ever lived on Earth is extinct & humans are responsible for a tiny, tiny fraction of that total. The Great Permian Extinction event wiped out anywhere from 80% to 90% of all life on the planet at the time, yet the Earth spun on completely oblivious.

On a macro scale humans are like a tiny child with a plastic spoon, secure in the delusion they can chop down a redwood.

This planet has been hit by asteroids with the force equivalent to several million nuclear weapons detonating at the same time. Humans can kill ourselves & lots of other life on Earth, but we have very little ability to actually harm the planet Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CerozsNjgw

One asteroid with 14,000 times more destructive power than every nuclear weapon on Earth, & life still survived.

If this thread was called "Earth; Getting Hard To Live Here", or "Humans Screwing Things Up For Almost Everyone" I'm on board, but the idea that humans can really damage the planet  is very ego-centric. The Earth will scrub our mess clean a lot quicker than we think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cLSLp5JCL4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DWnjcSo9J0

So really your contention is the title of the thread ? 

We are alluding to what man has done to the earth not natural events.   What man has done to the planet in the last 100 years is measurable and has clearly negatively affected the environment for humans on a massive scale.  How much sea water does one liter of oil contaminate ?

The PROCESS of mineral/resource extraction and the use of those is what i am talking about. 

No dead zones ?  Clearly you have your views and are unwilling to see facts

Asteroids ? Again not a human side affect.

The first video about nukes is a complete joke listing ridiculous scenarios.

To think humans have not contributed any discernible long lasting affect on the earth is baffling to me.

AS for co2 levels during the Carboniferous Period

"The large size of insects and amphibians in the Carboniferous period, where oxygen reached 35% of the atmosphere, has been attributed to the limiting role of diffusion in these organisms' metabolism."

Man did not live 360 million years ago so how do this apply ? If we had the same population then as now what do you think the numbers would be ?

http://world.time.com/timelapse/

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2015 by Mr.DirtyDangles

[aGENT]

20 hours ago, falcon45ca said:

Humans can kill ourselves & lots of other life on Earth, but we have very little ability to actually harm the planet Earth.

If this thread was called "Earth; Getting Hard To Live Here", or "Humans Screwing Things Up For Almost Everyone" I'm on board, but the idea that humans can really damage the planet  is very ego-centric. The Earth will scrub our mess clean a lot quicker than we think.

Is your first quoted paragraph of little/no concern to you?

Why people insist on getting caught up on the semantics of the problem while completely ignoring the very real and alarming problem is beyond me.

When people say things like 'save the planet', instead of rolling your eyes and assuming that those people are complete morons who think the planet is somehow going to implode or something because of us, maybe assume what a logical person might and that they mean something along the lines of:

"Save the planet in something resembling the livable state humans and most current life thrived under".

That's kind of the important part, not the label given to it 

What a waste of time and energy to argue about....

Edited December 9, 2015 by J.R.

[falcon45ca]

35 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Is your first quoted paragraph of little/no concern to you?

Why people insist on getting caught up on the semantics of the problem while completely ignoring the very real and alarming problem is beyond me.

When people say things like 'save the planet', instead of rolling your eyes and assuming that those people are complete morons who think the planet is somehow going to implode or something because of us, maybe assume what a logical person might and that they mean something along the lines of:

"Save the planet in something resembling the livable state humans and most current life thrived under".

That's kind of the important part, not the label given to it 

What a waste of time and energy to argue about....

Clearly & accurately defining a problem is paramount when addressing the issue & trying to rally others to the cause.

When environmentalists use scathing rhetoric to define & correct the problem of human environmental impact it has an adverse effect, & polarizes people on both sides of the issue. That's not how you come up with a long-term solution, it's how you set up a long-term dispute.

Labels are very important, if you dispute that I encourage you to check out the Muslim/ISIS/Mass Shootings threads. How we label things is crucial to how we treat things.

I literally spent more time & energy washing the dishes this morning, so I'm not too worried about it.

[aGENT]

 

2 minutes ago, falcon45ca said:

Clearly & accurately defining a problem is paramount when addressing the issue & trying to rally others to the cause.

When environmentalists use scathing rhetoric to define & correct the problem of human environmental impact it has an adverse effect, & polarizes people on both sides of the issue. That's not how you come up with a long-term solution, it's how you set up a long-term dispute.

Labels are very important, if you dispute that I encourage you to check out the Muslim/ISIS/Mass Shootings threads. How we label things is crucial to how we treat things.

I literally spent more time & energy washing the dishes this morning, so I'm not too worried about it.

I don't necessarily disagree but you did little to be part of the solution there. You chose to further the 'long-term dispute'.

 

[falcon45ca]

1 minute ago, J.R. said:

 

I don't necessarily disagree but you did little to be part of the solution there. You chose to further the 'long-term dispute'.

 

You're probably right about that.