Man Made Global Warming

[binny]

I have no clue. And how hard can it be to invent a weather modification grid?

[theVOID]

Allow me to apologize beforehand for the length and tone of this post.

With that disclaimer...

I think it's going to be easier to cool the atmosphere directly than to change our habits,

Ahem... I don't even know where to start. It's going to be easier to try to modify our own atmosphere with technology than it would be to try not to use said technology in a wasteful, inefficient and fatal manner? It would be easier? Our relationship with tech is harmful, so... what we need is... more tech? I am flabbergasted. Literally. It's like your saying the way to get out of this whole is to keep digging.

No, what i meant was technology is going green already but not fast enough, in the mean time we have the ability to cool the earth down 1-2 degrees by dumping sulfur over the earths atmosphere, not ideal, but effective if needed.

Our relationship with tech is definitely not harmful, it has done more good for our species than any other single ideal, it has made life easy to live, giving more time for the sort of progress we need for the future - Yes pollution and global warming was an oversight, we simply didn't know enough when we started. Again this, is being fixed slowly at the moment, but being realistic it seems that direct action may be the most viable way to go short term.

and if we can do that then why not?

How many reasons may I give? First and foremost, the Law of Unintended Consequence. If we try to modify our atmosphere, either with cloud seeding, carbon addition or subtraction or maybe even the HARP thingy in Alaska, there is a very, very good likelihood that within the complexity of the ecosystem in question, and the staggeringly complex relationship to us as humans, there will be an unintentional consequence that would create another problem to solve. Now there's a run on sentence. So it being "easier" (as if that is a moral judgment, or even a strong scientific one) to modify our atmosphere to try to solve a problem with us modifying out atmosphere seems ridiculous, and more than a little ignorant.

The earth has recovered from volcanoes that have injected far more sulfur into the atmosphere than any imaginable human intervention. This isn't about ideals, it's a practical situation, if we were arguing on the thought alone i would agree with you completely, but things aren't happening that way, it's a slow change and many aren't interested. Technology might be the only thing we have left after incompetence has it's say.

But there's more. Also why not? How about inadvertently defining humanity by presumption? It is possible that humanity is not supposed to be destroying it's home. Is a human something so disconnected with nature that the earth is there for us not only to exploit (we really just use it to exploit each other), but to modify and manipulate in any dangerous or poorly-conceived manner? By saying why shouldn't we, you have said that humans seem to have some eminent domain, some amount of rule over the earth that made us. And I maintain that we as humans have been done a great disservice to wake up in a world that so disconnects us from what we actually are, where we actually fit in the ecosystem. We don't need to go further down this path, but rather need to radically change direction. I know full well that we can't go backwards, only ever forwards. But we can surely go forwards in a better direction...

It's about now it's clear you have completely missed the tone of my post: I am not against the change to green technology, i just don't think it's happening fast enough - technology is going to have a role in this.

As for your views on dominion of the earth, i don't agree.

This earth IS ours, it wasn't made for us, wasn't made for any purpose, fuck - it wasn't even planned to be made, but it did happen. Life grew on it and fought for it's life on this hostile planet for 4.5 billion years, humanity eventually conquered other life, we stuck our claim in and took the world for our own, and we have every right to do that, because there isn't a single other entity in the cosmos staking claim on our little rock. We rule this planet, we do what we want with it - It is in our best interest to make the planet livable, make it clean and green, just like it is in the best interest of a home owner to keep the structure sturdy, insulated and clean. He does it ultimately not because he gives a damn about the house, he does it for his own interests, the prime interest being what it always has, since day 1... Survival. Mistakes are made, some can be fixed, some cannot. I hope we can keep the earth clean and habitable, not for any reason other than it suits us best, but if that is not the case we will still survive, we will adapt, the primary goal is all that really matters.

Also, Fossil fuels are going to be phased out due to availability, not because they harm the planet,

And that says what about humanity's ability to make good choices. We should have tried too phase out fossil fuel usage as soon as we realized that it was harmful. And when I make all these statement about modern human nature, I feel the need to make something very clear. That it is in fact NOT modern human nature. Most of the people I have ever met are good people. They would not light there own house on fire and sit in it denying that there was a problem. But someone at the top is acting like that, in this case the oil complex and lobbyists and government agents with conflicts of interest in their favour. But it is not that humanity can't solve the fossil fuel problems, it is that they (god damn you They!) won't let us. I have to try to be clear, and assuming that such things as modern war, money, economics, or policy are some kind of human nature, or even an accurate representation of the majority of us people, is incorrect.

I wouldn't say we should have stopped using them when we found out they were harmful, we should have found out how much we could use safely and done that - But there isn't enough cooperation in the world for that. If one country has something the others will want it, it's politics. I think your dreaming a bit pippy, there is so much more going on here than Human nature or choice, there is the thick weave of political influence to cut through, the same political weave that has kept us alive, kept us safe in numbers for our latter existence has presented another downside - It's going to make it harder to address the climate problem - but then again we wouldn't even be here to talk about it if it was not for the social structures we set up several millennium ago.

and that phase is going to be in the next few decades, after which time any sign of global pollution will slowly fade into history.

Because the only sign of global pollution is fossil fuel based? Are we on the same planet? The fossil fuel is maybe in the top 5 pollutions, but it gets much, much worse. What about, for example, the plastics pollution? The PCBs that have been found now literally everywhere on the planet. The other compunds of chemicals that have been shown to have dire effects on (especially) male fetus', children and adults. How is the changing of the fuel systems of the majority of cars going to deal with that pollution? Will any sign of plastics just go away with fossil fuel? Well the argument could be made that if we run out of, or run up the prices on fossil fuels, there will be less plastic, but that would be a complete side point for fun. There is reported to be a pile of floating plastic trash in the Pacific's northern gyre that can be about the size of Texas. That plastic is breaking down and devastating the ecosystem of the oceans. Will that just go away with cars that run on gas?
What about the nuclear facilities?
What about, much, much more pressing, the Depleted Uranium pollution. There are now a few major hotspots of radioactive fallout from the use of DU weaponry. Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and some testing ground in Oz. That pollution will be there for a long, long, long fucking time. Will the magical free market cumbersomely moving on from oil based transport solve the DU pollution problem as well?

The point is that the pollution problem is much, much bigger and multi-faceted than just cars and fossil fuel use.

Will the removal of fossil fuels not bring the amount of pollution below the acceptable threshold? It was my understanding that the impact from phasing out fossil fuels will reduce pollution by 15-20%, bringing it well within what are deemed safe levels scientifically. Ad to that the fact that there is a trend towards energy efficiency in all areas of life and by the time fossil fuels are made redundant things will be looking better.

Plastics are bad, so is nuclear waste - but that issue is more about waste management than anything. Nuclear fuel for all it's downsides is one of the most effective sources we have, if the waste is managed responsibility then we can greatly reduce the negative impact.

Also, we have to be practical here are realize that anything we want is going to cost something somewhere along the line, what we need are technologies that ensure the cost is at minimum at all times.

I don't think this is ever going to be about making better decisions, it's about developing technology to suit us and the way we want to live.

If you don't think it will ever be about making better decisions... Than I am at a loss. All we have as humans are our decisions, and I would ask that if you want to ignore your responsibilities as a human, and you want to pretend it isn't about the decisions we make, please do so in a way that does not make the planet I also live on uninhabitable. That might be a little rude of you. Developing tech to suit us and the way we want to live. That's fundy talk man. God gave us dominion over the earth to rape and do whatever we want. We have no responsibility as aware and alive humans either to the ones who came before us and built what we know, or the ones who could come after and inherit our world. I mean really. Ab-fucking-surd. Go be a cyborg, but leave the rest of us out.

I don't mean to be so loud, but it is very important to me, and I was left in a state from reading this post.
Thank you all for your time,
The,
-Pip

By decisions i meant lifestyle changes - i don't think that is the key at all. They key is to develop technology that has less impact on the environment while maintaining the standard of life we have.

If we can develop technology that is more green while providing the same functionality we need then we have helped the problem. If we can create a fusion generator to make very cost effective power than we have helped the problem, if we can filter excess c02 from the atmosphere we have helped the problem. It's not about chaining out lifestyles, it's about making technology to make out excesses cleaner transparently.

[Pippy]

Hey,
Please, allow me to continue.

in the mean time we have the ability to cool the earth down 1-2 degrees by dumping sulfur over the earths atmosphere, not ideal, but effective if needed.

I think "not ideal" is quite an understatement. And it stills comes across as doing the same thing and expecting different results. Don't make me define that further, I think it is clear enough... It is digging to get out of a hole, and seems almost unjustifiable.

Our relationship with tech is definitely not harmful, it has done more good for our species than any other single ideal, it has made life easy to live, giving more time for the sort of progress we need for the future

That's also not really accurate, I fear. Technology, as it is, is just the applied sciences. It could be considered the other arm of science relating to the scientific method. Applied sciences, by their nature are not necessarily good or bad. They are just tools, and have no moral value. And for the most part any tool of the applied sciences can be used about as well for bad as it can for good. So our relationship with tech (like any other thing that we are involved in, with our human contradictory complexity) has pro's and con's. All we are arguing about is the level of overall good, and the level of bad. the level of function and dysfunction... All that "easier to live stuff", and especially "sort of progress we need for the future" is just pure undefined, unsubstantiated fluff. This isn't a political rally. Save it.

Yes pollution and global warming was an oversight, we simply didn't know enough when we started.

Okay, going with that. Then we certainly do know enough now. And we are not making any necessary changes. It would almost seem that knowing better is not actually what makes the difference. Since we know all of the harms of all of the pollution issues, and still can't convince the polluters to change priorities. May be all along it wasn't that we didn't know better, but that the same bad ideas, dysfunctional systems we see now...

seems that direct action may be the most viable way to go short term.

I don't know what you mean by direct action. It reminds me of protests and breaking shit, and I doubt that is what you mean. May be you mean being rash, under-researched, dissociated from reality, exponentially dangerous; modifying our environment to deal with modification of our environment...

The earth has recovered from volcanoes that have injected far more sulfur into the atmosphere than any imaginable human intervention.

And animals have eaten more other animals than Stalin killed in Russia, so that makes a perfect moral equivalent? Absolute, certifiable craziness. Because it is less sulfur than the volcanoes, it is no big deal? That is just the silliest rationalization for accepting the endangering of every human and animal on this planet I can imagine, beside the will of some god.

It's about now it's clear you have completely missed the tone of my post: I am not against the change to green technology, i just don't think it's happening fast enough - technology is going to have a role in this.

I just think it is shortsighted of you to be waiting (in time of apparent crisis) for a tech based solution to a tech problem. We can make as many small cars as we want, but as long as some fellow north americans think that A/C and a huge house is some god given right... We need to change the lifestyles (and it would be a change for the better in so many ways), because it doesn't matter how fancy the tech is, if people still demand to be wasteful, or at least don't understand the full cost of the things they want and need.

As for your views on dominion of the earth, i don't agree.
This earth IS ours, it wasn't made for us, wasn't made for any purpose, fuck - it wasn't even planned to be made, but it did happen. Life grew on it and fought for it's life on this hostile planet for 4.5 billion years, humanity eventually conquered other life, we stuck our claim in and took the world for our own, and we have every right to do that, because there isn't a single other entity in the cosmos staking claim on our little rock. We rule this planet, we do what we want with it

The fact that the earth wasn't made for us, or whether it was planned is not only speculative, but only a mere possibility and not some cardinal truth. I mean, how can you prove that the world wasn't made for us (or may be us for it). It is as speculative as a believer saying he knows without a doubt there is intent and design. And I am sure you wouldn't stand for that. The earth is not ours in the sense you are furthering. It is not below us, we are not separate from it. We are animals on this earth, we need certain resources to maintain our lives. Not just food and water, but trace minerals and sunlight. For us to think we are allowed to do anything we want with the planet is arrogant to the most extreme, because the possibility for (and unfortunate reality of) doing much more damage than good for humans, yourself and myself included.

If you decide to defend some sickness you have about being wholly disconnected from the planet that made you, please don't maintain that I have some obligation to see it that way.

It is in our best interest to make the planet livable, make it clean and green,

It is in our best interest to not mess with the planet. It already was fucking livable! We evolved for a long, long time to be able to live on this exact planet, why would we tell ourselves we need to modify it to make it livable? In fact making it "clean and green" is kind of the antithesis of this natural interventionism. And if the real problem is that human pollution may be hampering our ability to live on the planet, than it has nothing to do with the planet. And to suggest that we should add tons of sulfur, in essence pollute a lot more, to solve the pollution issue never ceases to amaze me.

we will still survive, we will adapt, the primary goal is all that really matters.

Again, speculative. I disagree with the fact the our "primary goal" that "really matters" is survivability at all costs. That is actually a fear based weakness I commonly call cowardice, and it as a motivator to do things to our shared ecosystem represents the aforementioned mental confusion (bordering on disability) you seem to be exhibiting.

I think your dreaming a bit pippy, there is so much more going on here than Human nature or choice, there is the thick weave of political influence to cut through,

I would agree that there is much more than human nature and choice, and that I too see the very thick weave of political influence. I was trying to make a point about that before, about how lobbyists, and just conflicted interests play a big role in the drudgery of decision making on the large scale. I am just saying not to identify with and defend that flaw. If the government of your country dosn't allow change in this ever changing world, it seems better to try to demand change, to be open to new ideas, than to say "Well, that's how it's always been, so what if it's obviously flawed, I owe it my life"(from some strange reasoning)...

the same political weave that has kept us alive, kept us safe in numbers

Whoa, there is the "We owe it our lives, don't question the systems, it's rude, it hurts its feelings". Be very careful with what you identify with, because there is a solid argument for the said "political weave" promoting poor health, bad life choices, bad personal beliefs... Tools, and pro's and con's, my friend. At least two sides to every story.

Will the removal of fossil fuels not bring the amount of pollution below the acceptable threshold?

Here you have hit the nail right on the head, and I commend you for it. This is the bottom line of that entire side argument we are having. What are the differences between your personal definition of "acceptable pollution threshold" and my own? That is the crux of it, I think. I would hazard to guess that my "acceptable levels" may be a lot lower than yours, and it is a simple disagreement...

but that issue is more about waste management than anything.

And is the issue of waste management an issue from some problem with applied sciences, or it is an issue of human decisions? Should we make better robots for cleaning garbage, make slightly smaller plastic bottles, or simply try to make less garbage?

develop technology that has less impact on the environment while maintaining the standard of life we have.

Depending on where you live, and what standard of life you enjoy, I think those two may be oxymoronic. Unless the "less impact on the environment" is negligible, than you can at least make it legitimate.

I just personally think it is about our standards of lives, and I don't know how healthy they really are. Are we polluting the planet, in essence helping to end the human race, so we can have toaster waffles, Kraft Dinner, XBox's and liposuction? Are we willing to choose one or two generations of so much affluence that it is killing a majority of westerners, and disregard all the grand-children and great-grand-children? That seems callous, and somehow inhuman, and why I so strongly disagree.

I again don't mean to be so scathing, and apologize for calling you names. It is just something that is very important to me, and seems very clear to me. Even in this case though, I maintain my ability to agree to disagree, and welcome your input. Thank you for listening, this was a long one...

-Pip

[leo-rcc]

Here is my question, what does the Dutch government and Shell hope to achieve with this?:

Today the results were announced of the three supplementary studies on CO2 storage in Barendrecht, which had been commissioned by Ministers Cramer (Environment and Spatial Planning) and Van der Hoeven (Economic Affairs), and Zuid-Holland Provincial Executive member Van Heijningen. The ministers need to make a decision soon regarding the storage of CO2 underneath the Barendrecht districts of Carnisselande and Ziedewei.

http://www.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=44939
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/11/29...ge-scheme/

Instead of creating a long term solution, they are going to store the co2 underground in depleted natural gas fields.

[fr0d0]

A bad reputation it seems Leo

[Pippy]

Shell Corporation has a long history of not doing the right things in a big way... Another bad sign.

[Amphora]

This is bad news. Hopefully we will be able to survive global warming.

Here in the NW (Oregon USA) we are going more green. There are more people around these parts that are using solar panels for electricity, getting hybred cars, and taking less of an impact on the environment.

But in times like these it is hard to see where the world will be at. Hopefully in a few years global warming wont be an issue anymore.

[downbeatplumb]

Why don't we make a weather modification grid, like on Star Trek TNG.

An excellent and inventive suggestion, ma'am, with just two tiny drawbacks; A) We don't have any weather modification technology and B) There's no such thing as a weather modification grid outside of the fictional television show Star Trek.

I expect you to return with: "Well that's put a crimp an otherwise damn fine plan."

Kudos if you can identify what series this redefined quote came from. Hint: It "is a British television situation comedy franchise," according to the Wikipedia entry.

Red dwarf I claim my prize