<<   <   Page 26 / 39   >   >>
dljvjbsl 12/5/2012 | 3:01:08 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!!

This isn't direclty relevant to a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic gloabl warming but since the issue of the climate of the planet Venus was brought up -

From a Jet Propulsion Laboratory press release on the Mars Orbiter observations:

And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress
Mad Ludwig 12/5/2012 | 3:01:06 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! I think that many WANT to believe that the two are linked so that they believe we can do something about it. If humans are responsible, we can fix it.

what if you believe that humans are responsible, but that it's probably too late to do a damn thing about it, because we've set in motion a chain of events too complicated and powerful for our meagre technology to reverse?

what secret wish-fulfillment fantasy am i entertaining then?
paolo.franzoi 12/5/2012 | 3:01:05 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!!
And I will add another variable on....

The biggest issue is that people think we will end up like Venus in 100 years. Of course, there is no actual evidence to that. In fact, what may happen is that more arable land comes into being and global warming works very well up to a point. Producing a bigger biomass and more food.

Now, if things get extreme there are schools of thought that cloud cover and rain will reverse the effects of the warming.

So, I think the issues are:

1 - Clearly the earth has been warming over the last 150 years. It is not clear how much of that is related to industrialization.

2 - It is not clear what the outcomes of warming will be and what the ceiling on temperatures will be.

I would say that we have very little measureable history in climatic change. Our written record stops before the last Ice Age. Some realities are:

1 - The Earth has been warmer in the deep past than it has been today and supported a large biomass when it was.

2 - The Earth has had atmospheric conditions with more CO2 than it has today. These are not always linked to warm periods.

So, I think it is a fine idea to reduce polutants. But I would object strenuously if that meant 1/2 the US went unemployed due to lack of energy (randomly invented statistic about global warming).

douggreen 12/5/2012 | 3:01:05 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! Mad Ludwig,

Actually, if you have hard evidince for what you believe, I'd love to hear it. Seriously. I am open to be proven wrong. Absent from evidence, what you or I believe has no bearing on what is true. I know this flys in the face of what our news media tries to tell us, i.e. that we can discover what it true by taking a poll.
rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 3:01:04 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! Actually, if you have hard evidence for what you believe, I'd love to hear it. Seriously. I am open to be proven wrong. Absent from evidence, what you or I believe has no bearing on what is true.

I don't have enough training to analyze the human impacts on climate change in a manner that supports "scientific conclusion." But I do notice that the large coal burning electrical utilities who have all kinds of motivations to deny a link between the two are *not* denying the link.
RazulSunaam 12/5/2012 | 3:01:03 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! This has been an interesting debate on a non-telecom topic, but I'm wondering if there is not a lesson or two we can learn as an industry from the disaster in New Orleans.

First and foremost is the fact that the U.S. federal government is ill-prepared to deal with the most predicatable of crises. Some folks will say this is because President GǣBush is dumber than dirtGǥ and his crisis management team is incompetent. Others will point the blame at the state government and local officials. I could not be more disgusted with our governmentGs response to New Orleans and the ridiculous shirking of responsibility by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, but I think we need to seriously consider the bigger picture here.

What New Orleans says to me is that we better rethink our concept of government and begin to shift priorities to develop stronger, healthier, and well-funded institutions outside of government that can adequately plan for and manage crises. There is no guarantee that the next President of the United States will appoint a professional who lives & breathes crisis management. There is no guarantee that the next Secretary of State will choose to get on the phone in an effort to ensure there are no global disruptions of world oil supplies rather than go laughing it up at the next Monty Python farce on Broadway when a crisis strikes.

As for telecom, we need to work together to build in much greater resiliency in the countryGs most critical communications centers, and need to make darn sure we have plenty of excess network capacity that we can tap into when a national calamity strikes. We absolutely have to have rock-solid security and reliability. Over the last few years, we have already seen how periodic, temporary slow-downs in traffic transiting the Internet can negatively impact business productivity. We cannot afford for the Internet to collapse entirely because of the devastating impact this would have on the financial sector and the sense of helplessness that would grip large portions of the population that view the Internet as the lifeline to the outside world.

Above all, we must prepare for major crises with a sense of certainty that these events will occur rather than be surprised when they do occur.
paolo.franzoi 12/5/2012 | 3:01:02 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!!

If you do some more searches, you will find that there were times in the Earth's past that there were higher CO2 levels than today.

That is why people are saying there is no direct evidence.

So, lets do this. Everybody tomorrow will stop using fossil fuels. Cold Turkey just like smoking. Okay, go. Wait you are reading this. You are using fossil fuels. Okay stop reading.

Get the point?

rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 3:01:02 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! But I do notice that the large coal burning electric utilities who have all kinds of motivations to deny a link between the two are *not* denying the link.

I realized the above comment may sound a bit too conspiratorial for many. So below is an excerpt of what American Electric Power, a large GHG emitter, says on the topic.

AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER Position Paper on Global Climate Change

SUMMARY AEP recognizes that global climate change presents a serious challenge to the world. Climate change is a long-term, global issue that demands comprehensive, sustained, and cost-effective solutions. To address this issue in a responsible and effective manner, AEP believes that strategies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be driven by the larger goal of stabilizing atmospheric GHG concentrations at a level that prevents dangerous human interference with the climate system. AEP is confident that an effective climate change policy can be compatible with continuing economic and social progress.


Enough is known about the science and environmental impacts of climate change for us to take actions to address its consequences. While it remains important that we continue to develop our knowledge of the human impact on the climate system, sufficient evidence has been documented to justify actions to address climate change and resolve remaining areas of scientific uncertainty.
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:01:01 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! Humans have been burning a significant amount of biomass for over 10,000 years. How will this "unnatural" process impact the date of the start of the next substantial ice age?

If science does not know the answer to that question, let get ready for everyone to go on an 80% diet and move to the equator: monkeys included.

People who can imagine past their own lives understand that Earth Climate is a very variable and complex open system, not a stagnant closed one.

Humans need to master the scientific ability of dramatically influence the Earth climate so that when the inevitable massive variability in abnormal influences occur (supervulcano, magnetic pole change, asteroid impact, variablity in Sun output, etc.) humans have the mechanisms to restore "normality" as best as possible: as opposed to taking the position that the Earth climate is natural and should have as little human influence as possible.
dljvjbsl 12/5/2012 | 3:00:52 AM
re: Ohh Nooo!!! http://www.uic.com.au/nip83.ht...

An accessible description of 'clean coal' technology in which no carbon is released to the atmosphere
<<   <   Page 26 / 39   >   >>
Sign In