In your face evidence of climate change

[Buffalo]

mattikake said:

Very interesting and exciting times. Either humans are going to get a much needed kick up the rse (that we are part of the eco-system, not free to do what we like... as some self-obsessed igorant versions of god or economic systems would have you believe) or we'll simply die out.

Comments like this amuse me to tears...

Oh, I suppose we all meant well at the time... See the eco-mentalists hate corporations, right? So they lobby and lobby the government to try and crush the 'capitalist pigs'. Eventually they spark enough interest in the public to cause the government to react. They do so by taxes. "Great!" The eco-mentalists think, "that will stuff 'em" (conveniently forgetting they are part of the capitalist system so have to pay the taxes themselves, but hey, its for a worthy cause, right..?). But is it? Really? Do you think that the government is reacting to MMGW for the sake of the environment? NO! They are doing it because they can make money from it. Now the big powers are trying to create a carbon trading scheme - to help the environment of course... - which will infact create more money and wealth for the capitalist pigs.

And so we come full circle.

Soon we will come to realise the futility of trying to report on a millisecond of evolving time as if it is meaningful. Until then, the latest buzz-phrase will become a vehicle to exploit the mindset of the vulnerable for the sole purpose of making $$$ - the same way it has happened for centuries of human history.

What we are going to do tonight brains..? Same thing we do every night pinky, try to take over the world...

I agree that the climate is changing, but it always has done. The world is not supposed to stay exactly as it is now, for it has never been like this throughout history. If we try to stop it, we are stopping nature. There's a piece of irony there too IMO

[ludo]

scorp said:

ludo said:

If the environment were soaking up CO2 at the same rate we were producing it, you might have a point, however it isn't (as demonstrated by the fact the atmospheric increase is about half the level of human emissions), so you don't. You are responding to a poor argument with an even worse one.

I would have thought co2 dependant species would bloom ? (lets ignore deforestation for the sake of argument.. )

yes, but not to a degree that would soak up all of the CO2 that we are producing, that is demonstrated by the fact that atmospheric concentrations have been rising at a rate related to human emissions.

BTW I suspect it is mostly the oceans that have been taking up the CO2 rather than the biosphere, the amount of CO2 that the oceans take up doesn't depend only on ocean temperatures, but is driven by the difference in partial pressures, so the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more the oceans will take up for a given temperature (until the concentration in the ocean reaches an equilibrium with the atmosphere).

Edited by ludo on Tuesday 22 July 11:58

[lunarscope]

ludo said:

scorp said:

ludo said:

If the environment were soaking up CO2 at the same rate we were producing it, you might have a point, however it isn't (as demonstrated by the fact the atmospheric increase is about half the level of human emissions), so you don't. You are responding to a poor argument with an even worse one.

I would have thought co2 dependant species would bloom ? (lets ignore deforestation for the sake of argument.. )

yes, but not to a degree that would soak up all of the CO2 that we are producing, that is demonstrated by the fact that atmospheric concentrations have been rising at a rate related to human emissions.

BTW I suspect it is mostly the oceans that have been taking up the CO2 rather than the biosphere, the amount of CO2 that the oceans take up doesn't depend only on ocean temperatures, but is driven by the difference in partial pressures, so the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more the oceans will take up for a given temperature.

Good !
I look forward to bathing in this future 'fizzy' sea.

[mondeoman]

Its the sun, stoopid!

[cronk-flakes]

mattikake said:

Number of Phytoplankton are affected by less than 0.5 degrees in the oceans.

Who gives a sh!t about phytoplankton?

[lenny007]

[Silverbullet767]

Remember kids, the hole in the ozone layer is going to kill us all...

And home taping is killing music....

Edited by Silverbullet767 on Tuesday 22 July 12:09

[ewenm]

cronk-flakes said:

mattikake said:

Number of Phytoplankton are affected by less than 0.5 degrees in the oceans.

Who gives a sh!t about phytoplankton?

Food chain.

Edit: to remove the stupid photo.

Edited by ewenm on Tuesday 22 July 12:09

[lunarscope]

cronk-flakes said:

mattikake said:

Number of Phytoplankton are affected by less than 0.5 degrees in the oceans.

Who gives a sh!t about phytoplankton?

Indeed !
They must (according to Mattikake) have all died during the last Ice Age.
Obviously, then re-evolved in the past 10,000 years.

[mattikake]

Replies are coming in too thick and fast. Mostly along the lines of delusion and a self-righteous inability to consider that we might be doing harm, no matter how initially minor, and that we should take responsbility for our actions, because nothing else will but fate...

Philosophical pose #3:

You stand at the top of a very long snowy slope and start to roll a snowball. How long before you no longer have to push the snowball before it rolls by itself? How long after the snowball starts rolling by itself, does it get so big it becomes impossible to stop it nomatter what you do? Oh-no, it's got so big it's about to flatten a village, bet you wished you never started it off and cared to think where it was going... but now it's too late.

[mondeoman]

cronk-flakes said:

mattikake said:

Number of Phytoplankton are affected by less than 0.5 degrees in the oceans.

Who gives a sh!t about phytoplankton?

But phytoplankton LOVE CO2..., eat it for breakfast, lunch, dinner and tea. Yum Yum

[cronk-flakes]

ewenm said:

cronk-flakes said:

mattikake said:

Number of Phytoplankton are affected by less than 0.5 degrees in the oceans.

Who gives a sh!t about phytoplankton?

Food chain.

Edit: to remove the stupid photo.

Edited by ewenm on Tuesday 22 July 12:09

Then why, as Lunarscope above me suggests, are we all not in peril at the moment? Or anytime since the Ice age? Not being sarcy or a tt, genuinely interested.

[ewenm]

mattikake said:

Replies are coming in too thick and fast. Mostly along the lines of delusion and a self-righteous inability to consider that we might be doing harm, no matter how initially minor, and that we should take responsbility for our actions, because nothing else will but fate...

Philosophical pose #3:

You stand at the top of a very long snowy slope and start to roll a snowball. How long before you no longer have to push the snowball before it rolls by itself? How long after the snowball starts rolling by itself, does it get so big it becomes impossible to stop it nomatter what you do? Oh-no, it's got so big it's about to flatten a village, bet you wished you never started it off and cared to think where it was going... but now it's too late.

How about if that's the easiest way to sort the overpopulation of that mountain region - not nice but perhaps it's needed (if you think the planet needs saving).

I'll ask again, what are YOU doing to follow your beliefs?

[Tony*T3]

Hmmm, i love the arguement that man is 'totally natural' and the planet has nothing to fear...

Man interferes (with no doubt) in everthing 'natural'. There wouldnt be billions of cows on the planet if man wasnt here, because we unnaturally change the balance of 'predator/prey' in the food chain. Same with all the other domestic animals that are kept soley for our consumption. Nature would find the right balance between predators and prey if we didnt protect our livestock.

So to say we are 'natural' in the eccological balance is quite frankly absurd.

Climates change. We are undoubdly having some kid of effect on this. However, the amount of effect we have is being vastly overblown by the politicians at this time. However, I think it would be fair to say that the amount of effect that we have on climte change is going to increase unless we control it.

"Climates Change". totally different meaning to "Climate Change". I think the poloticians need to find that little 's' and put it all back into a reasonable context.

[esselte]

mattikake said:

Replies are coming in too thick and fast. Mostly along the lines of delusion and a self-righteous inability to consider that we might be doing harm, no matter how initially minor, and that we should take responsbility for our actions, because nothing else will but fate...

Philosophical pose #3:

You stand at the top of a very long snowy slope and start to roll a snowball. How long before you no longer have to push the snowball before it rolls by itself? How long after the snowball starts rolling by itself, does it get so big it becomes impossible to stop it nomatter what you do? Oh-no, it's got so big it's about to flatten a village, bet you wished you never started it off and cared to think where it was going... but now it's too late.

If you're so worried Matt,why do you have 2 cars...?

Edited by esselte on Tuesday 22 July 12:17

[ewenm]

cronk-flakes said:

ewenm said:

cronk-flakes said:

mattikake said:

Number of Phytoplankton are affected by less than 0.5 degrees in the oceans.

Who gives a sh!t about phytoplankton?

Food chain.

Edit: to remove the stupid photo.

Edited by ewenm on Tuesday 22 July 12:09

Then why, as Lunarscope above me suggests, are we all not in peril at the moment? Or anytime since the Ice age? Not being sarcy or a tt, genuinely interested.

I don't know, I was just saying why we should care about phytoplankton - I like fish

[lunarscope]

cronk-flakes said:

ewenm said:

cronk-flakes said:

mattikake said:

Number of Phytoplankton are affected by less than 0.5 degrees in the oceans.

Who gives a sh!t about phytoplankton?

Food chain.

Edit: to remove the stupid photo.

Edited by ewenm on Tuesday 22 July 12:09

Then why, as Lunarscope above me suggests, are we all not in peril at the moment? Or anytime since the Ice age? Not being sarcy or a tt, genuinely interested.

Because these Phytoplankton have not been too bothered about warming until now, er, I mean "now", no, ............"now".

[Eric Mc]

We are still in "the Ice-Age". For most of the earth's history there have not been polar ice caps. ANY time caps are in place, we are technically in an Ice-Age.

For the past few million years (a small part of the earth's 4.5 billion year existence) the earth's climate has fluctuated between having small polar ice -caps and large polar ice-caps. The small polar ice-cap periods are called "interglacial Periods" and we are currently in one which began 10,000 years ago when the large ice sheets began to retreat. They have been retreating more or less consitently since tht time. What we are seeing at the moment is all part of that retreat of the polar caps. In another 10,000 years, the ice may very well start to grow again.

[cronk-flakes]

lunarscope said:

cronk-flakes said:

ewenm said:

cronk-flakes said:

mattikake said:

Number of Phytoplankton are affected by less than 0.5 degrees in the oceans.

Who gives a sh!t about phytoplankton?

Food chain.

Edit: to remove the stupid photo.

Edited by ewenm on Tuesday 22 July 12:09

Then why, as Lunarscope above me suggests, are we all not in peril at the moment? Or anytime since the Ice age? Not being sarcy or a tt, genuinely interested.

Because these Phytoplankton have not been too bothered about warming until now, er, I mean "now", no, ............"now".

[mondeoman]

And the sun is just entering a quiet period - do you know just how fecking big the sun is compared to the earth?

Do you REALLY believe that what the sun does has no effect on life down here and that we are the real harbringers of doom for the planet? That we can control how the climate reacts to the suns output or lack of?

Please, I'd like to know.