Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Kat Stevens]

My money is on a giant space rocks spinning us off into the sun long before I have to worry about coconuts falling off the palm trees in my yard hitting me on the head.

 

[Sheerin]

I don't think anyone, aside the use of rhetoric, actually believes that the world is coming to an end.  They just realise that if we don't change our ways some bad stuff will probably happen at some point in the future. 

As for vegetation, I can't say I have personal knowledge as i've enver been there, but from a quick google search I've found many sites that claim that there is in fact some vegetation there, generlly in the south around the fjords.  Apparently mushrooms grow there, according to another.
Along those lines, Greenland also supports various fauna such as caribou, so I really have to ask, if there is no vegetation then how do these animals survive?

 

[Kirkhill]

Sheerin - cows and goats don't survive on mushrooms and lichen.

 

[paracowboy]

if there is no vegetation then how do these animals survive?

McDonalds.

 

[Sheerin]

Who said anything about cows?  You said that vegetation does not grow on the island, that's why I brought up the fauna, which would question the veracity of you claiming that no vegetation grows on the island. 
But really this whole "conversation" on the vegetation of greenland is meaningless.  Stuff grows there, thats all thats required. 

 

[paracowboy]

Who said anything about cows? 

Kirkhill did. Weren't you paying attention?

You said that vegetation does not grow on the island, that's why I brought up the fauna, which would question the veracity of you claiming that no vegetation grows on the island.

  No, I said it. Not Kirkhill. You weren't paying attention, after all.

But really this whole "conversation" on the vegetation of greenland is meaningless.

  actually, it's quite meaningful, which is why it was raised in the first place.

Stuff grows there, thats all thats required.

I see. Only part of it matters, as long as that part supports your arguement. Got it!

 

[Sheerin]

I asked about cows becuase no one else had mentioned it.  I was wondering if that had something to do with the farming  activities that took place during the time of the vikings.  If not, I was wondering how cows specifically factored into this conversation as no one else had brought them up, or even implied that there was a sizable bovine population on the island.

No, I said it. Not Kirkhill. You weren't paying attention, after all.

And exactly what does it matter who said what?  Someone claimed that nothing grows there, so I pointed out there were many animals that in fact habitated the island.  The presence of terrestrial animals, especially large game species would indiciate that there is some sort of vegetation growing on the island... therefore that totally disproves your contention that no vegetation is on the island. 

the salient point is that 1,000 years ago, vegetation grew in Iceland and Greenland. They don't now (that's first-hand experience. By the way, Iceland? No freakin' ICE! Greenland? NOT green. And no big-breasted Xena-like valkyries either. DOn't bother going.)

  You did say that, right?
Whats your definition of vegetation anyway?

 

[paracowboy]

I asked about cows becuase no one else had mentioned it.  I was wondering if that had something to do with the farming  activities that took place during the time of the vikings.  If not, I was wondering how cows specifically factored into this conversation as no one else had brought them up, or even implied that there was a sizable bovine population on the island.

and I answered the question you asked.

Who said anything about cows?

you asked, I answered. I'm good that way.

And exactly what does it matter who said what? 

.  I dunno. It was your question. If you didn't want the answer, why did you ask? Next time you ask a question you don't want answered let us know.

Someone claimed that nothing grows there,

yeah, me remember? I reminded you of that a couple posts ago.

so I pointed out there were many animals that in fact habitated the island.

  so you did.

The presence of terrestrial animals, especially large game species would indiciate that there is some sort of vegetation growing on the island...

so it would.

therefore that totally disproves your contention that no vegetation is on the island

so it would seem.

  You did say that, right?

sure did. There it is, in green and black. Plain as day!

Whats your definition of vegetation anyway?

Plants, Flora, Liberals. Non-sentient life, essentially.

 

[Sheerin]

Out of curosity whcih part of Greenland did you visit?

 

[Kirkhill]

Vikings raised cattle, goats and horses (ponies) as well as pigs and sheep.  None of them are native to Greenland.  None of them survive on mushrooms.

Try Jared Diamond's "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed".  

The worst thing that is likely to happen is we do what the Nomads did - move to where the rain falls,  or what the Romans did - pipe water from where the rain falls to the cities - or some combination.  It depends how much you really like that Multi-Billion Dollar investment you made in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, New York....

 

[acclenticularis]

The worst thing that is likely to happen is we do what the Nomads did - move to where the rain falls,  or what the Romans did - pipe water from where the rain falls to the cities - or some combination.  It depends how much you really like that Multi-Billion Dollar investment you made in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, New York....

So we just go with it and react as consequences unfold?  What about a responsibility to future generations?  What about a responsibility to other nations?  Climate change knows no borders.  The remark about the ice age mania of the 70's and the ozone hole mania of the 80's is interesting.  It is also interesting to note that ozone depletion continues unabated and that, sure, the world is not coming to an end, however, people are and will continue to experience increased risk of skin cancer etc.  My question to nay-sayers is have you ever looked into the affiliations of the scientists that tend to minimize climate change and possible consequences?  Have you also investigated those that do not appear to minimize climate change studies' prognostications?  I am not a research scientist, I only have an undergrad. in meteorology to complement my degrees in business.  However, if there is something that I have learned in academia and from reading scientific journals, and that is that some scientists will mould interpretations of data for whomever they are on the payroll for.  Whenever I look at a new study or journal article, I check out who the author is and who they work for.  We know what is in it for the Bush administration, but what would the agenda of scientists who do not minimize the possible effects of climate change be?  I have seen friends go on to do research in oceanography/climatology and get hired by the Alberta provincial government.  Once on the payroll, they switch to the other end of the climate change spectrum. 

 

[GAP]

The worst thing that is likely to happen is we do what the Nomads did - move to where the rain falls,  or what the Romans did - pipe water from where the rain falls to the cities - or some combination.  It depends how much you really like that Multi-Billion Dollar investment you made in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, New York....

So we just go with it and react as consequences unfold?  What about a responsibility to future generations?  What about a responsibility to other nations?  Climate change knows no borders.  The remark about the ice age mania of the 70's and the ozone hole mania of the 80's is interesting.  It is also interesting to note that ozone depletion continues unabated and that, sure, the world is not coming to an end, however, people are and will continue to experience increased risk of skin cancer etc.  My question to nay-sayers is have you ever looked into the affiliations of the scientists that tend to minimize climate change and possible consequences?  Have you also investigated those that do not appear to minimize climate change studies' prognostications?  I am not a research scientist, I only have an undergrad. in meteorology to complement my degrees in business.  However, if there is something that I have learned in academia and from reading scientific journals, and that is that some scientists will mould interpretations of data for whomever they are on the payroll for.  Whenever I look at a new study or journal article, I check out who the author is and who they work for.  We know what is in it for the Bush administration, but what would the agenda of scientists who do not minimize the possible effects of climate change be?  I have seen friends go on to do research in oceanography/climatology and get hired by the Alberta provincial government.  Once on the payroll, they switch to the other end of the climate change spectrum. 

Nothing like an adgenda to keep your spirits up !!!  :

 

[Kirkhill]

Do something or do nothing - the earth will getter warmer or colder.  Whatever the cause there will be changes - you are better off protecting the future generations by adapting to the changes.  

One of MY ancestors, from South Africa, about 1,500,000 years ago figured out how to use fire.  As a result my relatives have managed to muddle through a number of ice-ages. Including the one that just peeled back from Toronto 12,000 years ago.  Others built boats to get away from floods.  Dams to recover land and contain water.  Canals and Aqueducts and Pipelines to move water.  Cisterns to store water.

And occasionally they picked up and moved when visited by the local Volcano god or itinerant asteroid.

How did you get here?

Edited to adapt to criticism.

 

[HDE]

There appears to be a considerable move toward alternative sources of energy already on the go.  I'm not sure that Al Gore isn't simply running to get in front of a process already underway.  I'd say one large problem is that it'll take an enormous number of wind turbines, solar panels, etc. to make much of an impact. 

 

[GAP]

There appears to be a considerable move toward alternative sources of energy already on the go.  I'm not sure that Al Gore isn't simply running to get in front of a process already underway.  I'd say one large problem is that it'll take an enormous number of wind turbines, solar panels, etc. to make much of an impact. 

You are forgetting Hydro Power. It's huge, getting larger, environmentally friendly, renewable, etc. etc.

For heating, Geothermal is growing by leaps and bounds. People have finally twigged onto the fact the world does NOT become a ball of ice, just because you have.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'd say one large problem is that it'll take an enormous number of wind turbines, solar panels, etc. to make much of an impact. 

You could be right about Gore HDE - running to get to the head of the parade.  You are also right about wind turbines.  2 MW seems to be the size of the majority of turbines and they run about 25 to 30% of the time in high productivity areas.  That means that each on, on average, only puts out about 0.5 MW.

The Ontario Energy Gap is variously given as something between 10,000 and 24,000 MW.  That means that Ontario would have to erect, and service, something between 20,000 and 48,000 wind turbines.  Or we can do as GAP suggests and build dams.  Or we can get back into the uranium business.  A nice little nuclear powered steam plant with cogen capacity would go along way in the Tar Sands. Particularly if supplied by Saskatchewan uranium. 

 

[acclenticularis]

Do something or do nothing - the earth will getter warmer or colder.  Whatever the cause there will be changes - you are better off protecting the future generations by adapting to the changes.  

Changes brought about artificially by man.  Present day Man and near future Man will getter the climate warmer and future generations will getter the resultant spoils.  Do whatever we feel regardless of consequences.  Sounds good, just do it.  Heck, using the same 'logic' might even help us in world politics.  Some country makes someone else angry, just nuke 'em.  To heck with the consequences.  Humanity is adaptable.  Nuclear winter would eventually clear up and we would learn to live through it.  We have come a long way and survived ice ages, mass extinction events, plagues, etc.  Things will work out.  Your little remark above offers little consolation to some countries that are already feeling the effects of global warming in a significant way.  Countries who did little to cause it.  Yes, there are cycles in nature and yes there are catastrophic events that significantly change climate, ocean currents, and landmasses, however, in the case of global warming WE are causing the change and it is not necessary.  Your point above makes it quite clear that there is no way to bridge the gap in opinions.  While responsibility for ones actions is important to some, it is obviously not to others.  

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks for pointing out my error.  I will edit accordingly.

 

[Cloud Cover]

You are forgetting Hydro Power. It's huge, getting larger, environmentally friendly, renewable, etc. etc.

Tidal power might be a better, longer lasting, more stable and least environmentally damaging option.

 

[GAP]

Tidal power might be a better, longer lasting, more stable and least environmentally damaging option.

You might have to build it 1/2 mile inshore to allow for global warming floods