3 ms·
Unless I am mistaken, acidification of the oceans has been demonstrated. So has the loss of large volumes of fresh water stored in glaciers, as well as the los
by samas 18y ago
Unless I am mistaken, acidification of the oceans has been demonstrated. So has the loss of large volumes of fresh water stored in glaciers, as well as the loss of coastal land as sea level rises. Natural systems are fragile, and we continue to poke and push them, with damages (for example, loss of biodiversity) that are not clearly obvious and that are in many cases simply irreparable. I won't belabor this point, although obviously much more could be said.
Burning carbon based materials to generate energy is, in the long term, unsustainable--there is a finite supply, and getting at the remaining sources will continue to become more expensive and more environmentally invasive (see: mountaintop removal). But enough about the environment, there are more important considerations (After all, we will eventually leave this planet, right?).
Our eventual shift to renewable sources of energy is inevitable. Worries about the consequences of climate change are finally gaining momentum in the public conscious. That means that now is the time to go full speed on development and roll-out of renewable energy. Mr. Dyson mentions that "By restricting CO2 you make life more expensive and hurt the poor."
Interesting comment from the man described as looking "like a person taking the longer view," because (given time) cheap abundant energy would do an incredible amount for the poor and starving. Deserts could be irrigated and farmed with desalinized water, pumps could preserve our coastal cities, really, the applications of cheap and abundant renewable energy are limited by our imaginations. Why leave that for our childrens' or grandchildrens' generation? What are we waiting for?
There is always a place for some healthy skepticism, but I fear that with respect to this particular issue skepticism has given the world plenty of motivation to procrastinate.
- robotrout 18y agoWith all due respect, I could have cut and pasted your post from any global warming website. I note this is your first comment on this group. Did you come just for this topic? In this utopia you describe, you neglect to explain what miraculous devices will produce this infinite energy supply. I think that's an important point that you left out. If you're wrong on that point, then we've hurt people for nothing, right? Since we're cutting and pasting from web sites, let me just paste the following from http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html , Everything else is just philosophy. ________________ Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic). Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
- thaumaturgy 18y agoWith all due respect, I could have cut and pasted your post from any global warming denial website. The bulk of what I read on water vapor stated that although the process was so far poorly understood, most scientists (for the moment) believe that increased water vapor is an amplifying side-effect, not a primary cause, of climate change. Basically, that increased temperatures lead to an increase in water vapor due to the evaporation of ice, small lakes, and rivers, and that in turn further drives climate change. I see that most of your comments in this thread fly in the face of what most climate scientists believe to be happening.
- koningrobot 18y agoI see that most of your comments in this thread fly in the face of what most climate scientists believe to be happening. I'd ask for sources, but there's no way to confirm that the people behind them are actual "climate scientists", whatever that means these days. It's hard to see who's who anymore, but smug confidence like this definitely rings my alarm bells.
- samas 18y agoEnvironmental science is inherently stochastic and messy, but to write off an entire branch, as you seem to have done, is unfair to those who pursue careers in improving our understanding of climate. "there's no way to confirm that the people behind them are actual "climate scientists", whatever that means" Well, the system that we have is that of peer reviewed literature. People who are interested in environmental science or other related fields pursue research in those fields, and some happen to research climate. Why do you put the words 'climate scientists' in quotations? Yes, there are scientists who study climate, much like there are scientists who study other environmental/biological/chemical phenomena. "It's hard to see who's who anymore, but smug confidence like this definitely rings my alarm bells." I'm not sure what this adds to the discussion. Could you perhaps rephrase or reword; maybe I've missed the content of the statement you intended to convey?
- 18y ago