davien:
The earth can ofcourse do this but the rate it does it is much more slower than the rate we are changing it....
Over 100 billion metric tons of carbon emissions are a scar that naturally could take eons to fix naturally...yet this is the amount that has been pumped into the atmosphere for a while now....
And the glaciers that naturally prevent greenhouse warming are melting rapidly....
Geo-engineering plans to tame this using nano-particles and cloud seeding of which i am not a fan of...

@bolded.... Have you heard of carbon sinks? Do you know flora community depend on these carbon for survival? Do you know that carbon mono oxide has a very little resident time, that it get converted to carbon di oxide within few minutes? So, I'll disagree with that assertion. These gases(GHGs) don't really stay much long in the atmosphere before they get used up either biologically, physically or chemically. Am not saying they don't lead to other environmental issue, but, definitely not climate change.

bolaino: Hmmmm, you've raised some other issues. Do you think The ice ages the earth has experienced at different times in it's long history had to do with Climate change? Did civilizations like the Atlantean civilization, Go extinct because they were leaving too much carbon footprints? Or were harming the planet? Or Are Ice ages a different phenomenon?

I share this view of urs

padeolu: I share this view of urs

Thanks my Good sire.

padeolu: @bolded.... Have you heard of carbon sinks? Do you know flora community depend on these carbon for survival? Do you know that carbon mono oxide has a very little resident time, that it get converted to carbon di oxide within few minutes? So, I'll disagree with the assertion. This gases(GHGs) don't really stay much long in the atmosphere before they get used up either biologically, physically or chemically. Am not saying they don't lead to other environmental issue, but, obviously not climate change.

I never made an assertion that "carbon monoxide" in particular has any prolonged residual time....
And yes i do know plant life requires carbon dioxide....and do you know plant life also gives out carbon dioxide?...
Do you also understand that the things that make use of carbon emissions later on still give that carbon back into the environment in different forms....so how then is it not responsible for climate change when;


Animals exhale carbon dioxide....
plants absorb it(not a 100% absorption)
The plants die and give back the carbon in the form of coal or oil or become fossilized...either way this takes a very long time(decaying being an exception)
Meanwhile the unused carbon still lingers in the atmosphere....
Deposits of coal and gas are extracted and burnt...adding even more carbon emissions....

I'll even say for the sake of argument that the above is in perfect equilibrium...but then why is marine life,glaciers,soil uptake of CO2 and the lot that is necessary for "carbon sink" dwindling rapidly

davien: I never made an assertion that "carbon monoxide" in particular has any prolonged residual time....
And yes i do know plant life requires carbon dioxide....and do you know plant life also gives out carbon dioxide?...

"Over 100 billion metric tons of carbon emissions are a scar that naturally could take eons to fix naturally...yet this is the amount that has been pumped into the atmosphere for a while now...."

Sorry I misinterpreted you, by atmospheric carbon, I thought you were referring to either CO, CO2 or gaseous hydrocarbons

davien: Do you also understand that the things that make use of carbon emissions later on still give that carbon back into the environment in different forms....

yes bro, they do give it back to nature in a different && sometimes thesame form as it is taken (in this case gaseous). Since this argument is based on climate change, then we need not to bother ourself with the "different" forms. Rather limit the cvrbon compounds to CO, CO2 && HC(g)

davien: so how then is it not responsible for climate change when;
Animals exhale carbon dioxide....
plants absorb it(not a 100% absorption)

...prolly the rest is used up for other processes && aswell in keeping the PBL warm.

davien: The plants die and give back the carbon in the form of coal or oil or become fossilized...either way this takes a very long time(decaying being an exception)

we need not to bother ourself with oil, coal etc also. They are minerals in solid && liquid form. The can't possibly cause climate change this way.

davien: Meanwhile the unused carbon still lingers in the atmosphere....

in what quantity? The higher the quantity the better the quality. Studies (I wish I can tag the pdf files here) have shown that higher quantity of Carbon in the atmosphere leads to higher flora productivity.

davien: Deposits of coal and gas are extracted and burnt...adding even more carbon emissions....

Yes bro, its in cycle.

davien: I'll even say for the sake of argument that the above is in perfect equilibrium...but then why is marine life,glaciers,soil uptake of CO2 and the lot that is necessary for "carbon sink" dwindling rapidly

dwindling rapidly? I totally doubt that.


I'm not saying atmospheric carbon compounds(or other GHGs) hasn't increased over time, but, the effect of this increase is negligible. I once plotted a line graph of Nigeria's(Lagos) mean annual temperature(air) between 1910 && 2010. Bros, I realized what we have is a fluctuation/variation && not a complete change as we are made to believe. Although a different result may be gotten if a global scale data is used.

I'll search my laptop prolly I may still have graph.

padeolu: "Over 100 billion metric tons of carbon emissions are a scar that naturally could take eons to fix naturally...yet this is the amount that has been pumped into the atmosphere for a while now...."

Sorry I misinterpreted you, by atmospheric carbon, I thought you were referring to either CO, CO2 or gaseous hydrocarbons


yes bro, they do give it back to nature in a different && sometimes thesame form as it is taken (in this case gaseous). Since this argument is based on climate change, then we need not to bother ourself with the "different" forms. Rather limit the cvrbon compounds to CO, CO2 && HC(g)

...prolly the rest is used up for other processes && aswell in keeping the PBL warm.

we need not to bother ourself with oil, coal etc also. They are minerals in solid && liquid form. The can't possibly cause climate change this way.

in what quantity? The higher the quantity the better the quality. Studies (I wish I can tag the pdf files here) have shown that higher quantity of Carbon in the atmosphere leads to higher flora productivity.

Yes bro, its in cycle.

dwindling rapidly? I totally doubt that.


I'm not saying atmospheric carbon compounds(or other GHGs) hasn't increased over time, but, the effect of this increase is negligible. I once plotted a line graph of Nigeria's(Lagos) mean annual temperature(air) between 1910 && 2010. Bros, I realized what we have is a fluctuation/variation && not a complete change as we are made to believe. Although a different result may be gotten if a global scale data is used.

I'll search my laptop prolly I may still have graph.

I appreciate the write-up and by the way if you are a geologist or anyone with an authority on such a field i would urge you to acquire the mean temperatures of all the states in Nigeria....
Because climate change i believe by your understanding of it(correct me if i am wrong) should be an abrupt temperature increase....
Climate change is continuous and as such variations of temperatures should be expected before the long term effects kick into play....
A study by Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies. ...found out that phytoplanktons that are responsible for 80% of carbon sink' into oceans would not thrive as the oceans are now getting hotter
[url] http://e360.yale.edu/digest/ocean_changes_could_diminish_phytoplanktons_role_as_carbon_sink/3168/ [/url]

Also this study of american and china' carbon sink meaurements in the ecosystem......

[url] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/06/0621_carbonsinks_2.html [/url]

I would like to see your opinion on this.... thank you

great comments everyone, the thing is to go completely green as much as we are able.

even though the politics and intricacies of going green has implications on food shortage. going biofuel to me is a bit crazy; with the exception of sugar for electronic batteries, i think we quickly need to go totally solar, wind and hydro everywhere we would have otherwise needed hydrocarbons/nuclear, make little or no wars and implements of war, make more forests than we're quickly exterminating them..being very very mindful is no retrogression...the list is endless but we need to put paid to the mad emissions and our greed when using other universal elements

davien: I appreciate the write-up and by the way if you are a geologist or anyone with an authority on such a field i would urge you to acquire the mean temperatures of all the states in Nigeria....

No, am not a geologist, but a Bioclimatologist by Thesis. I have a second degree in Environmental Mgt && Control... About the climate of Nigeria, I think someone has done a work similar to that. If I can't find the work, I will get another done.

davien: Because climate change i believe by your understanding of it(correct me if i am wrong) should be an abrupt temperature increase....

No, climate change isn't 't just about temperature changes, its about combined change in all climate/weather parameters (rainfall, temperature, atmospheric pressure, wind, solar radiation etc). What you described above is global warming && not climate change. Most authors(Nigerians) narrow their study of climate change to temperature changes since it is believed that human feel the direct effect of air temperature much more than other variables.

davien: Climate change is continuous and as such variations of temperatures should be expected before the long term effects kick into play....

very correct sir. But, personally, I won't say that climate has changed. I believe we can only say a climate has changed when there is a complete increase or reduction in the mean (usually 30years or more average) climate pattern. e.g. 1810-2010 has 4 climates (30 years interval). If the average temperature in the first climate (1910-1940) is 18degC, && in the second climate we' have 20degC, && prolly the 3rd we have 23degC, && 4th we have 21degC, that's a variation. It becomes "change" when it has a continuous mean for long && suddenly drifts (increase or decrease) && as such maintains the its new mean.

davien: A study by Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. ...found out that phytoplanktons that are responsible for 80% of carbon sink' into oceans would not thrive as the oceans are now getting hotter
[url] http://e360.yale.edu/digest/ocean_changes_could_diminish_phytoplanktons_role_as_carbon_sink/3168/ [/url]
Also this study of american and china' carbon sink meaurements in the ecosystem......

[url] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/06/0621_carbonsinks_2.html [/url]

I would like to see your opinion on this.... thank you

From the 2nd link

Taking into account the carbon sink effect, 800 million to 1.1 billion tons of carbon accumulates annually in the atmosphere, the researchers say. This refutes the idea that the U.S carbon sink is big enough to equal the amount of carbon that U.S. factories emit through the burning of fossil fuels, as some studies have concluded.

The process of carbon sequestration(intake of carbon compounds by sinks) does not necessarily take place where the carbon compound is emitted. Funny enough, larger percentage of emissions from U.S enters into the regional atmospheric circulation zone through its industrial tall stacks && get transported away from U.S. As we all know, as these compounds are emitted into the atmosphere they get transported almost immediately towards the direction of the wind. That is why it is possible for a country to emit on behalf of another as in the case of Nigeria && U.S., where we are being paid to plants tress in our country. Don't you ever wonder why we keep planting trees && encouraging forest renewal && aforestation. Does a forest ever get developed?

The results of the Princeton-led study are particularly interesting because the 23 scientists who participated in the research and agreed on the conclusions initially held strongly differing views about the size of the U.S. carbon sink.

This is the consensus kind of research I made mention of earlier on. If you study the climate change politics so closely, you'll realize the so called scientists are playing to a script.


1st link let's hope they won't refute that anytime soon.

spotit: great comments everyone, the thing is to go completely green as much as we are able.

even though the politics and intricacies of going green has implications on food shortage. going biofuel to me is a bit crazy; with the exception of sugar for electronic batteries, i think we quickly need to go totally solar and hydro everywhere we would have otherwise needed hydrocarbons/nuclear, make little or no wars and implements of war, make more forests than we're quickly exterminating them..being very very mindful is no retrogression...the list is endless but we need to put paid to the mad emissions and our greed when using other universal elements

I concur

Of course the climate is changing, and it has always been changing, the argument is whether the changes are caused by human actions. I for one believe that human actions play an insignificant role in the climate change, the changes are a result of very complex geological and cosmological forces and interractions. The earth had been experiencing cycles of extreme heat and extreme cold, extreme dryness and extreme wetness, extreme magnetism and no magnetism and even reversal of magnetic polarity for as long as it has existed. So it is quite incredulous to suggest that human actions are responsible for these.

I think some scientist are using the hype of climate change to get more grants and donations from governments and organizations, they can connot even reach an agreement of what type of change the climate is going through, first the hype was global cooling, then it later change to global warming and now they just say it is climate change.

This cycle of warming up stated about 12,000 years ago with the end of the last ice age. The Sahara desert was a savanna forest with steams and rivers not so long ago. Are they saying human actions was responsible for turning the sahara into a desert?

Yes, industial polution is a threat to animals and plants on the planet, but to attribute climate change to these polutions to me is a bit far feached.

^^^

Don't know about global warming, or at least the details, but humans clearly can have dramatic impacts on an ecosystem. Why is climate exempt?

Eg, wiping out large swathes of forests, other species (whilst aiding others, true, we've likely gotten rid of billions, and most of the time for no good reason other than perhaps getting a better view), burning through energy reserves that have taken billions of years to accumulate, etc etc. General wikki

You could also try visiting Chernobyl and various parts of Japan to study just how drastic our actions can be on an environment (you might even get to meet godzilla). We even 'terraform', more or else, on fairly large scales. See Dubai (or one of those emirates, I forget which). I wouldn't be surprised if some of the scientists that claim humans play no role in global warming etc are the same ones drawing up plans to terraform Mars or some of Neptune's/Jupiter's moons etc.

We've never observed a species with our technological nous storming through a planet's resources before, we maybe are still working through the details (dunno). But to suggest we're incapable of, at the very least, inadvertently or no, accelerating a natural process, I would say is the (very) far-fetched notion.

And, just generally speaking, if we have the means of reverting a natural process which we deem harmful, exactly why shouldn't we do it? A meteor is heading for earth, do we

a- send over rockets to help boost its velocity
b- go all Armageddon on it?

wiegraf: ^^^

Don't know about global warming, or at least the details, but humans clearly can have dramatic impacts on an ecosystem. Why is climate exempt?

Eg, wiping out large swathes of forests, other species (whilst aiding others, true, we've likely gotten rid of billions, and most of the time for no good reason other than perhaps getting a better view), burning through energy reserves that have taken billions of years to accumulate, etc etc. General wikki

You could also try visiting Chernobyl and various parts of Japan to study just how drastic our actions can be on an environment (you might even get to meet godzilla). We even 'terraform', more or else, on fairly large scales. See Dubai (or one of those emirates, I forget which). I wouldn't be surprised if some of the scientists that claim humans play no role in global warming etc are the same ones drawing up plans to terraform Mars or some of Neptune's/Jupiter's moons etc.

We've never observed a species with our technological nous storming through a planet's resources before, we maybe are still working through the details (dunno). But to suggest we're incapable of, at the very least, inadvertently or no, accelerating a natural process, I would say is the (very) far-fetched notion.

And, just generally speaking, if we have the means of reverting a natural process which we deem harmful, exactly why shouldn't we do it? A meteor is heading for earth, do we

a- send over rockets to help boost its velocity
b- go all Armageddon on it?

Wiegraf, sup

wiegraf: ^^^

Don't know about global warming, or at least the details, but humans clearly can have dramatic impacts on an ecosystem. Why is climate exempt?

Climate isn't exempted. Humans activities indeed has an influence on the atmospheric pattern. But this impact (for now) is not enough to instigate a complete change in climate pattern, rather, variation.

wiegraf: Eg, wiping out large swathes of forests, other species (whilst aiding others, true, we've likely gotten rid of billions, and most of the time for no good reason other than perhaps getting a better view), burning through energy reserves that have taken billions of years to accumulate, etc etc. General wikki

this is a sorry case. But, if we must develop, we must pollute. That is why we all must imbibe the culture of sustainable development.

wiegraf: You could also try visiting Chernobyl and various parts of Japan to study just how drastic our actions can be on an environment (you might even get to meet godzilla). We even 'terraform', more or else, on fairly large scales. See Dubai (or one of those emirates, I forget which). I wouldn't be surprised if some of the scientists that claim humans play no role in global warming etc are the same ones drawing up plans to terraform Mars or some of Neptune's/Jupiter's moons etc.

for life to exist in those planets, what they need is abundance of water. Life on earth started in water.

The case of Dubai is quite interesting, it simply shows we humans can cope/adapt && maybe mitigate the consequence of thermal stress or cold stress.

wiegraf: We've never observed a species with our technological nous storming through a planet's resources before, we maybe are still working through the details (dunno). But to suggest we're incapable of, at the very least, inadvertently or no, accelerating a natural process, I would say is the (very) far-fetched notion.

don't believe everything NASA says, wait till they do it. NASA is a home of propaganda.

wiegraf: And, just generally speaking, if we have the means of reverting a natural process which we deem harmful, exactly why shouldn't we do it?

if we cut on our emission of CO2 && other GHGs, the impact it will have on the environment will be quite minute && the cost will be so huge. A study (can't remember the author) concluded that if the atmospheric C02 concenteration were to be doubled, the resultant global average temperature won't be more than 1degC increase. That we can cope it.

wiegraf: A meteor is heading for earth, do we

a- send over rockets to help boost its velocity
b- go all Armageddon on it?

an asteroid once hit the earth wiping out the dinosaur population. That activity shaped the earth. If not for the extinction of those species, mammals && humanoid won't have had a place on earth. Let's just leave nature to take its course.

humans are funny
thinking they are important.
earth was here before us
earth will be here long after we have gone

all our shenanigans don't affect it one bit
remember the ozone layer scare
we are just harming ourselves and claiming we are harming earth
laughable

FACT: It was far hotter in the medieval period.
Fact: CO2 levels have been multiples higher than they are now.
Fact: The globe is getting warmer, IF you only SELECTIVELY look at the warming trend chart which is extremely manipulative and unscientific. If you look at all recorded historical temperature charts,the globe is not warming.
Fact: There is zero evidence that humans are causing the current warming trend.
In fact most of the data shows it's part of Earths natural cycle.
Fact: For all the northern polar ice that has melted there has been an increase in Antarctic ice.
Conclusion: Man made global warming / climate change is the biggest scam ever.

One of the comments i saw on youtube


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDuUmmvj50Q
An interview of a climate skeptic


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=potLQR7-_Tg

you may find this climate change debate video interesting.


Climate change fraud (#Climategate)
http://go-galt.org/climategate.html

One thing I understand is the simple fact that climate is always changing. My bargaining chip in this matter is how can one manage the negative impact when it finally comes knocking.

I for one do not buy into this media frenzy of global warming, global tearing or global smooching.. My concern is how can we as Nigerian manage or sustain ourselves if we are adversely affected by climate change.

Food shortage,drinkable water, flooding, diseases, housing, viable land etc.. Nature will do what nature does, humans will migrate, there will be chaos. We should be looking for ways to manage this inevitable change.

Water..! they say might be the cause for world war 3... Na them say...them say...i just repeat wetin them say..

GooseBaba: One thing I understand is the simple fact that climate is always changing. My bargaining chip in this matter is how can one manage the negative impact when it finally comes knocking.

you mean the 1-2degC/century rise in air temperature? We will adapt. Species that can't adapt and/cope with the increase will go extent && some other species will evolve.

padeolu: you mean the 1-2degC/century rise in air temperature? We will adapt. Species that can't adapt and/cope with the increase will go extent && some other species will evolve.

Bros, adapt how..? Grow furs or thicker skin... I like Practical solutions, solutions that can be measured. You see how africans die of common farmine, we constantly fail to plan for the future ... All our data on climate change comes from external research or reports.

At the end of the day, we start looking for help from US or China.. With the earth's population growing rapidly. I think if we as Africans fail to put measures in place, we will involuntarily become the factors that allows others to adapt...

^funny haha.. lemme take this break to laugh so hard. it's actually so bitter i want to cry, but i won't. everyone is going into stomach politics rather.

padeolu: Climate isn't exempted. Humans activities indeed has an influence on the atmospheric pattern. But this impact (for now) is not enough to instigate a complete change in climate pattern, rather, variation.

Let's say I agreed with you (and I can't say, as I don't have the time to check the numbers etc, and it's obviously not my field), I think the bolded is very important, and not something that should be glossed over.

And you would seem to agree, to a degree, as you state the bolded below:

padeolu: this is a sorry case. But, if we must develop, we must pollute. That is why we all must imbibe the culture of sustainable development.

However, as a whole, this statements are sort of contradictory.

If what you're trying to say is even if we have to pollute, we must do so responsibly, that would seem to be exactly what environmentalists are saying as well, no?

So, the main question I suppose would remain; are we doing enough?

padeolu:
for life to exist in those planets, what they need is abundance of water. Life on earth started in water.

There is water on mars, and various moons as well. On mars its simply frozen. I forget the details of the others. Most plans for terraforming mars involve heating it up.

But that's besides the point, mostly. Main point is these are clear examples of how drastic human activity can be to an ecosystem.

padeolu:
The case of Dubai is quite interesting, it simply shows we humans can cope/adapt && maybe mitigate the consequence of thermal stress or cold stress.

And we can achieve this, short term, simple weather changes. We continue to achieve this short term changes then it eventually becomes long term, rather than weather changes they become climate changes.

And that likely would be their ultimate aim, despite their culture built around the desert. They would aim to change their climate, and this is very possible.

Various governments have all manner of plans aimed at changing their climates, they even haggle with their neighbors. I forget the exact case but I remember some European governments quarreling over plans that would affect their neighbors. I remember I will post it.

padeolu:
don't believe everything NASA says, wait till they do it. NASA is a home of propaganda.

I don't, but to their credit they've put people on the moon, amongst other things, so I don't think they would be out of their depth here. And they aren't the only ones who seem to think terraforming, etc is possible.

padeolu:
if we cut on our emission of CO2 && other GHGs, the impact it will have on the environment will be quite minute && the cost will be so huge. A study (can't remember the author) concluded that if the atmospheric C02 concenteration were to be doubled, the resultant global average temperature won't be more than 1degC increase. That we can cope it.

Ah, but I think this study is the minority, and by some distance. Wiki, though well sourced

wiki:
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]

Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]

Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[7]

The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[8]

The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

So, again, I haven't seen the numbers myself, but it doesn't seem to be something we should just brush off.

padeolu:
an asteroid once hit the earth wiping out the dinosaur population. That activity shaped the earth. If not for the extinction of those species, mammals && humanoid won't have had a place on earth. Let's just leave nature to take its course.

IIRC not a consensus that it was an asteroid, though likely. Regardless, the bolded is the point, or the ideal. Yet we seem to be interfering, and negatively as far as we are concerned. You've already stated that we must pollute in order to develop, no? So leaving nature completely to its devices seems to be off the table.

So, are we interfering positively?

Dunno. But it seems rather than sending Bruce Willis, we're helping the asteroid attain light speed. Not so sensible.

oluwalfa: humans are funny
thinking they are important.
earth was here before us
earth will be here long after we have gone

all our shenanigans don't affect it one bit
remember the ozone layer scare
we are just harming ourselves and claiming we are harming earth
laughable

Sure, we're self-important. For instance, we are now burning through fossil fuels that has taken nature billions of years to produce, mindlessly. Because the universe was created just for special us.

Now, long after humanity has left the earth, supposing another species attained intelligence, how exactly would they attain industrialization without these fossil fuels?

Do you still think what we do doesn't matter? Really?

bolaino: Wiegraf, sup

The roof for now. Bros, I miss your more interesting threads. How far na? No more of them??

wiegraf:

Sure, we're self-important. For instance, we are now burning through fossil fuels that has taken nature billions of years to produce, mindlessly. Because the universe was created just for special us.

Now, long after humanity has left the earth, supposing another species attained intelligence, how exactly would they attain industrialization without these fossil fuels?

Do you still think what we do doesn't matter? Really?

Yes it doesn't matter to earth.

If another specie can attain intelligence in our destroyed earth, then other species may have and would attain intelligence in some of the trillions of earth-like planets out there, making us even more insignificant.

This is Alfa speaking so you may know that I'm no creationist.

wiegraf:

Let's say I agreed with you (and I can't say, as I don't have the time to check the numbers etc, and it's obviously not my field), I think the bolded is very important, and not something that should be glossed over.

And you would seem to agree, to a degree, as you state the bolded below:

"for now" in that context meant this climate century, as it is difficult to assume/predict what could possibly happen thereafter.

Its a known fact that an increase in Planetary Boundary Layer's (PBL) concentration of GHG can lead to increased surface temperature as a result of the GHGs ability to trap && re-emit long wave radiation (heat). But in this context, what we are bothered about is the effect of the difference between the amount/quantity of GHGs we emit && the amount that is naturally available in the atmosphere.

The truth is, data from the last decade shows "global cooling" as against "warming" that is widely published.
Note that, these GHGs are naturally available in the atmosphere, they help in maintaining energy(heat) balance in the atmosphere.

wiegraf: However, as a whole, this statements are sort of contradictory.

No, its not contradictory. I've a skeptical view on Anthropologenic climate change/Global warming doesn't mean am a skeptic of other human induced environmental issue.

wiegraf: If what you're trying to say is even if we have to pollute, we must do so responsibly, that would seem to be exactly what environmentalists are saying as well, no?

Yes, that's correct. But our CO2 is not the cause of climate change.

wiegraf: So, the main question I suppose would remain; are we doing enough?

as for climate change, we need not to do anything. Its natural. We can't stop it. We can only adapt.

wiegraf: There is water on mars, and various moons as well. On mars its simply frozen. I forget the details of the others. Most plans for terraforming mars involve heating it up.

Yes there is solid water on Mars, but, how abundant is it? Can life survive in such solid water?

Heat up Mars? How? With what? NASA is a joke.

wiegraf: But that's besides the point, mostly. Main point is these are clear examples of how drastic human activity can be to an ecosystem.

Yes, human activities can && has indeed affected the ecosystem, but not to the extent of climate change.

wiegraf: And we can achieve this, short term, simple weather changes. We continue to achieve this short term changes then it eventually becomes long term, rather than weather changes they become climate changes.

No, that's not the logic. Please see the first youtube video I posted. Eg, if you have a weather temp of 100degC today && prolly a -100degC tomorrow. The average which is 0degC is the climate (I just used that as an example, a climate is 30yrs or more). Plus, climate isn't just about temperature.

wiegraf: And that likely would be their ultimate aim, despite their culture built around the desert. They would aim to change their climate, and this is very possible.

I think they are already working on their climate. Its feasible && thank God they are rich enough to foot the bill. But the impact of this action will be felt else where.

wiegraf: Various governments have all manner of plans aimed at changing their climates, they even haggle with their neighbors. I forget the exact case but I remember some European governments quarreling over plans that would affect their neighbors. I remember I will post it.

My point exactly, leave the climate && let it do its thing.

I

wiegraf: don't, but to their credit they've put people on the moon, amongst other things, so I don't think they would be out of their depth here. And they aren't the only ones who seem to think terraforming, etc is possible.

am also skeptic of man ever leaving earth. We've sent robots, but not man.

wiegraf: Ah, but I think this study is the minority, and by some distance.

truly it is. But that is science. You don't have to go with the general believe.

Please view this link...
http://go-galt.org/climategate.html

wiegraf: Wiki,

"Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities."

"They" are not sure. Please see the link I posted above. The climate is changing and we are not the cause.

wiegraf: So, again, I haven't seen the numbers myself, but it doesn't seem to be something we should just brush off.

IIRC not a consensus that it was an asteroid, though likely.

I think they found the crater somewhere in Mexico. (Chicxulub crater).

wiegraf: Regardless, the bolded is the point, or the ideal. Yet we seem to be interfering, and negatively as far as we are concerned. You've already stated that we must pollute in order to develop, no? So leaving nature completely to its devices seems to be off the table.

Yes, in order to develop, we must pollute. But then, we should pollute wisely. Not necessary because of the environment, but because of us.

wiegraf: Dunno. But it seems rather than sending Bruce Willis, we're helping the asteroid attain light speed. Not so sensible.

lol..


In short, the climate is changing, but we are not to be blame for it. The environment (land, air && water) are getting degraded, blame that on human.

GooseBaba:

Bros, adapt how..? Grow furs or thicker skin...

Lol.. If we have to grow furs we will. That's natural adaptation, I guess. The theory of evolution has it that we once were apes.

GooseBaba:
I like Practical solutions, solutions that can be measured. You see how africans die of common farmine, we constantly fail to plan for the future ... All our data on climate change comes from external research or reports.

Rather than plan for an uncertain future, why not concentrate on the problems we've at hand...famine, food security(hunger), desertification, drought, loss of biodiversity, water quality...etc. We can't talk of future when we are dying at present.

GooseBaba: At the end of the day, we start looking for help from US or China.. With the earth's population growing rapidly. I think if we as Africans fail to put measures in place

If I have 4 kids && you tell me this, I'd have seen you as a threat && thus slit your throat without hesitation...lol..(just kidding).
Over population is indeed a problem that may/will incur a great consequence. This problem is not just peculiar to Africa(ns), Its a global issue, especially in Asia. We all are to be blamed.

GooseBaba:
we will involuntarily become the factors that allows others to adapt...

They will run to us for help. Naturally, we(Africans) are special being, we will adapt.

wiegraf:

Now, long after humanity has left the earth, supposing another species attained intelligence, how exactly would they attain industrialization without these fossil fuels?

they won't be needing it. The fossil fuels became important to us because it exist. If we hadn't discovered it (or it wasn't available), we would have found an alternative way.

padeolu: they won't be needing it. The fossil fuels became important to us because it exist. If we hadn't discovered it (or it wasn't available), we would have found an alternative way.

Correct me if i'm wrong but what i understand you saying from all you've said so far is....
lets all relax.....drink koolade and not worry about our careless use of essential eco-system dependent resources.... it'll all balance out

Doesn't matter if we cut more trees than we grow...

Doesn't matter that we mine the earth for coal deposited by millennia of plant fauna...

Doesn't matter that in china where coal is most often mined has high toxicity levels and is among the top polluted countries....

Doesn't matter that the polar ice caps are melting...
Nature is a cycle.....it'll heal

oluwalfa:

Yes it doesn't matter to earth.

If another specie can attain intelligence in our destroyed earth, then other species may have and would attain intelligence in some of the trillions of earth-like planets out there, making us even more insignificant.

This is Alfa speaking so you may know that I'm no creationist.

Mother nature doesn't care as it isn't conscious, obviously. However, you still haven't told me how our actions are insignificant, especially to us, but also including all life that we know of.

padeolu: "for now" in that context meant this climate century, as it is difficult to assume/predict what could possibly happen thereafter.

Its a known fact that an increase in Planetary Boundary Layer's (PBL) concentration of GHG can lead to increased surface temperature as a result of the GHGs ability to trap && re-emit long wave radiation (heat). But in this context, what we are bothered about is the effect of the difference between the amount/quantity of GHGs we emit && the amount that is naturally available in the atmosphere.

The truth is, data from the last decade shows "global cooling" as against "warming" that is widely published.
Note that, these GHGs are naturally available in the atmosphere, they help in maintaining energy(heat) balance in the atmosphere.



No, its not contradictory. I've a skeptical view on Anthropologenic climate change/Global warming doesn't mean am a skeptic of other human induced environmental issue.

Yes, that's correct. But our CO2 is not the cause of climate change.

as for climate change, we need not to do anything. Its natural. We can't stop it. We can only adapt.


Yes there is solid water on Mars, but, how abundant is it? Can life survive in such solid water?

Heat up Mars? How? With what? NASA is a joke.

Yes, human activities can && has indeed affected the ecosystem, but not to the extent of climate change.


No, that's not the logic. Please see the first youtube video I posted. Eg, if you have a weather temp of 100degC today && prolly a -100degC tomorrow. The average which is 0degC is the climate (I just used that as an example, a climate is 30yrs or more). Plus, climate isn't just about temperature.

I think they are already working on their climate. Its feasible && thank God they are rich enough to foot the bill. But the impact of this action will be felt else where.

My point exactly, leave the climate && let it do its thing.

I am also skeptic of man ever leaving earth. We've sent robots, but not man.

truly it is. But that is science. You don't have to go with the general believe.

Please view this link...
http://go-galt.org/climategate.html




"Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities."

"They" are not sure. Please see the link I posted above. The climate is changing and we are not the cause.


I think they found the crater somewhere in Mexico. (Chicxulub crater).


Yes, in order to develop, we must pollute. But then, we should pollute wisely. Not necessary because of the environment, but because of us.



lol..


In short, the climate is changing, but we are not to be blame for it. The environment (land, air && water) are getting degraded, blame that on human.

You'll have to excuse for now abeg. Too much, not enough time, and I'll be repeating myself. Obviously I still find your stance untenable, but I'll just add to this

davien: Correct me if i'm wrong but what i understand you saying from all you've said so far is....
lets all relax.....drink koolade and not worry about our careless use of essential eco-system dependent resources.... it'll all balance out

Doesn't matter if we cut more trees than we grow...
Doesn't matter that we mine the earth for coal deposited by millennia of plant fauna...
Doesn't matter that in china where coal is most often mined has high toxicity levels and is among the top polluted countries....
Doesn't matter that the polar ice caps are melting...
Nature is a cycle.....it'll heal

that you state the above while acknowledging that we can and do indeed change the climate, eg Dubai? Not just that, you also accept that the impact of their efforts will be felt elsewhere?

Also, NASA is not a joke. And do you really believe the moon landings were staged....

Anyhoo

padeolu: they won't be needing it. The fossil fuels became important to us because it exist. If we hadn't discovered it (or it wasn't available), we would have found an alternative way.

You sure, as only alternative I can come up with is steam. And you don't exactly expect steam powered cars to take you very far. They also still require heat, usually provided by coal.

Those fossil fuels have been fundamentally critical to our development. As an example, imagine if the Greek had that technology.

We would never have reached this scale, particularly in such a time frame, without them. And there are no readily available substitutes to a nascent civilization, but of course feel free to prove me wrong.

wiegraf:

The roof for now. Bros, I miss your more interesting threads. How far na? No more of them??

I no longer see you guys often on this section, so I've been reluctant to creat interesting threads, But not to worry interesting topics will be coming your way soon my Good sire, Good to have you here again.

wiegraf:

Mother nature doesn't care as it isn't conscious, obviously. However, you still haven't told me how our actions are insignificant, especially to us, but also including all life that we know of.

Our actions are not insignificant to us. Au contraire!
Like I said before, we are harming ourselves.
The funny thing is that we are claiming to be harming earth. If earth were conscious, it would be laughing at us. If only you can imagine what this earth has gone through in billions of years, you'll realise that our actions don't bother it.
I ask you again: do you remember the ozone layer scare? Was earth affected? They told us it is irreparable and we are all going to die and earth will burn up and et cetera. Earth just laughed and covered itself. We humans are the ones burning today.
Stop saying you are harming earth when you are only harming yourself.