the fate of the polar bears

from the independent: http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2944401.ece

ellen wrote:
> from the independent: http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2944401.ece

That is truly depressing, on several counts. Sigh.

Want more? If you can, watch Nova - Dimming the Sun on PBS.
Here's a link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/ . It's near
the end of its show cycle, but in my area it's showing one more
time tonight.

Seems that we've been experiencing global dimming, due to
polluting particles (soot, etc.), which has been minimizing the
effects of global warming. If we manage to stop filling the
atmosphere with these particles (which cause widespread
respiratory illness, and now climatologists think they have been
responsible for the sub-Saharan droughts of the last 3 decades),
we will feel the full force of global warming induced by
greenhouse gases.

It's a very well-done show, which left me feeling that our
species is very, well, done.

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:

> ellen wrote:
> > from the independent:
http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2944401.ece

I went and checked out other sites about the disappearing glacier. Other
articles don't mention global warming, but rather that we humans have
made assumptions about how glaciers melt that were wrong. They melt a
lot faster than previously believed and that is a feature of glaciers,
not global warming.

> That is truly depressing, on several counts. Sigh.

The polar bear has been on the endangered species list before. We may or
may not be able to save it.

> Want more? If you can, watch Nova - Dimming the Sun on PBS.
> Here's a link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/ . It's near
> the end of its show cycle, but in my area it's showing one more
> time tonight.
>
> Seems that we've been experiencing global dimming, due to
> polluting particles (soot, etc.), which has been minimizing the
> effects of global warming. If we manage to stop filling the
> atmosphere with these particles (which cause widespread
> respiratory illness, and now climatologists think they have been
> responsible for the sub-Saharan droughts of the last 3 decades),
> we will feel the full force of global warming induced by
> greenhouse gases.

Yay us! We found a solution! Or rather, we accidentally made one.

> It's a very well-done show, which left me feeling that our
> species is very, well, done.

Actually, we've never been better. I think we need awareness, yes, but
it's a far cry from awareness (and not willingly messing things up) and
utter disaster. I see no evidence to support belief in the latter.

I'm old enough - as are we all on this group - to remember the cold war
and the massive fear-mongering of that era. Some people were truly
afraid a nuclear bomb was going to drop on their head. We're still here.
I do believe that humans still care enough to find solutions and go on
living.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

On Sep 10, 1:19 pm, thinkbig.shrinkto...@online.no (Keera Ann Fox)
wrote:
> FurPaw <furrealpaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ellen wrote:
> > > from the independent:
>
> http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2944401.ece
>
> I went and checked out other sites about the disappearing glacier. Other
> articles don't mention global warming, but rather that we humans have
> made assumptions about how glaciers melt that were wrong. They melt a
> lot faster than previously believed and that is a feature of glaciers,
> not global warming.
>
> > That is truly depressing, on several counts. Sigh.
>
> The polar bear has been on the endangered species list before. We may or
> may not be able to save it.
>
> > Want more? If you can, watch Nova - Dimming the Sun on PBS.
> > Here's a link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/. It's near
> > the end of its show cycle, but in my area it's showing one more
> > time tonight.
>
> > Seems that we've been experiencing global dimming, due to
> > polluting particles (soot, etc.), which has been minimizing the
> > effects of global warming. If we manage to stop filling the
> > atmosphere with these particles (which cause widespread
> > respiratory illness, and now climatologists think they have been
> > responsible for the sub-Saharan droughts of the last 3 decades),
> > we will feel the full force of global warming induced by
> > greenhouse gases.
>
> Yay us! We found a solution! Or rather, we accidentally made one.
>
> > It's a very well-done show, which left me feeling that our
> > species is very, well, done.
>
> Actually, we've never been better. I think we need awareness, yes, but
> it's a far cry from awareness (and not willingly messing things up) and
> utter disaster. I see no evidence to support belief in the latter.
>
> I'm old enough - as are we all on this group - to remember the cold war
> and the massive fear-mongering of that era. Some people were truly
> afraid a nuclear bomb was going to drop on their head. We're still here.
> I do believe that humans still care enough to find solutions and go on
> living.
>
> --
> Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.http://home.online.no/~kafox/


boy, keera, i like your assessment though i'm inclined to go with
furpaw's well phrased 'well, done' analysis. hope you're right.

ellen

Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:

>> It's a very well-done show, which left me feeling that our
>> species is very, well, done.
>
> Actually, we've never been better. I think we need awareness, yes, but
> it's a far cry from awareness (and not willingly messing things up) and
> utter disaster. I see no evidence to support belief in the latter.

I guess that it's characteristic of the 'older' generation to see
the world going to hell in a handbasket... and has been for
thousands of years.

I see trends, and my perception is no doubt influenced by living
in a country whose current government has been systematically
dismantling the safeguards on the environment that the liberals
and environmentalists had put into place over the previous
century. By watching them (and a couple of previous
administrations that shall remain unnamed) open up the channels
for money to pour into the giant oil companies, while allowing
research into alternative forms of energy to flounder and be
actively blocked by those same oil companies.

The other factor, pollution and global warming-wise, is the
emerging economies - China and India, in particular - who are
where the US was 60 years ago w/r/t pollution controls (lack
thereof). I can't fault them for wanting to raise their standard
of living rapidly, though I wish they would learn from the
mistakes of the US; but their rates of growth of pollution are
far greater than even in the US in its worst phase, and there are
2.5 billion people in those countries, not the 250 million in the
US in those times - and look at all the damage we did!

We in the US are still contributing more greenhouse gases to the
atmosphere than any other country, IIRC.

> I'm old enough - as are we all on this group - to remember the cold war
> and the massive fear-mongering of that era. Some people were truly
> afraid a nuclear bomb was going to drop on their head. We're still here.
> I do believe that humans still care enough to find solutions and go on
> living.

And lest I sound holier than whomever... I still drive cars that
get 25-30 mpg on the highway. I have central air conditioning.
I eat meat. Sure, I try to conserve energy within the parameters
of my comfort... but I haven't made the sacrifices that I think
all of us will have to make to save the planet from us. And I
probably won't... not until they are forced upon me.

FurPaw


--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 10, 1:19 pm, thinkbig.shrinkto...@online.no (Keera Ann Fox)
> wrote:
> > FurPaw <furrealpaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ellen wrote:
> > > > from the independent:
> >
> > http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2944401.ece
> >
> > I went and checked out other sites about the disappearing glacier. Other
> > articles don't mention global warming, but rather that we humans have
> > made assumptions about how glaciers melt that were wrong. They melt a
> > lot faster than previously believed and that is a feature of glaciers,
> > not global warming.
> >
> > > That is truly depressing, on several counts. Sigh.
> >
> > The polar bear has been on the endangered species list before. We may or
> > may not be able to save it.
> >
> > > Want more? If you can, watch Nova - Dimming the Sun on PBS.
> > > Here's a link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/. It's near
> > > the end of its show cycle, but in my area it's showing one more
> > > time tonight.
> >
> > > Seems that we've been experiencing global dimming, due to
> > > polluting particles (soot, etc.), which has been minimizing the
> > > effects of global warming. If we manage to stop filling the
> > > atmosphere with these particles (which cause widespread
> > > respiratory illness, and now climatologists think they have been
> > > responsible for the sub-Saharan droughts of the last 3 decades),
> > > we will feel the full force of global warming induced by
> > > greenhouse gases.
> >
> > Yay us! We found a solution! Or rather, we accidentally made one.
> >
> > > It's a very well-done show, which left me feeling that our
> > > species is very, well, done.
> >
> > Actually, we've never been better. I think we need awareness, yes, but
> > it's a far cry from awareness (and not willingly messing things up) and
> > utter disaster. I see no evidence to support belief in the latter.
> >
> > I'm old enough - as are we all on this group - to remember the cold war
> > and the massive fear-mongering of that era. Some people were truly
> > afraid a nuclear bomb was going to drop on their head. We're still here.
> > I do believe that humans still care enough to find solutions and go on
> > living.
>
> boy, keera, i like your assessment though i'm inclined to go with
> furpaw's well phrased 'well, done' analysis. hope you're right.

Perhaps this will help:
http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/ch...eed-20070911.h
tml

:-)

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

"Keera Ann Fox" <thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no> wrote in message
news:1i48nzy.s510i22ur8a9N%thinkbig.shrinktofit@on line.no...
> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ellen wrote:
>> > from the independent:
> http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2944401.ece
>
> I went and checked out other sites about the disappearing glacier. Other
> articles don't mention global warming, but rather that we humans have
> made assumptions about how glaciers melt that were wrong.

Which wrong assumptions? The glaciers haven't always been there. That's
what every geology textbook says. No glaciers during the dinosaur age.
Planet was getting cooler. Got cold enough for water to freeze, ice linger
over winter, glaciers form.

When it is getting cooler, more and more ice.

When it is getting warmer, less and less ice.

It's true that the geologists don't know the color of the rock under the ice
or how huge sheets of ice crack or what the seismic properties of Greenland
are.

But the main assumption about cooling or warming is something you should
know from observing your own freezer.

Think.

Jenny

They melt a
> lot faster than previously believed and that is a feature of glaciers,
> not global warming.
>
>> That is truly depressing, on several counts. Sigh.
>
> The polar bear has been on the endangered species list before. We may or
> may not be able to save it.
>
>> Want more? If you can, watch Nova - Dimming the Sun on PBS.
>> Here's a link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/ . It's near
>> the end of its show cycle, but in my area it's showing one more
>> time tonight.
>>
>> Seems that we've been experiencing global dimming, due to
>> polluting particles (soot, etc.), which has been minimizing the
>> effects of global warming. If we manage to stop filling the
>> atmosphere with these particles (which cause widespread
>> respiratory illness, and now climatologists think they have been
>> responsible for the sub-Saharan droughts of the last 3 decades),
>> we will feel the full force of global warming induced by
>> greenhouse gases.
>
> Yay us! We found a solution! Or rather, we accidentally made one.
>
>> It's a very well-done show, which left me feeling that our
>> species is very, well, done.
>
> Actually, we've never been better. I think we need awareness, yes, but
> it's a far cry from awareness (and not willingly messing things up) and
> utter disaster. I see no evidence to support belief in the latter.
>
> I'm old enough - as are we all on this group - to remember the cold war
> and the massive fear-mongering of that era. Some people were truly
> afraid a nuclear bomb was going to drop on their head. We're still here.
> I do believe that humans still care enough to find solutions and go on
> living.
>
> --
> Keera in Norway * Think big

Think. Glaciars haven't always been there. There were no glaci

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:

> Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> > FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:

-snip-

> We in the US are still contributing more greenhouse gases to the
> atmosphere than any other country, IIRC.
>
> > I'm old enough - as are we all on this group - to remember the cold war
> > and the massive fear-mongering of that era. Some people were truly
> > afraid a nuclear bomb was going to drop on their head. We're still here.
> > I do believe that humans still care enough to find solutions and go on
> > living.
>
> And lest I sound holier than whomever... I still drive cars that
> get 25-30 mpg on the highway. I have central air conditioning.
> I eat meat. Sure, I try to conserve energy within the parameters
> of my comfort... but I haven't made the sacrifices that I think
> all of us will have to make to save the planet from us. And I
> probably won't... not until they are forced upon me.

I just read a Norwegian article based on Brian Fagan's 2000 book "The
Little Ice Age". Fagan went over the historical data, which is most
accurate for Europe, and found that climatic changes have been quite
dramatic for our forefathers. And they were global.

The gist: The planet started warming up around 800 CE and made it
possible to settle on Greenland. This warming trend continued to the
middle ages, making life easier and encouraging a huge population
growth. Then, with continuous rains all summer in 1315, the changes
started. Crops were destroyed and huge numbers died of starvation.
Storms during the next century killed thousands, and the so-called
"little ice age" started. The little ice age was not one continuous
cooling period, but a series of dramatic changes, making it hard for
peole to plan. Some changes included storms so huge, thousands were
killed, and in 1694, 16 Scottish farms were buried in sand during a
storm. As recently as 1895, the Thames river would still freeze in
winter.

Since these changes are global (as they are now), the question is what
influences the planet's weather globally. The year without a summer, as
1816 is known as, was due to an eruption of the volcano Tambora. But for
the whole little ice age, a very strong theory is sun spots. More sun
spot activity equals warmer weather on Earth. There was very low
activity during the little ice age.

Scientists aren't sure the little ice age is over, either. We're still
experiencing the same 2-3 decade long trends with contrasting weather.

The last cold period, namely the 50's, 60's and 70's which gave us those
wonderful winters with white Christmases, are also the when today's
scientists and climate researchers were kids. I wonder if current human
memory is skewing (and panicking?) our attitude about the current
not-so-white Christmases.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
> ellen wrote:
>> from the independent: http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2944401.ece

> That is truly depressing, on several counts. Sigh.

> Want more? If you can, watch Nova - Dimming the Sun on PBS.
> Here's a link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/ . It's near
> the end of its show cycle, but in my area it's showing one more
> time tonight.

> Seems that we've been experiencing global dimming, due to
> polluting particles (soot, etc.), which has been minimizing the
> effects of global warming. If we manage to stop filling the
> atmosphere with these particles (which cause widespread
> respiratory illness, and now climatologists think they have been
> responsible for the sub-Saharan droughts of the last 3 decades),
> we will feel the full force of global warming induced by
> greenhouse gases.

> It's a very well-done show, which left me feeling that our
> species is very, well, done.

Not quite. I think the problems are very serious, and since the people
who could do something about it are mostly short-sighted greedy
opportunistic swindlers there's not much effective action going to be
taken until it's way too late, if indeed it isn't too late already.

But all that's going to happen is that climate change will seriously
change the food and water supply in many countries too poor and
disorganised to do anything about it other than start dying and
fleeing. Many rich well-organised countries have also become so
"efficient" that small changes in climate are going to cause them
serious bother. Add to that millions of desperate climate migrants
from worse places and a seriously large proportion of the world
population is going to die prematurely of starvation, disease,
drowning, and of course we'll help in this healthy reduction of the
human overpopulation of the planet by fighting wars over supplies of
energy, water, and food.

But even if 90% of the human race dies, that's very far from the end
of us. It'll make us physically tougher, and might even make us wise
enough to respect the planet instead of pillaging it.

The interesting question is whether the coming crisis and its
desperate wars over supplies is also going to destroy our
civilisation, and when it's all over the few human survivors are going
to emerge blinking from the hills and jungles carrying bows and arrows
and illiterate and having only vague rather mythologised camp fire
stories about what happened.

The planet will heal itself, as it has done so often before, and the
human race will begin the long trudge into agriculture, urbanisation,
technology, and civisation. As we've done before. And one day, once
again, a large civilisation of billions of human beings will bestride
the planet, once again threatening it with their numbers and their
short-sighted greed.

I wonder if there's any way we could get a message to them, a message
which could survive the intervening dark millennia of barbarism, to
help them avoid our mistakes? :-)

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Jennifer Alvarez <mamacita79@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Keera Ann Fox" <thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no> wrote in message
> news:1i48nzy.s510i22ur8a9N%thinkbig.shrinktofit@on line.no...
> > FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ellen wrote:
> >> > from the independent:
> > http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2944401.ece
> >
> > I went and checked out other sites about the disappearing glacier. Other
> > articles don't mention global warming, but rather that we humans have
> > made assumptions about how glaciers melt that were wrong.
>
> Which wrong assumptions? The glaciers haven't always been there. That's
> what every geology textbook says. No glaciers during the dinosaur age.
> Planet was getting cooler. Got cold enough for water to freeze, ice linger
> over winter, glaciers form.
>
> When it is getting cooler, more and more ice.
>
> When it is getting warmer, less and less ice.
>
> It's true that the geologists don't know the color of the rock under the ice
> or how huge sheets of ice crack or what the seismic properties of Greenland
> are.
>
> But the main assumption about cooling or warming is something you should
> know from observing your own freezer.
>
> Think.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...4_TVGreenland_
2.html

The relevant info about how the glacier melts is on Page 2.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ellen wrote:
>>> from the independent: http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2944401.ece
>
>> That is truly depressing, on several counts. Sigh.
>
>> Want more? If you can, watch Nova - Dimming the Sun on PBS.
>> Here's a link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/ . It's near
>> the end of its show cycle, but in my area it's showing one more
>> time tonight.
>
>> Seems that we've been experiencing global dimming, due to
>> polluting particles (soot, etc.), which has been minimizing the
>> effects of global warming. If we manage to stop filling the
>> atmosphere with these particles (which cause widespread
>> respiratory illness, and now climatologists think they have been
>> responsible for the sub-Saharan droughts of the last 3 decades),
>> we will feel the full force of global warming induced by
>> greenhouse gases.
>
>> It's a very well-done show, which left me feeling that our
>> species is very, well, done.
>
> Not quite. I think the problems are very serious, and since the people
> who could do something about it are mostly short-sighted greedy
> opportunistic swindlers there's not much effective action going to be
> taken until it's way too late, if indeed it isn't too late already.
>
> But all that's going to happen is that climate change will seriously
> change the food and water supply in many countries too poor and
> disorganised to do anything about it other than start dying and
> fleeing. Many rich well-organised countries have also become so
> "efficient" that small changes in climate are going to cause them
> serious bother. Add to that millions of desperate climate migrants
> from worse places and a seriously large proportion of the world
> population is going to die prematurely of starvation, disease,
> drowning, and of course we'll help in this healthy reduction of the
> human overpopulation of the planet by fighting wars over supplies of
> energy, water, and food.
>
> But even if 90% of the human race dies, that's very far from the end
> of us. It'll make us physically tougher, and might even make us wise
> enough to respect the planet instead of pillaging it.
>
> The interesting question is whether the coming crisis and its
> desperate wars over supplies is also going to destroy our
> civilisation, and when it's all over the few human survivors are going
> to emerge blinking from the hills and jungles carrying bows and arrows
> and illiterate and having only vague rather mythologised camp fire
> stories about what happened.
>
> The planet will heal itself, as it has done so often before, and the
> human race will begin the long trudge into agriculture, urbanisation,
> technology, and civisation. As we've done before. And one day, once
> again, a large civilisation of billions of human beings will bestride
> the planet, once again threatening it with their numbers and their
> short-sighted greed.
>
> I wonder if there's any way we could get a message to them, a message
> which could survive the intervening dark millennia of barbarism, to
> help them avoid our mistakes? :-)

We could make Walter M. Miller's "A Canticle for Leibowitz"
mandatory reading... it's topic was nuclear war and its
aftermath, but it pretty much describes a scenario and sequence
similar to the one above.

The direct effects of warming will be much slower in their
devastation than a nuclear holocaust, but, as you described, the
indirect effects could lead to massive conflicts. The effects of
climate shifts and a rise in sea levels of a few feet would be
minor in comparison to what people will do to each other. It
won't be pretty.

I guess I don't feel enough affinity to the "us" of humanity to
be comforted by the thought that a few of "us" might survive the
worst effects.

FurPaw
--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Keera Ann Fox wrote:

> I just read a Norwegian article based on Brian Fagan's 2000 book "The
> Little Ice Age". Fagan went over the historical data, which is most
> accurate for Europe, and found that climatic changes have been quite
> dramatic for our forefathers. And they were global.

And even more dramatic for the dinosaurs.


[snipped interesting discussion of warming and cooling trends
in past 2000 years]

> The last cold period, namely the 50's, 60's and 70's which gave us those
> wonderful winters with white Christmases, are also the when today's
> scientists and climate researchers were kids. I wonder if current human
> memory is skewing (and panicking?) our attitude about the current
> not-so-white Christmases.

Much of what I've read and viewed has trotted out all kinds of
markers that point to a warming trend with cooling blips
superimposed on it. Others argue that the warming of the past
couple of decades is within the range of 'normal variation' and
that what we're seeing is just a spurious correlation between
accumulation of greenhouse gases and a brief warming trend.

I think it's useful to separate the argument of whether or not
we're experiencing global warming from the argument that says we
are AND that it's caused by the greenhouse gases that we're
pumping into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates.

My evaluation (and I'm not a climatologist) is that we _are_ in a
long-term warming trend. And I don't know if humans are causing
it or making an existing one worse or if it's just the big egos
of homo sapiens that makes us think we're having any effect
whatsoever (although I tend to doubt that we're having no effect).

The thing that strikes me as odd about a lot of the argument is
that there are far more immediate effects of pollution than
global warming. Air quality is just plain crappy in many parts
of the world, particularly large cities. People suffer massively
from respiratory disorders, as a result. Water is undrinkable in
an increasing number of places. These are immediate and
obvious results of pollution, and yet it continues... because
some folks are making a lot of money, and others are just
scraping by but at least they have jobs in the polluting
industries. And so it's left to a small, unpopular minority to
try slow the juggernaut. If we, as societies, can't fix what's
literally crawling up our noses and into our mouths, I don't see
much hope for efforts trying to decrease humanity's contribution
to global warming, whose effects are less obvious and decades
down the road, however large or small that contribution might be.

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

On Sep 16, 10:23 am, FurPaw <furrealpaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
> > FurPaw <furrealpaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> ellen wrote:
> >>> from the independent: http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2944401.ece
>
> >> That is truly depressing, on several counts. Sigh.
>
> >> Want more? If you can, watch Nova - Dimming the Sun on PBS.
> >> Here's a link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/. It's near
> >> the end of its show cycle, but in my area it's showing one more
> >> time tonight.
>
> >> Seems that we've been experiencing global dimming, due to
> >> polluting particles (soot, etc.), which has been minimizing the
> >> effects of global warming. If we manage to stop filling the
> >> atmosphere with these particles (which cause widespread
> >> respiratory illness, and now climatologists think they have been
> >> responsible for the sub-Saharan droughts of the last 3 decades),
> >> we will feel the full force of global warming induced by
> >> greenhouse gases.
>
> >> It's a very well-done show, which left me feeling that our
> >> species is very, well, done.
>
> > Not quite. I think the problems are very serious, and since the people
> > who could do something about it are mostly short-sighted greedy
> > opportunistic swindlers there's not much effective action going to be
> > taken until it's way too late, if indeed it isn't too late already.
>
> > But all that's going to happen is that climate change will seriously
> > change the food and water supply in many countries too poor and
> > disorganised to do anything about it other than start dying and
> > fleeing. Many rich well-organised countries have also become so
> > "efficient" that small changes in climate are going to cause them
> > serious bother. Add to that millions of desperate climate migrants
> > from worse places and a seriously large proportion of the world
> > population is going to die prematurely of starvation, disease,
> > drowning, and of course we'll help in this healthy reduction of the
> > human overpopulation of the planet by fighting wars over supplies of
> > energy, water, and food.
>
> > But even if 90% of the human race dies, that's very far from the end
> > of us. It'll make us physically tougher, and might even make us wise
> > enough to respect the planet instead of pillaging it.
>
> > The interesting question is whether the coming crisis and its
> > desperate wars over supplies is also going to destroy our
> > civilisation, and when it's all over the few human survivors are going
> > to emerge blinking from the hills and jungles carrying bows and arrows
> > and illiterate and having only vague rather mythologised camp fire
> > stories about what happened.
>
> > The planet will heal itself, as it has done so often before, and the
> > human race will begin the long trudge into agriculture, urbanisation,
> > technology, and civisation. As we've done before. And one day, once
> > again, a large civilisation of billions of human beings will bestride
> > the planet, once again threatening it with their numbers and their
> > short-sighted greed.
>
> > I wonder if there's any way we could get a message to them, a message
> > which could survive the intervening dark millennia of barbarism, to
> > help them avoid our mistakes? :-)
>
> We could make Walter M. Miller's "A Canticle for Leibowitz"
> mandatory reading... it's topic was nuclear war and its
> aftermath, but it pretty much describes a scenario and sequence
> similar to the one above.
>
> The direct effects of warming will be much slower in their
> devastation than a nuclear holocaust, but, as you described, the
> indirect effects could lead to massive conflicts. The effects of
> climate shifts and a rise in sea levels of a few feet would be
> minor in comparison to what people will do to each other. It
> won't be pretty.
>
> I guess I don't feel enough affinity to the "us" of humanity to
> be comforted by the thought that a few of "us" might survive the
> worst effects.
>
> FurPaw
> --
> "Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
> every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
> a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
> those who are cold and are not clothed."
> - Dwight D. Eisenhower
>
> To reply, unleash the dog.


excellent discussion. really, in so many ways, we collectively speed
ahead with disastrous & short-sighted choices. we are so convinced
that our superior intellect will bail us out of future consequences.
but human nature & hi tech is a bad combo, IMO, especially in absence
of a greater ethical/spiritual framework.

i would like to add what you all are probably aware of: that russia
recently exploded the "dad of all bombs" according to their govt
sources, supposedly 4x as powerful as the u.s. "mother of all bombs."
but they added the following caveat:

"The tests have shown that the new air-delivered ordnance is
comparable to a nuclear weapon in its efficiency and capability," said
Col.-Gen. Alexander Rukshin, a deputy chief of the Russian military's
General Staff, said in televised remarks.

Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn't hurt the environment, he
added."



ellen

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:

> The thing that strikes me as odd about a lot of the argument is
> that there are far more immediate effects of pollution than
> global warming.


Personally, I see pollution as the far bigger threat, and since it also
has some effect on the climate, I also see it as a worthy focus. We did
a lot of work on limiting pollution up until the 80's, then it started
to take a back seat. There is still awareness, though; we just don't
have the widescale demonstrations, any more.

> Air quality is just plain crappy in many parts
> of the world, particularly large cities. People suffer massively
> from respiratory disorders, as a result. Water is undrinkable in
> an increasing number of places.

These are serious concerns and worry me more than global warming does,
perhaps because pollution and, secondarily, lack of ensurement of
non-hazardous water and food, have already had an impact in my own
community.

> These are immediate and obvious results of pollution, and yet it
> continues... because some folks are making a lot of money, and others are
> just scraping by but at least they have jobs in the polluting industries.

That is one thing I have been happy about: My company does not make a
product that pollutes.

> And so it's left to a small, unpopular minority to
> try slow the juggernaut. If we, as societies, can't fix what's
> literally crawling up our noses and into our mouths, I don't see
> much hope for efforts trying to decrease humanity's contribution
> to global warming, whose effects are less obvious and decades
> down the road, however large or small that contribution might be.

I'm not sure it's unpopular to fight for clean air or water. I think
it's more about ignorance. For example, drinking water in the US. I was
so shocked at what came out of my mother's faucet, that I felt I was
visiting a third world country: Her water reaked of chlorine, tasted
bad, and had fluoride in it (the US is the only western country besides
Spain that thinks fluoride is drinkable). She is forced to buy bottled
water (a polluting industry in itself) because fluoridation and
hypothyroidism don't mix. The chlorine and the taste could be adjusted
through letting the water sit (chlorine evaporates) or be boiled.
Fluoride increases with boiling and does not settle, like heavy metals
would. But until Americans realize they are being offered a quality of
drinking water that makes their water undrinkable (or until someone
takes their bottles away), they won't demand something else. Ignorance,
not unpopularity.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big and then ask for more.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

Keera Ann Fox wrote:
> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:

>> And so it's left to a small, unpopular minority to
>> try slow the juggernaut. If we, as societies, can't fix what's
>> literally crawling up our noses and into our mouths, I don't see
>> much hope for efforts trying to decrease humanity's contribution
>> to global warming, whose effects are less obvious and decades
>> down the road, however large or small that contribution might be.
>
> I'm not sure it's unpopular to fight for clean air or water.

Just about everyone will support the importance of the idea of
having it for themselves, but many will change their tune and
fight having to change the way they do their business if it's
going to cost them money and benefit someone else. There are
many cases in this country where business owners fought tooth and
nail against having to add pollution controls or, worse, having
to pay for cleaning up the areas their past practices devastated
with toxic waste. Joe and Jane Average will support clean air
and clean water, until you suggest that their taxes will increase
in order to effect a clean up. And who wants to give up their
cars?

> I think
> it's more about ignorance. For example, drinking water in the US. I was
> so shocked at what came out of my mother's faucet, that I felt I was
> visiting a third world country: Her water reaked of chlorine, tasted
> bad, and had fluoride in it (the US is the only western country besides
> Spain that thinks fluoride is drinkable). She is forced to buy bottled
> water (a polluting industry in itself)

Very. But bottled water is oh-so-convenient, even for folks
whose tap water tastes good.

> because fluoridation and
> hypothyroidism don't mix. The chlorine and the taste could be adjusted
> through letting the water sit (chlorine evaporates) or be boiled.
> Fluoride increases with boiling and does not settle, like heavy metals
> would. But until Americans realize they are being offered a quality of
> drinking water that makes their water undrinkable (or until someone
> takes their bottles away), they won't demand something else. Ignorance,
> not unpopularity.

Water quality varies a lot from area to area in the US. A lot of
the ignorance comes from what people are accustomed to.

And then there's the cost. It's much cheaper to treat the water
than it is to prevent it becoming contaminated - at least, in the
short run.

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

ellen wrote:

> excellent discussion. really, in so many ways, we collectively speed
> ahead with disastrous & short-sighted choices. we are so convinced
> that our superior intellect will bail us out of future consequences.
> but human nature & hi tech is a bad combo, IMO, especially in absence
> of a greater ethical/spiritual framework.

Speaking of which, you mention...

> i would like to add what you all are probably aware of: that russia
> recently exploded the "dad of all bombs" according to their govt
> sources, supposedly 4x as powerful as the u.s. "mother of all bombs."
> but they added the following caveat:
>
> "The tests have shown that the new air-delivered ordnance is
> comparable to a nuclear weapon in its efficiency and capability," said
> Col.-Gen. Alexander Rukshin, a deputy chief of the Russian military's
> General Staff, said in televised remarks.
>
> Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn't hurt the environment, he
> added."

Well, the products of the explosion may not have a half life that
numbers in the thousands of years, but I suspect that anyone who
is anywhere near the explosion would disagree with the impact on
the environment...

"Booming oil prices have allowed Russia to steadily increase
military spending in recent years, and the Kremlin has taken a
more assertive posture in global affairs."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html

Oh, joy.

FurPaw

--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

To reply, unleash the dog.

On Sep 16, 11:01 pm, FurPaw <furrealpaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ellen wrote:
> > excellent discussion. really, in so many ways, we collectively speed
> > ahead with disastrous & short-sighted choices. we are so convinced
> > that our superior intellect will bail us out of future consequences.
> > but human nature & hi tech is a bad combo, IMO, especially in absence
> > of a greater ethical/spiritual framework.
>
> Speaking of which, you mention...
>
> > i would like to add what you all are probably aware of: that russia
> > recently exploded the "dad of all bombs" according to their govt
> > sources, supposedly 4x as powerful as the u.s. "mother of all bombs."
> > but they added the following caveat:
>
> > "The tests have shown that the new air-delivered ordnance is
> > comparable to a nuclear weapon in its efficiency and capability," said
> > Col.-Gen. Alexander Rukshin, a deputy chief of the Russian military's
> > General Staff, said in televised remarks.
>
> > Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn't hurt the environment, he
> > added."
>
> Well, the products of the explosion may not have a half life that
> numbers in the thousands of years, but I suspect that anyone who
> is anywhere near the explosion would disagree with the impact on
> the environment...
>
> "Booming oil prices have allowed Russia to steadily increase
> military spending in recent years, and the Kremlin has taken a
> more assertive posture in global affairs."http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/12/russia.bomb.ap/index.html
>
> Oh, joy.
>
> FurPaw
>
> --
> "Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
> every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
> a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
> those who are cold and are not clothed."
> - Dwight D. Eisenhower
>
> To reply, unleash the dog.


yep.

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ellen wrote:
>>>> from the independent: http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2944401.ece

>> But even if 90% of the human race dies, that's very far from the end
>> of us. It'll make us physically tougher, and might even make us wise
>> enough to respect the planet instead of pillaging it.
>>
>> The interesting question is whether the coming crisis and its
>> desperate wars over supplies is also going to destroy our
>> civilisation, and when it's all over the few human survivors are going
>> to emerge blinking from the hills and jungles carrying bows and arrows
>> and illiterate and having only vague rather mythologised camp fire
>> stories about what happened.
>>
>> The planet will heal itself, as it has done so often before, and the
>> human race will begin the long trudge into agriculture, urbanisation,
>> technology, and civisation. As we've done before. And one day, once
>> again, a large civilisation of billions of human beings will bestride
>> the planet, once again threatening it with their numbers and their
>> short-sighted greed.
>>
>> I wonder if there's any way we could get a message to them, a message
>> which could survive the intervening dark millennia of barbarism, to
>> help them avoid our mistakes? :-)

> We could make Walter M. Miller's "A Canticle for Leibowitz"
> mandatory reading... it's topic was nuclear war and its
> aftermath, but it pretty much describes a scenario and sequence
> similar to the one above.

It's a lovely book!

> The direct effects of warming will be much slower in their
> devastation than a nuclear holocaust, but, as you described, the
> indirect effects could lead to massive conflicts. The effects of
> climate shifts and a rise in sea levels of a few feet would be
> minor in comparison to what people will do to each other. It
> won't be pretty.

> I guess I don't feel enough affinity to the "us" of humanity to
> be comforted by the thought that a few of "us" might survive the
> worst effects.

I wish I was able to feel prouder of the human race :-(

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On Sep 9, 12:01 pm, ellen <epdps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> from the independent: http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2944401.ece

old news - global warming, al gore, nobel peace prize, fox 2, polar
bears

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syTjzvNgv44