NASA: Only 10 Years Till Irreversable Climatic Danger Point

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
So is it your contention that nothing is wrong with the planet and things will travel on as they have?

I'm not going to bother asking for sources for your previous info, but just because we've been wrong in the past, doesnt mean we should ignore whats being said in the present. Changing our way of life to better suit the ecology of the planet would be a change for the good.

That's one thing that really bugs me, that people think that way. So what if all those things never turned out to be much? As the old saying goes, "better safe than sorry".

And, yeah, I've heard things about it being a cyclic phenomenon. I think that could be, but all the greenhouse gases and such sure aren't helping.
[edit on 30-5-2007 by Hawker9]

[edit on 30-5-2007 by Hawker9]

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
So is it your contention that nothing is wrong with the planet and things will travel on as they have?

Im not going to bother asking for sources for your previous info, but just because we've been wrong in the past, doesnt mean we should ignore whats being said in the present. Changing our way of life to better suit the ecology of the planet would be a change for the good.

I could produce the sources, all it would take is an afternoon in a good library, problem is that unless it is on the internet to some people it didn't happen.

I understand what you are saying, but I can't help wonder if the steps that we took to try and prevent that ice age might have contributed to the current situation? I also have to ask if this isn't just a normal environmental cycle? In my opinion we don't have enough data to allow us to make a determination one way or another. We have only been keeping accurate data for about 100 years.

Sorry for my assumption and thanks for the clarification. As for the library comment, im at work and dont have a public library built into my plant. I almost wish i did.

Man, all this stuff is starting to really scare me. I hate the thought of the earth turning into a desolate urban wasteland, like you see in all those sci-fi future-prediction movies.

I think I'll build myself an electric car! (I wish)


[edit on 30-5-2007 by Hawker9]

Originally posted by iori_komei
but planting trees
in certain parts of the world is actually bad for the environment and does not help in any way.

Where do you get this stuff?

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by iori_komei
but planting trees
in certain parts of the world is actually bad for the environment and does not help in any way.

Where do you get this stuff?

It was on ATS a while a go, cant remember the thread name but heres a news article
trees and such
And another

After spending 15 minutes of trying to find the thread(s) talking about it, I was only able
to find one thread, which I actually started, that said something about it, I know there is
a thread about tree's in certain areas being bad as well, I just can't find it.

Tropical Trees Better At Cleaning The Environment

That's NASA trying to get funding and implicit support for their "Intelligent Archives" artificial intelligence system:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Doesn't NASA contribute with their shuttle and rocket launches?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
That's NASA trying to get funding and implicit support for their "Intelligent Archives" artificial intelligence system:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The "NASA" study cited by the OP was written by James Hansen of Columbia University. He also is the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

Hansen has a long history of leading the PR battle for global warming in the media. He is hardly an unbiased source. In fact, from what I understand, he was featured in Al Gore's movie.

Apparently Hansen is also known for a curious method of analyzing CO2 output per capita rather than gross output. This way leading CO2 producer, China, is just a blip on the graphs, while the U.S. leads in per capita CO2 production. He also theorizes that current CO2 production is not as important as historic CO2 production. This way no matter how much new CO2 China and India put into the air, he can still show pie charts to make it look like the U.S. is the main problem.

Of course, as you said, this will all lead to U.S. funding of more NASA research and studies because NASA will portray themselves as being the solution to the problem. Hansen already has talked about "regional" global warming crisis locations. I'm guessing the only way to predict where these regional GW centers will pop up is with um.... some sort of NASA artifical intelligence archive system. Of course that's only a guess.

Planting trees will not help global warming long-term. CO2 removed by trees is not locked up long-term because, when the tree dies, it rots and returns its carbon to the atmosphere.
The only way to naturally lock up CO2 is for it to be converted to coal or oil.
We no longer possess the warm, shallow seas that produced the oil that we burn now and so oil is out.
The first step in making coal is to make peat. To make peat you need certain environmental features such as swamps or very wet ground.
We have mankind draining swamps willy-nilly to grow crops for profit. The Okeefenokee peat is on currently on fire and will burn until it runs out of fuel. You can bet that this peat is dry enough to burn solely through environmental vandalism for profit. Eire burns peat for power station fuel. Tropical forests are being cleared faster than ever to produce beef and soy for fast food joints.
These factors mean that peat is being consumed and not being replenished.
Even if natural processes were allowed to continue, it will take 10,000's of years to lock up the excess CO2 already in the atmosphere. GW will be with us for a loooong time.

The western world will not act quickly enough to stop GW. This is because the western individual will have to make sacrifices and we all know how lazy and self-centred western people are. If you couple this with the inevitable capitalist disinformation and denial propaganda program, society inertia will ensure that our response to GW will be too late. GW pollution will only be reduced when it "hits the fan" and people cannot consume because the fossil fuel delivery systems fail. Too bloody late then!
In my library I have a copy of a National Geographic magazine dated 1937 where a journalist identifies Global Warming. A bloody journalist - where were the scientists? With all their oceanic buoys, satellites and multi-billion projects, why didn't science see this sooner? Because they were too blinded by the desire to prostitute science for profit. It took science 70 years to finally recognise the problem and convince the industro-military complex. There is no way that capitalism will come to grips with the problem within the time-frame.

I took part in a climate modelling project and this revealed some interesting predictions. As the world warms up, the world's deserts will expand further from the equator for quite a time. As much of the world's food is produced in the area to be desertified, the expanding deserts will have a huge effect. Eventually, however, the warmer earth will return to its Jurassic climate and water will be abundant practically everywhere.
What's the bet that our governments panic at the wrong time and hold the atmosphere in the worst position thereby keeping the deserts at their widest?

What really ticks me off is that the people to be hardest hit are those who make no contribution to the problem - the earth's subsistors. When Bangladesh, the Maldives, the islands of Micronesia, Polynesia and south India are inundated by rising sea levels or the rains fail in Peru, Namibia, Ethiopia, India, southern China, will the US, Europe, Australia, Argentina or Brazil take in the refugees? International borders will be strenghtened and the poor neighbour countries will rupture themselves trying to stem the human disaster. When New Orleans (now there's a place that has no right to exist where it is), New York, Houston, London, the Netherlands and many other low-lying western places are finally abandoned to the fish, it will be considered a disaster. When the subsistence countries are washed away (the first one is happening now) people will say "Now that's a real shame", but will they assist the affected people or change their own behaviour? No! They will go on expanding their "lifestyle", burning ever more carbon (all the while whining about the increasing cost) and rush us ever-headlong into inevitable (and deserved) consequences.

You guys are out of your minds. Trees are the only way to restore balance.

Originally posted by hippichick
Planting trees will not help global warming long-term. CO2 removed by trees is not locked up long-term because, when the tree dies, it rots and returns its carbon to the atmosphere.

Trees metabolize CO2. They do not 'lock it up', and we do not need it locked up.

The only way to naturally lock up CO2 is for it to be converted to coal

And how do you think that happens?

[edit on 30/5/07 by SteveR]

The sky is falling! What biased and irresponsible remarks for a federally funded agency to make.

Avenger, you and muaddib are about as predictable as the sun. So what should we do believe your nay saying? What positive do you bring to the table?

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
So is it your contention that nothing is wrong with the planet and things will travel on as they have?

Im not going to bother asking for sources for your previous info, but just because we've been wrong in the past, doesnt mean we should ignore whats being said in the present. Changing our way of life to better suit the ecology of the planet would be a change for the good.

I could produce the sources, all it would take is an afternoon in a good library, problem is that unless it is on the internet to some people it didn't happen.

I understand what you are saying, but I can't help wonder if the steps that we took to try and prevent that ice age might have contributed to the current situation? I also have to ask if this isn't just a normal environmental cycle? In my opinion we don't have enough data to allow us to make a determination one way or another. We have only been keeping accurate data for about 100 years.

I really have an aversion to people who continuously state the 100 year record keeping mantra, have you ever heard of ice core data?

Originally posted by grover
Avenger, you and muaddib are about as predictable as the sun. So what should we do believe your nay saying? What positive do you bring to the table?

I have made my position on anthropogenic global warming perfectly clear in another (very long) thread. I have no intention of getting into another long, drawn out debate with people of the Al Gore "warmie" religious persuasion. I can much more efficiently just beat my head against the wall here in my home office. It's more sensible than debating those who will not listen to reasonable and proven scientific evidence that A.G.W. is B.ad S.cience.

The fact that a warmie working for N.A.S.A. making obviously slanted remarks is newsworthy is infuriating. These networks only publicize opinions that reflect their view. When will the 33.3% (and growing) of us A.G.W. skeptic scientists be heard from?
Have you seen or heard them report on Dr, Richard Lindzen's latest paper?

The fact that you mock anyone who thinks that we are contributing to global warming gives you about zero credibility. I really don't care about what you think you have proven, you haven't and considering the vast majority of scientists disagree with you, I doubt seriously that you will.

Like I told muaddib before on another thread about the subject.... who do I believe, the majority of the world's climate scientists or some blow hard at the other end of a modem who claims that he knows what he is talking about?

Originally posted by grover
... considering the vast majority of scientists disagree with you

who do I believe, the majority of the world's climate scientists or some blow hard at the other end of a modem who claims that he knows what he is talking about?

Well, 2/3 is merely a simple majority to most. Vast, it is not.

Since like the news media, you evidently only want to hear opinions that agree with yours, I believe that you have come to the wrong place and are wasting your time here. May I recommend Real Climate? or the L.A. Times?

Which of the following statements is not true:

Both sides of the debate are exaggerating.

Both sides of the debate are spinning like a loom.

Both sides of the debate are so blinded by emotion that they lie and think it is justified.

Science has abandoned its principals in favor of politics.

Science and politics do not mix.

Money and politics do not mix.

The new crop of scientists are more interested in money than truth.

The new crop of politicians are more interested in money and power than truth.

The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle where it has always resided.

Every sane person on earth wants a clean environment regardless of their politics.

Al Gore is special and it would be ridiculous for us to expect him to practice what he preaches.

The Avenger: So we should believe you just because you say so? Why don't you explain to us why GW is a hoax? And if only 33.3% of scientists believe GW is a hoax, how is that proving that GW doesn't exist?
I agree with the previous poster: if you really knew what you are talking about, you wouldn't be so vehement about it, or ridicule those who do believe in GW. Methinks you have an agenda going on here, otherwise you would be much more open-minded to all kinds of possibilities. All of the scientists I've ever known (and it's quite a few, I once worked at PARC, I'm married to a biologist and have many scientist friends) have an open mind about most everything. That is the scientific approach. To approach an issue with a closed mind, and to ridicule those who disagree with you, indicates a non-scientific mindset.

EVERYONE has an agenda, simple as that.

Generally take any debateable issue and you have one 1/3 BS from one side and another 1/3 BS from the other. It's that middle third that really matters, because therein lies the truth. Whether it's the earth changing due to man, natural cycles, or both there's SOMETHING going on. It's a planet, there's ALWAYS something going on.

That being said when people try and use the public's perception of that middle third to push their agenda ... that's when you have huge problems. Sadly methinks this is NASA's way of getting more funding money.

My personal feelings on the issue have hit the middle of the road. Any input (or output) to (or from) a system will change the overall solution of the equation (let's just leave 0's out for you smarty pants). If you breathe, you change the earth's natural equation. So EVERYONE everyday changes the balance of the environment. It's just the degree and direction to which we are changing it that is really debateable.