| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 135523 | 2013-11-13 07:28:00 | Latest on Climate Change | Terry Porritt (14) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1359689 | 2013-11-14 09:20:00 | I have 2 different ways of looking at it . 1 . Climate change/Global warming is uncertain as is our ability to effect it . 2 . That doesn't mean it's ok to pollute the planet or not important to minimise our ecological impact, a cleam sustainable planet is a worthy goal regardless of climate change . Agreed and well said . As to our C02 Emissions, sure that's true . But 1 volcanic eruption can do more than decades of human pollution . . . . Not so . Volcanic activity certainly contributes to the carbon sulfur and particulate content of the atmosphere but its about 1% per annum at worst . Humans contribute about 4% . Here's a few thoughts out of left field maybe to consider how we impact the planet . Citys, dwellings, roads etc prevent water being absorbed into the ground over huge areas - how does that effect the enviroment All this concrete and asphalt asorbs solar energy all day and releases it at night, cities are noticeably warmer at night than rural areas - does this effect the planet? Yes heat islands are a problem because they affect our living environment and everything nearby . We cut down vast forests and put farms and cities in their place, how much of the planets surface do we need for our benefit and how much should we leave for the rest of the life on earth? Sadly we need nearly all of it and the devil take the hindmost unless our population declines . |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 1359690 | 2013-11-14 09:28:00 | The problem is the "climate change" debate is the wrong way to look at the core issue. The real problem is pollution. The dying oceans. Dirty air. Contaminated water. Poisoned soil. What we are facing is a possible collapse of the biosphere. There is a calculation that since 1960 humans have been killing biota (microbes and plants including plankton) faster than they can reproduce. If that is true then our soils will fail and our oceans will die. I do not want my children to experience that - or anybody in the future. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 1359691 | 2013-11-14 19:49:00 | Always wondered what happened to the waste energy resulting from inefficient use of fossil fuels in use since the Industrial Revolution started, as most proccesses only operate at about 20% efficiency. I see Ken Ring is spouting more than some volcanoes. nz.news.yahoo.com |
Whenu (9358) | ||
| 1359692 | 2013-11-14 20:28:00 | If you bend the facts in Ring's report a fair bit less than his ring cycle frequently does, then he reports that there are 9 million unknown species of marine life that the experts know of all dying to oil our future. (These are a different sort of unknown species, probably harmonically related.) He reports that oil is being created right now. Surprise! He does sort of avoid mentioning the slightly extended cooking time of the process, or our current usage of a bit over a million year's production each 6 months. Like Cook Strait freight, there may be a bit of a queue in our future. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1359693 | 2013-11-15 04:54:00 | The problem is the "climate change" debate is the wrong way to look at the core issue. The real problem is pollution. The dying oceans. Dirty air. Contaminated water. Poisoned soil. No, the real problem is population explosion. But I don't hear the Greenies trying to implement programs regarding population control / decline. |
Antmannz (6583) | ||
| 1359694 | 2013-11-15 05:32:00 | I'm upset by the ongoing investment in infrastructure at sea level. If we're faced with 7m of sea level rise from melting in Greenland alone, then why are most of our roads following the coast? Why are our sewage systems located near the coast? Why are we investing millions, billions on coastal developments when within 50 years they may be a submerged obstruction to shipping? Anyone spending big on coastal properties is an f-wit, and they deserve the losses they face. Vacant land 10m or more above sea level would seem to have a good chance of being in very high demand in the future. Problem is, by the time it becomes deathly obvious to developers they'll be in panic mode and looking only at stuff 100m above sea level. Mankind has historically settled near the sea for good reasons, but we continue to do so at our own peril. The cost of rebuilding a home further inland will be massive when most of the worlds cities are alll facing being flooded and relocated. There's too few resources to re-house too many homes and businesses, and it'll worsen the current issues of deforestation, erosion and pollution, and further skew the carbon balance into the red. In short, if the warming scenario is right, then we're royally screwed. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1359695 | 2013-11-15 05:34:00 | I'm upset by the ongoing investment in infrastructure at sea level.If we're faced with 7m of sea level rise from melting in Greenland alone, then why are most of our roads following the coast?Why are our sewage systems located near the coast?Why are we investing millions, billions on coastal developments when within 50 years they may be a submerged obstruction to shipping?Anyone spending big on coastal properties is an f-wit, and they deserve the losses they face.Vacant land 10m or more above sea level would seem to have a good chance of being in very high demand in the future. Problem is, by the time it becomes deathly obvious to developers they'll be in panic mode and looking only at stuff 100m above sea level. Mankind has historically settled near the sea for good reasons, but we continue to do so at our own peril. The cost of rebuilding a home further inland will be massive when most of the worlds cities are alll facing being flooded and relocated. There's too few resources to re-house too many homes and businesses, and it'll worsen the current issues of deforestation, erosion and pollution, and further skew the carbon balance into the red.In short, if the warming scenario is right, then we're royally screwed.A big if... | johcar (6283) | ||
| 1359696 | 2013-11-15 05:39:00 | The temperature here in Wanganui today was warmer than the last few days. Clearly the effect of Climate Warming. However the water in the bird bath hasn't got any deeper!!! PJ | Poppa John (284) | ||
| 1359697 | 2013-11-15 06:23:00 | No, the real problem is population explosion. But I don't hear the Greenies trying to implement programs regarding population control / decline. Overpopulation? I am 75 now & some time in the near future I will reduce the population by ONE!!!!!! PJ |
Poppa John (284) | ||
| 1359698 | 2013-11-15 06:42:00 | I'm upset by the ongoing investment in infrastructure at sea level. If we're faced with 7m of sea level rise from melting in Greenland alone, then why are most of our roads following the coast? Why are our sewage systems located near the coast? Why are we investing millions, billions on coastal developments when within 50 years they may be a submerged obstruction to shipping? Anyone spending big on coastal properties is an f-wit, and they deserve the losses they face. Vacant land 10m or more above sea level would seem to have a good chance of being in very high demand in the future. Problem is, by the time it becomes deathly obvious to developers they'll be in panic mode and looking only at stuff 100m above sea level. Mankind has historically settled near the sea for good reasons, but we continue to do so at our own peril. The cost of rebuilding a home further inland will be massive when most of the worlds cities are alll facing being flooded and relocated. There's too few resources to re-house too many homes and businesses, and it'll worsen the current issues of deforestation, erosion and pollution, and further skew the carbon balance into the red. In short, if the warming scenario is right, then we're royally screwed. :lol: Funniest Post ever. :lol: |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | |||||