General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOh. My. God. I hope the climate change deniers are right re: g/w is cyclic - after seeing this...
The link to the video below was posted to Youtube 30 minutes ago and tells a very frightening story. And what's freaking me out is that the closer that video gets to 2013, the faster the warming gets. So, unless this is a peaking cycle, as g/w deniers would have us believe, it portends a very rough future for inhabitants of this planet.
From Space.com: Since 1950, average temperatures have increased 1.1°F to an average of 58.3° in 2013. Increase in greenhouse gas levels continue to drive the temperature increase.
http://www.space.com/24351-60-year-global-temperature-visualization-is-distressing-video.html
progressoid
(49,990 posts)Cockroaches?
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)progressoid
(49,990 posts)I was grilling outside. In Iowa. In January.
marlakay
(11,468 posts)I live in mountain area in wa state, every winter we have snow till March. None in dec & January unheard of....this is in town that normally has cross country skiing and sleigh rides all winter...not this year!
People who have lived here for 60 yrs have said this has never happened once! Scary...especially for summer fires.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)but this one is weird because it's lasted so long. I've forgotten when it was cold.
Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)skip fox
(19,359 posts)THIS is the major issue of our time. Not racism, not war, not income inequality. All these are terrible, but everything pales in comparison to the 6th major extinction even we have ushered in and are currently driving.
It trumps everything, but no one, really, will talk about it. Or think about it.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Google up "nanotechnology climate" and you'll see it IS the solution and it IS coming. The only question is when... the optimistic predict less than 20 years for true "Von Neumann replicators" where others predict on out past 50 years. I haven't heard anyone predict that it would take longer than 100 years.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)-----------
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)And that heavier than air flight thing will never work also!
Don't feel bad though... Your ignorance of the status and progress of nanotechnology is fairly typical of the masses.
Luckily technological progress doesn't depend on your awareness or approval.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about nanotech would understand how its development furthered every single suggestion listed on that page. One really shouldn't speak on a topic that one has no knowledge of.
Let me get you started here:
http://www.nano.org.uk/books.php
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Excerpt:
"Interviews with researchers and regulators show that answers to these health and safety questions are not likely to come anytime soon. Thats a troubling prospect for many public health officials, who question the wisdom of allowing businesses to market these nanomaterials without first requiring proof that they do no harm. But nanomaterials are now either produced or used by many, if not most, of the nations largest businesses to make some of their products. These companies have used their lobbying clout not only to beat back efforts to regulate nanomaterials, but also to counter attempts by government agencies to find out what, exactly, is being used. Federal efforts to get a handle on the safety and health risks posed by nanoparticles have also been hampered by disagreement over how to test them; which ones to test first; and a federal mandate that places developing a robust nanotechnology industry over ensuring public safety.
Its complex, said Andrew Maynard, director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center and an expert in emerging technologies. Weve done an awful lot of research over the last few years. Weve made some breakthroughs, but we are still struggling to get our hands around what makes nanomaterials harmful and how to make them safe.
Andrew Maynard
University of Michigan
Risk Science Center
"The difficulty is exacerbated by the sheer number of nano-sized chemicals. There are thousands of types, each with myriad applications. Nano-silver, for example, can be embedded in childrens toys, textiles, crops and appliances to kill harmful microorganisms, or it can be used as a disinfectant spray. Nanoscale titanium dioxide is used as a pigment in sunscreens, and in white powdered-sugar frostings, as well as for water treatment and other uses. The strength and heat-conducting qualities of carbon nanotubes make them valuable when rolled up as tiny pipes and used in computer screens or as bone replacement and for strengthening materials from tennis rackets to airplanes.
J. Clarence Davies, who helped create the EPA and wrote the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, has long sounded the alarm on nanotechnology. The gap between the problems that exist and the problems that government actually can identify is growing, Davies said. On nano, the rate of innovation is extraordinary, at both the basic science level and the applied incorporation in products level. Industry is saying dont regulate us, and Congress is anti-regulatory."
"The risk from nanotechnology has become a sensitive topic. In 2011, the EPAs inspector general drafted a report entitled, EPA Cannot Effectively Assess or Manage Nanomaterial Risk. Records show that after a high-ranking EPA official objected to the wording, the watchdog agency changed the name of the report. It was released in late December 2011 as the less alarming, EPA Needs to Manage Nanomaterial Risks More Effectively. The substance of the report was much the same. The report noted, We found that EPA does not currently have sufficient information or processes to effectively manage the human health and environmental risks of nanomaterials. EPA has the statutory authority to regulate nanomaterials but currently lacks the environmental and human health exposure and toxicological data to do so effectively.
The study also reported that the EPAs efforts are hampered by reliance on industry-submitted data and said that its voluntary program, in which businesses were asked to provide data on their nanomaterials, was a flop. Few businesses cooperated. The IG also recommended that the EPA promote public awareness about nanomaterials. The agency as a whole should provide for a more transparent overall message [about nanomaterials], and it could better use its website to do so. The watchdogs wrote that the EPA should keep American people well informed on nanomaterials benefits, and risks, exposures and EPAs regulatory approach.
-----------
The writer:
Sheila Kaplan is a regular contributor to the Investigative Reporting Workshops health and environmental coverage, including our Toxic Influence series and a report on Toxic Taps around the country.
She is also a Lab Fellow with the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University and a prize-winning investigative reporter. She is a former lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, specializing in the intersection of politics, money and public health. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, msnbc.com. Discover magazine, The Nation, The New Republic, Salon and U.S. News & World Report.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)You used the word "unregulated" which I never used. Could you clarify if your attempting to use a stawman or are simply failing at reading comprehension?
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)so there is a problem.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Nanotech IS coming... so you can work towards more regulation on development of nanotech and solve:
Climate change
All diseases and disabilities (including cancers, heart disease, genetic mutations, etc...)
Aging entirely
World hunger
Most inequality issues
or... ignore the most powerful technology in human history and let it unfold chaotically while your hoping for some other magical answer.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Viking12
(6,012 posts)TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)flying rabbit
(4,634 posts)NickB79
(19,243 posts)Is unleash a swarm of self-replicating, uncontrollable micromachines into the atmosphere that will permeate every inch of the planet's biosphere?
Well fuck, it's so damn simple! And what could POSSIBLY go wrong with that, right?
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--this is THE issue...
greenman3610
(3,947 posts)Not a cycle. We're doing it, and we have to stop.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)hatrack
(59,587 posts)No matter how big the crisis, the human ability to deny, ignore or pretend about unpleasant reality will stretch to fit.
And when it gets so bad that it can no longer be ignored by anyone, it will be:
A. Attributed to God's (or Gods') Divine Plan(s)
B. Blamed on the evil conspirators who used their prayers/ray guns/cloud injectors to ruin the planet so that they could rule the world.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)deutsey
(20,166 posts)than they do about actual things like a livable planet.
It's like a form of mass insanity.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Without humans, there may have been some minor heating, such as .4 degrees, but humans pushed it further to the 1.1 number. Just wild speculation. I'm just saying the two thoughts don't contradict each other.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Even though it's undeniable that certain human activities have had an effect on the climate(the overall temperature certainly has gone up.), it doesn't discount the fact that cycles still do exist: for example, El Nino & La Nina both have their own typical effects. Arctic Oscillation plays a role as well, at least in terms of N. Hemisphere weather. Even solar cycles do affect Earth's weather to a degree(coincidentally, the 1980s were a decade in which solar activity was beginning to peak, so that may have had a small effect).
(What bothers me is that the deniers continue to claim that humans have virtually *NO* effect on the climate whatsoever. How else has the ice been melting up in the Arctic?)
As for the severity of the temperature rise from 1980-95, a significant part of that seems to have been due to a large amount of decaying of sulfates from the mass switchovers away from coal that occurred in many areas of the world; were it not for that, the temperature rise wouldn't have reached ~.6*C by '95 but would have been more around .35-.4*C and we'd only be around .5-.6*C today and not .7-.8 as we are now.
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,120 posts)Prepare for deniers to point that out.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Where the red is the areas that have the largest rise in average temperature - not a measurement of where the hottest spots on earth are, KWIM? Which goes with theories that show the polar caps will warm more quickly than the rest of the earth.
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,120 posts)I looked again with your info that it shows the average rise in temp. I see a lot more upward activity as it approaches 2013. Particularly in Canada and Russia. I was expecting more in Africa.
In order to make an impression on deniers, this video needs a little more info about what is being recorded.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)I agree it needs more of an explanation for the deniers, but it basically makes sense if you show that it is an average rise in temps. This is accurate as a very prominent Canadian climatologist recently was saying Canada, as a whole, has already increased about 2 degrees Celsius over the last 30 years, more in the Arctic. That's quite an increase in such a short amount of time.
ETA I found the interview with that climatologist - Canada has warmed up by 3-3.5 degrees Celsius over that last 60 years but has warmed by even more - up to 5 degrees - in some places. Here's the link - not sure those outside Canada can see it : http://www.canada.com/onlinetv/news/mansbridge-one-on-one/video.html
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,120 posts)Tonight Charlie Rose (friend of the 1%) actually asked Bill Gates about "climate concerns" when discussing Africa and China. I think he probably wish he hadn't brought it up. He must have forgot for a moment that his sponsors pay people to deny it's existence.
swilton
(5,069 posts)have been around as long as the international panel to study climate change began publishing studies. The first UN summit to address the climate was in Rio '92 and HW Bush proclaimed at that time that 'more studies needed to be accomplished before 'we' (the Western World, and especially the US) would take action. Furthermore he proudly proclaimed that the (fossil-fuel-consumerist-over consumption driven) American way of life (Awol to some) was non-negotiable....
The international panels predicting climate change and their published studies have been products of consensus and negotiation....It has always been the role of the US to not sign on to these studies unless the language was 'acceptable' - therefore the studies in my belief have always been weakened to the extent that they appeal to the deniers......
It is not surprising to me that the gw crisis is accelerating....beyond the so-called earlier predictions of the climate panels when the earlier predictions were forced to appeal to the lowest common denominator and make their forecasts as benign as possible....This has been ongoing for decades.
I am disappointed in the lack of political will (both main stream political parties) to do anything about this. The Copenhagen Summit was a classic example of actions by this administration to weaken any actions to reduce carbon emissions and address the challenges we face.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)I've had nightmares about the end of the world - for me, it's always meteors, or massive earth quakes or something. In my dreams, it's never the ignorance of humanity that brings about our end.
As frightening as those dreams are, I would much prefer that kind of end, to us all being wiped out due to human stupidity and greed.
Duppers
(28,120 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)60 years....only warmer and warmer
tiny elvis
(979 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)tiny elvis
(979 posts)a symbiont or a parasite?