A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Could Global Warming be the Savior of Humanity?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 18th 11, 02:00 AM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,soc.culture.china
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default Could Global Warming be the Savior of Humanity?


Please look at the following two 'versions' of Earth.
One is our past and ...future.


Earth 18,000 years ago
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_glacial_max.html

Earth present day
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/pr...erglacial.html



A Brief History of Ice Ages and Warming

"Except for two relatively brief interglacial episodes, one peaking
about 125,000 years ago (Eemian Interglacial), and the other
beginning about 18,000 years ago (Present Interglacial), the
Earth has been under siege of ice for the last 160,000 years."


The reigning climate pattern is where the Earth spends
roughly 100,000 years in a deep ice age, followed by
a brief period of some 15 or 20 thousand warmer years
where life explodes.

The last ice age ended some.....18,000 years ago....btw.

As far as I know, there's no good explanation for this
ice age cycle. Which would imply....strongly imply..
the cause is some as yet unknown astronomical change.

So when this occurs some century soon, humanity needs
to be ready, and have the ability to quickly and effectively
respond...one way of the other. Regardless if the future
is too warm, or too cold.

This leads me to what might seem like a contradiction.
I don't believe the current climate change is such a
menace to our future, all things considered. But I do
agree that the world should collectively begin
gaining the ability to manage the biosphere.

Which requires the nations of the world to be able
to manage..themselves..first. The answer to
climate change is...social change.
World-wide freedom and democracy!

Climate change will cause the extinction of
the ...dictatorships of the world.

And to our great benefit!


Imho!


Jonathan


Global Warming a Chilling Perspective
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html










  #2  
Old January 18th 11, 02:58 AM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,soc.culture.china
Roger Coppock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default Could Global Warming be the Savior of Humanity?

So, if you're in a loosing situation, like falling from high place
without a parachute, realize that it could be a good thing. At least,
this will keep your mind busy, until you hit the ground.


On Jan 17, 5:00*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
Please look at the following two 'versions' of Earth.
One is our past and ...future.

Earth 18,000 years agohttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_glacial_max.html

Earth present dayhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/present_interglacial.html

A Brief History of Ice Ages and Warming

"Except for two relatively brief interglacial episodes, one peaking
about 125,000 years ago (Eemian Interglacial), and the other
beginning about 18,000 years ago (Present Interglacial), the
Earth has been under siege of ice for the last 160,000 years."

The reigning climate pattern is where the Earth spends
roughly 100,000 years in a deep ice age, followed by
a brief period of some 15 or 20 thousand warmer years
where life explodes.

The last ice age ended some.....18,000 years ago....btw.

As far as I know, there's no good explanation for this
ice age cycle. Which would imply....strongly imply..
the cause is some as yet unknown astronomical change.

So when this occurs some century soon, humanity needs
to be ready, and have the ability to quickly and effectively
respond...one way of the other. *Regardless if the future
is too warm, or too cold.

This leads me to what might seem like a contradiction.
I don't believe the current climate change is such a
menace to our future, all things considered. But I do
agree that the world should collectively begin
gaining the ability to manage the biosphere.

Which requires the nations of the world to be able
to manage..themselves..first. The answer to
climate change is...social change.
World-wide freedom and democracy!

Climate change will cause the extinction of
the ...dictatorships of the world.

And to our great benefit!

Imho!

Jonathan

Global Warming a Chilling Perspectivehttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html


  #3  
Old January 18th 11, 03:00 AM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,soc.culture.china
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default Could Global Warming be the Savior of Humanity?


"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...

So, if you're in a loosing situation, like falling from high place
without a parachute, realize that it could be a good thing. At least,
this will keep your mind busy, until you hit the ground.



You only read the subject line, right ~


  #4  
Old January 18th 11, 03:10 AM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,soc.culture.china
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Could Global Warming be the Savior of Humanity?

In alt.philosophy Roger Coppock wrote:
So, if you're in a loosing situation, like falling from high place
without a parachute, realize that it could be a good thing. At least,
this will keep your mind busy, until you hit the ground.

....

It's part of the bargaining phase.

--
[pain trumps unconsciousness:]
In your ER apparently you treat gallstones before asystole.

It depends upon how long the asystole state has been, doesn't it.
-- John Stafford , 08 Dec 2010 14:39:38 -0600
  #5  
Old January 18th 11, 03:15 AM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,soc.culture.china
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Could Global Warming be the Savior of Humanity?

On Jan 17, 5:00*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
Please look at the following two 'versions' of Earth.
One is our past and ...future.

Earth 18,000 years ago http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/la...cial_max..html

Earth present day http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/pr...erglacial.html

A Brief History of Ice Ages and Warming

"Except for two relatively brief interglacial episodes, one peaking
about 125,000 years ago (Eemian Interglacial), and the other
beginning about 18,000 years ago (Present Interglacial), the
Earth has been under siege of ice for the last 160,000 years."

The reigning climate pattern is where the Earth spends
roughly 100,000 years in a deep ice age, followed by
a brief period of some 15 or 20 thousand warmer years
where life explodes.

The last ice age ended some.....18,000 years ago....btw.

As far as I know, there's no good explanation for this
ice age cycle. Which would imply....strongly imply..
the cause is some as yet unknown astronomical change.

So when this occurs some century soon, humanity needs
to be ready, and have the ability to quickly and effectively
respond...one way of the other. *Regardless if the future
is too warm, or too cold.

This leads me to what might seem like a contradiction.
I don't believe the current climate change is such a
menace to our future, all things considered. But I do
agree that the world should collectively begin
gaining the ability to manage the biosphere.

Which requires the nations of the world to be able
to manage..themselves..first. The answer to
climate change is...social change.
World-wide freedom and democracy!

Climate change will cause the extinction of
the ...dictatorships of the world.

And to our great benefit!

Imho!

Jonathan

Global Warming a Chilling Perspective http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html


That's actually a good way of putting a positive spin on GW and AGW.

A little further down the road of GW and AGW as well as a global
failing biodiversity, there's also the demise of affordable
hydrocarbons that's going to change the mindsets and priorities of
those intent on surviving.

Remaining world reserves of natural gas, oil and even coal are not
going to be easy nor cheap to obtain without continued environmental
risk (including collateral damage to property, humans and the global
biodiversity that’s currently failing us). Expect another energy
speculation frenzy unless newer technology gives us viable
alternatives for obtaining more hydrocarbons from existing fields plus
uncovering new ones, as well as the world utilizing less per person at
the same time (good luck with accomplishing that lat one). The good
news is that natural gas reserves will likely outlast oil reserves by
a few decades at best, but then what?

Global reserves of natural gas: 250e12 m3
Natural gas consumption is roughly at 3.25e12 m3
250e12/3.25e12 = 77 years

So as always, better technology has to locate and extract more natural
gas, or else, because 77 years is not exactly out of sight. No doubt
going deeper and drilling thousands of additional wells (many of which
having to seismic fracture the Earth and contaminate ground water)
should keep us going for perhaps at best another couple centuries,
though we’re talking spendy and environmentally risky. However, as
the oil runs out is when the consumption of natural gas will surge and
it’s reserves will suddenly vanish in as little as half the time
unless some other form of energy becomes the norm instead of
hydrocarbons via natural gas, oil or synfuel from coal. Food will
have become too valuable for large scale biofuel usage, so that’s not
exactly offering any long-term solution unless we all start eating
less and wasting little or nothing, including recycled poop as topsoil
instead of continued ocean dumping.

Switching everything over to non-hydrocarbons (as having been
suggested by William Mook and even Steven Chu for more than the past
decade), and mostly because of those existing Big Energy cabals and
cartels is most likely going to keep it pendy as well as less
convenient for obtaining, distribution and end-use. In other words,
expect the unexpected and always be prepared to pay dearly for it.
Even Mook’s solar derived hydrogen plus other secondary elements isn’t
likely to come at half as cheap as Mook keeps suggesting, but even at
ten fold the price per energy unit is still going to be better than
nothing, and at least Mook energy is going to be environmentally
friendly. Of course we could have stretched our conventional
hydrocarbon energy up to ten fold by simply creating and using h2o2
from solar and other renewable surplus energy, plus using only a
little of that precious hydrocarbon fuel, because this too would have
been environmentally friendly and otherwise offering an extremely high
density form of liquid oxidizer and fuel, as well as providing
terrific battery density or rather fuel-cell alternatives.

Global reserves of oil: Possibly at best 2.5e12 barrels (not
including oil that takes nearly as much energy to extract as it’s
worth, because there’s lots of that sandy muck or complex shale
alternatives that are not hardly worth the effort at little better
than energy breakeven by the time everything is taken into
consideration). At the current increase in global consumption, that’s
offering us a good 64 years worth (possibly a century with extreme
conservation measures due mostly to its much higher cost), and
otherwise there’s synfuel from coal that may not add a century because
of global consumption of coal that’s currently exceeding 8 billion
tonnes per year isn’t going to subside any time soon, whereas instead
the all-inclusive consumption of coal will likely increase at double
the pace of world population growth that’s expanding at greater than a
percent per year, plus the growing population of older folks don’t
like to be cold or without many other benefits that take energy in
order to sustain.

Future wars are also likely to consume and/or destroy up to half of
whatever’s left, and conventional nuclear energy isn’t going to become
suddenly failsafe unless it switches over to thorium. Extracting
coal, dealing with its messy processing and consumption or conversions
into synfuel isn’t going to buy us more than another century at best
(after that it’ll just become too spendy and/or too bloody). In other
words, like Usenet/newsgroup contributor “Warhol” and other doom and
gloom messengers having said, essentially it’s only a matter of time
that’s quickly running out before the have-nots (many of them Muslim)
take matters into their own hands in order to survive, especially when
our puppet governments are unable to command their own national
hydrocarbon reserves and the general public is being extorted by Big
Energy that has other plans which do not necessarily include looking
after the lower 99%.

Adding 220,000 new humans to feed per day is also going to push this
food thing over the edge. Even if population growth were 0.1%/year is
still 19,000 per day more than current supplies can manage to feed
without undesirable consequences.

Perhaps a global culling of humanity isn't too far fetched, as those
Georgia Guidestones suggested the need for having a maximum global
population of less than 500 million. With failed crops, millions of
dead fish plus thousands of tonnes worth of other unusable seafood,
plus seeing large numbers of cows dropping like flies, perhaps
something has to give, especially when the stormy wrath of nature is
taking a greater bite out of productive land and later fresh water
resources being limited or nonexistent when crops and livestock need
it worse than ever.

Myself , William Mook and Steven Chu have offered a few valid
solutions, as I’m certain the proven perseverance of Muslims and Moors
have had their traditional methods of surviving without dependence on
commercial hydrocarbons. However, if we procrastinate by waiting long
enough, perhaps it will not hardly matter when there's hardly enough
of anything left to go around, and perhaps if I were a god of Earth,
I'd be very angry at those responsible for neglecting this global need
for affordably clean energy that has been technically doable.

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


  #6  
Old January 18th 11, 04:37 AM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,soc.culture.china
Well Done
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Could Global Warming be the Savior of Humanity?

Woger Coppock wrote:
So, if you're in a loosing situation, like falling from high place
without a parachute, realize that it could be a good thing. At least,
this will keep your mind busy, until you hit the ground.

Or, if you'we standing safe in youw back yawd, and some jumped-up
buffoon tells you you'we falling, wealize that you'we being lied to by
some simple minded fwuitcake.

That's you, Woger.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think"
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net
  #7  
Old January 18th 11, 04:40 AM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,soc.culture.china
Immortalist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default Could Global Warming be the Savior of Humanity?

On Jan 17, 6:00*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...

So, if you're in a loosing situation, like falling from high place
without a parachute, realize that it could be a good thing. *At least,
this will keep your mind busy, until you hit the ground.


You only read the subject line, right ~


"people tend to make the best of something they know is bound to
happen"

The Psychology of Inevitability

George Bernard Shaw was hard hit by his father's alcoholism, but he
tried to make light of it. He once wrote: "If you cannot get rid of
the family skeleton, you may as well make it dance." In a sense,
dissonance theory describes the ways people have of making their
skeletons dance—of trying to live with unpleasant outcomes. This is
particularly true when a situation arises that is both negative and
inevitable. Here people attempt to make the best of things by
cognitively minimizing the unpleasantness of the situation. In one
experiment, Jack Brehm got children to volunteer to eat a vegetable
they had previously said they disliked a lot. After they had eaten the
vegetable, the experimenter led half of the children to believe they
could expect to eat much more of that vegetable in the future; the
remaining children were not so informed. The children who were led to
believe it was inevitable that they would be eating the vegetable in
the future succeeded in convincing themselves that the vegetable was
not so bad. In short, the cognition "I dislike that vegetable" is
dissonant with the cognition "I will be eating that vegetable in the
future." In order to reduce the dissonance, the children came to
believe the vegetable was really not as noxious as they had previously
thought. John Darley and Ellen Berscheid showed that the same
phenomenon works with people as well as vegetables. In their
experiment, college women volunteered to participate in a series of
meetings in which each student would be discussing her sexual behavior
and sexual standards with another woman whom she didn't know. Before
beginning these discussion sessions, each participant was given two
folders. Each folder contained a personality description of a young
woman who had supposedly volunteered for the same experience; the
descriptions contained a mixture of pleasant and unpleasant
characteristics. Half of the participants were led to believe they
were going to interact with the young women described in folder A, and
the remaining participants were led to believe they were going to
interact with the one described in folder B. Before actually meeting
these women, the participants were asked to evaluate each of them on
the basis of the personality descriptions they had read. Those who
felt it was inevitable that they were going to share their intimate
secrets with the young woman described in folder A found her much more
appealing than the one described in folder B, whereas those who
believed they had to interact with the young woman described in folder
B found her much more appealing. Just as with vegetables,
inevitability makes the heart grow fonder. The knowledge that one is
inevitably going to be spending time with another person enhances the
positive aspects of that person—or at least deemphasizes his or her
negative aspects. In short, people tend to make the best of something
they know is bound to happen.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/

An Example from the Civil Rights decades;
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...81e9ae3bd4cc5e
  #8  
Old January 18th 11, 12:50 PM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,soc.culture.china
Catoni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Could Global Warming be the Savior of Humanity?

On Jan 17, 8:58*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
So, if you're in a loosing situation, like falling from high place
without a parachute, realize that it could be a good thing. *At least,
this will keep your mind busy, until you hit the ground.

On Jan 17, 5:00*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:



Please look at the following two 'versions' of Earth.
One is our past and ...future.


Earth 18,000 years agohttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_glacial_max.html


Earth present dayhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/present_interglacial..html


A Brief History of Ice Ages and Warming


"Except for two relatively brief interglacial episodes, one peaking
about 125,000 years ago (Eemian Interglacial), and the other
beginning about 18,000 years ago (Present Interglacial), the
Earth has been under siege of ice for the last 160,000 years."


The reigning climate pattern is where the Earth spends
roughly 100,000 years in a deep ice age, followed by
a brief period of some 15 or 20 thousand warmer years
where life explodes.


The last ice age ended some.....18,000 years ago....btw.


As far as I know, there's no good explanation for this
ice age cycle. Which would imply....strongly imply..
the cause is some as yet unknown astronomical change.


So when this occurs some century soon, humanity needs
to be ready, and have the ability to quickly and effectively
respond...one way of the other. *Regardless if the future
is too warm, or too cold.


This leads me to what might seem like a contradiction.
I don't believe the current climate change is such a
menace to our future, all things considered. But I do
agree that the world should collectively begin
gaining the ability to manage the biosphere.


Which requires the nations of the world to be able
to manage..themselves..first. The answer to
climate change is...social change.
World-wide freedom and democracy!


Climate change will cause the extinction of
the ...dictatorships of the world.


And to our great benefit!


Imho!


Jonathan


Global Warming a Chilling Perspectivehttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


And Roger Coppock moves from third place up to second place in the Bad
Analogy Championships. Keep up the "good work."
  #9  
Old January 18th 11, 04:26 PM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,soc.culture.china
tooly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Could Global Warming be the Savior of Humanity?

On Jan 17, 10:40*pm, Immortalist wrote:
On Jan 17, 6:00*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message


....


So, if you're in a loosing situation, like falling from high place
without a parachute, realize that it could be a good thing. *At least,
this will keep your mind busy, until you hit the ground.


You only read the subject line, right ~


"people tend to make the best of something they know is bound to
happen"

The Psychology of Inevitability

George Bernard Shaw was hard hit by his father's alcoholism, but he
tried to make light of it. He once wrote: "If you cannot get rid of
the family skeleton, you may as well make it dance." In a sense,
dissonance theory describes the ways people have of making their
skeletons dance—of trying to live with unpleasant outcomes. This is
particularly true when a situation arises that is both negative and
inevitable. Here people attempt to make the best of things by
cognitively minimizing the unpleasantness of the situation. In one
experiment, Jack Brehm got children to volunteer to eat a vegetable
they had previously said they disliked a lot. After they had eaten the
vegetable, the experimenter led half of the children to believe they
could expect to eat much more of that vegetable in the future; the
remaining children were not so informed. The children who were led to
believe it was inevitable that they would be eating the vegetable in
the future succeeded in convincing themselves that the vegetable was
not so bad. In short, the cognition "I dislike that vegetable" is
dissonant with the cognition "I will be eating that vegetable in the
future." In order to reduce the dissonance, the children came to
believe the vegetable was really not as noxious as they had previously
thought. John Darley and Ellen Berscheid showed that the same
phenomenon works with people as well as vegetables. In their
experiment, college women volunteered to participate in a series of
meetings in which each student would be discussing her sexual behavior
and sexual standards with another woman whom she didn't know. Before
beginning these discussion sessions, each participant was given two
folders. Each folder contained a personality description of a young
woman who had supposedly volunteered for the same experience; the
descriptions contained a mixture of pleasant and unpleasant
characteristics. Half of the participants were led to believe they
were going to interact with the young women described in folder A, and
the remaining participants were led to believe they were going to
interact with the one described in folder B. Before actually meeting
these women, the participants were asked to evaluate each of them on
the basis of the personality descriptions they had read. Those who
felt it was inevitable that they were going to share their intimate
secrets with the young woman described in folder A found her much more
appealing than the one described in folder B, whereas those who
believed they had to interact with the young woman described in folder
B found her much more appealing. Just as with vegetables,
inevitability makes the heart grow fonder. The knowledge that one is
inevitably going to be spending time with another person enhances the
positive aspects of that person—or at least deemphasizes his or her
negative aspects. In short, people tend to make the best of something
they know is bound to happen.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/

An Example from the Civil Rights decades;http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...81e9ae3bd4cc5e


But what does all this mean philosophically? So, we lick this energy
crisis. What next? Our time remains limited, though we stretch it
out as much as possible. so, we get to survive another 100 years...or
a thousand...or ten thousand. It remains inevitable that someday,
humanity will be looking at it's last day of existence. Or is this
wrong thinking?

It seems to me we only get a "MOMENT" here...though that moment is not
defined exactly [days, years, or tens of thousands of years?]. But a
moment is still...only momentary.

Does this not change our philosophical purview of things? How does
any creature make the BEST of their moment? By spending it trying to
stretch it out? Perhaps. No one wants to die. It's just a question
I have; perhaps a rehash of the grasshopper versus the ant conundrum?
An old book title written by Robert Heinlein always stuck in my head,
"Time Enough for Love". Not sure if it is applicable, but makes me
think nonetheless.
  #10  
Old January 18th 11, 04:42 PM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.space.policy,alt.philosophy,soc.culture.china
Roy Batty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Could Global Warming be the Savior of Humanity?

So, if you're in a loosing situation,

Also known as the news: "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!"

like falling from high place


Like a white castle.

without a parachute,


Or a government grant.

realize that it could be a good thing.


Nothing is good. Taking a crap is evil on the earth.

*At least, this will keep your mind busy, until you hit the ground.


Don't worry, they'll always be a global crisis to gloat over.

It's part of the bargaining phase.


We're all gonna die one day. Get over it already?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
dinosaur extinction/global cooling &human extinction/global warming 281979 Astronomy Misc 0 December 17th 06 01:05 PM
Solar warming v. Global warming Roger Steer Amateur Astronomy 11 October 20th 05 01:23 AM
Global warming v. Solar warming Roger Steer UK Astronomy 1 October 18th 05 10:58 AM
CO2 and global warming freddo411 Astronomy Misc 314 October 20th 04 09:56 PM
CO2 and global warming freddo411 Policy 319 October 20th 04 09:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.