Gas prices in 2012? At least $4?

[Ladogaboy]

Originally Posted by sheepdog 44

Just on this point:
I would say that millennial long Climate change would be the major factor. Over the time span it can turn plains into desserts and back again. However there is a very valid point that animals can have a significant effect between transitions of grassy or scrub land into desserts. I saw a documentary years ago that i can't recall about an invasive mouse like species i believe in australia. They would eat the seeds of the plants and burrow into the ground disrupting the soil. Of course without natural predators things get out of hand. And year after year you get miles of the ecosystem collapsing into desert. Eradicating the animal saw a rebound of the grassy scrubland into its natural range.

Small things like that can have a big impact on emergent species in transition zones. And the difference between zones will dramatically affect water and temperature. Any foriegn thing that does something unatural to the environment can do this, be it livestock or agricultural practices. I doubt killing buffalo contributed to the dustbowl in any meaningful way over the way it was farmed. However even the buffalo had their place in the health of the plains and predators. Also the plains are not a transitional zone into you get far into the west.

I agree, but especially in the case of the Sahara, animals could not be responsible for the reduction in rainfall over the last 10,000 years. Likewise, neither could fossil fuels. It was caused by a shift in the Earth's axis and exposure to the Sun.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

A while back on another form a person and I spent some time calculating how much of the warming since the 1970’s we were responsible for. Mind you our calculations have an absolutely huge amount of uncertainty but we felt that our calculations were more accurate than the ones the IPCC gave us.

So think about that for a minute. You yourself admit that your calculations have a huge amount of uncertainty, yet you're going to completely ignore the part of the range that you don't "feel" is right. Are we perhaps indulging in just a tiny bit of wishful thinking here?

Now this may come as a huge shock to you, but the universe just doesn't give a damn about what you feel. It's gonna do what it's gonna do, according to the laws of physics & chemistry, and the best you can do is a) try to understand those laws and their consequences; b) when you don't completely understand, prepare for the worst. If that's what happens, you'll be ready. If not, you can congratulate yourself on having lucked out - this time.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Ladogaboy

I agree, but especially in the case of the Sahara, animals could not be responsible for the reduction in rainfall over the last 10,000 years.

Sure they could, if you understand what's going on. Simplified a bit (and you're perfectly welcome to do background research to fill in the details), a grassland traps moisture and is cooler than bare dirt, which captures more heat from the sun than plants - something you can experience for yourself if you've ever spent time in the country in the summer, and noticed that it's cooler when you're driving by pastures than plowed fields. All else being equal, you will get more rain from a given air mass when it's cooler.

So when a humid air mass swept across a grassland-covered Sahara, it'd drop X amount of rain (or dew etc). Pass that same air mass over the Sahara after grazing has denuded it of vegetation, and it'll drop only a fraction of the amount of rain, which isn't enough to allow a vegetation cover to re-establish itself.

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

So think about that for a minute. You yourself admit that your calculations have a huge amount of uncertainty, yet you're going to completely ignore the part of the range that you don't "feel" is right. Are we perhaps indulging in just a tiny bit of wishful thinking here?

Now this may come as a huge shock to you, but the universe just doesn't give a damn about what you feel. It's gonna do what it's gonna do, according to the laws of physics & chemistry, and the best you can do is a) try to understand those laws and their consequences; b) when you don't completely understand, prepare for the worst. If that's what happens, you'll be ready. If not, you can congratulate yourself on having lucked out - this time.

As I also stated if we were responsible for 97% (IPCC) you wouldn't be able to see a cooling during the low in the 11 year solar cycle. It would just slow down a little but continue warming. I didn't say we didn't have an effect, and unlike many of those that preach the doom and gloom I have stated up front that there is a lot of uncertanty.

There has already been at least 1 mass histeria event where the world was comming to an end and we had to prepare for the worst in my liftime, I think there were 2 but I can only remember the y2k one. You can beleive this is the world comming to an end if you want to just don't rub it in my face if you want me to cooperate. There are many other good reasons with very noticable effects to support higher efficiency, lower emissions, and recycling.

Jumping without thinking things through is only going to make matters worse. Many of the things people do on this site are resonable improvements, sure some take things too far but overall this site is very good source of information.

[suspectnumber961]

In the end I think you have to resort to facts?

* humans have caused degradation of the planet and biosphere....just look around.

* humans are at least partially responsible for global warming...which is only part of that degradation.

* part of what needs to be done is to "offset" the ignorance of the "weiny-head" faction that doesn't want to take responsibility and basically wants to dig a deeper hole.

* individuals can do some things...as most on this forum are probably at least attempting to some extent...but overall govt policies (corporate policies) are the major player as far as results.

If you don't believe that global warming is "real"...thanks in part to The Heritage Foundation...then you will be voting to ignore the issue...shaping govt/corporate policies.

At this point you become the problem.

....

Eventually humans will have to reduce their numbers and impact on the planet...or they will be forced to. But how do you suppose this likely to play out?

Just take the recent economic meltdown (ongoing) for your answer.

Reality is that for the most part...nothing will likely be done until the first serious tipping point occurs?

WHY? Cause humans as a group ARE dumber than yeast.

And that is a FACT.

And in the end I think you have to resort to facts?

[beatr911]

Check point:
Saw $3.97 for regular on the way to work this morning. Our state has very high gas taxes though and we are usually above the national average for gasoline.

Invest in 250cc motorcycles to sell this spring!

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

As I also stated if we were responsible for 97% (IPCC) you wouldn't be able to see a cooling during the low in the 11 year solar cycle.

You're wrong. Learn something about the science, and you'll know why.

There has already been at least 1 mass histeria event where the world was comming to an end and we had to prepare for the worst in my liftime, I think there were 2 but I can only remember the y2k one.

And why do you suppose that the world didn't come to an end because of Y2K? Because a lot of smart people took the "mass histeria" seriously, and spent years working their butts off to find and fix the problems before they happened.

Jumping without thinking things through is only going to make matters worse.

Yet you'd rather sit and not think at all?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

* humans have caused degradation of the planet and biosphere....just look around.

* humans are at least partially responsible for global warming...which is only part of that degradation.

* part of what needs to be done is to "offset" the ignorance of the "weiny-head" faction that doesn't want to take responsibility and basically wants to dig a deeper hole.

* individuals can do some things...as most on this forum are probably at least attempting to some extent...but overall govt policies (corporate policies) are the major player as far as results.

I tend to agree with the parts quoted above, but the question remains; how big of a problem is global warming, and what steps are reasonable to combat it?

The implication that most are concerned with is that global warming will make the environment unpleasant, possibly dangerous, and less economically prosperous for humans. In other words, people are concerned with people-caused global warming because it affects the well-being of people.

If our underlying concern is for people, then we must be most attentive to appropriating resources to areas that do the greatest good for the longest period of time. Expensive projects such as the Kyoto Protocol cost a lot of money, but likely have an extremely low impact on the welfare of the people. The resources that might be spent fulfilling the Kyoto agreement would be better spent on things that would provide a direct improvement to human wellness, such as combating AIDS, treating malaria, and establishing farms where starvation persists.

Might things be worse for people a hundred years from now when the temperatures are a couple degrees warmer - perhaps. Are people needlessly suffering right now who can be helped with relatively less effort - certainly.

Eventually humans will have to reduce their numbers and impact on the planet...or they will be forced to. But how do you suppose this likely to play out?

...

Reality is that for the most part...nothing will likely be done until the first serious tipping point occurs?

It seems you acknowledge that individual effort is mostly a lost cause until the masses adopt it. Why be concerned with saving a gallon of petroleum that is sure to be consumed by someone else, apart from personal economics? Sanity requires accepting that which cannot or will not be changed.

[gone-ot]

..."aiding & abetting" is just about as guilty as "perpetrating"...the only difference is "by how much"?

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

You're wrong. Learn something about the science, and you'll know why.



And why do you suppose that the world didn't come to an end because of Y2K? Because a lot of smart people took the "mass histeria" seriously, and spent years working their butts off to find and fix the problems before they happened.



Yet you'd rather sit and not think at all?

So I spent a few years reading up and studying the science behind global warming, and have come to a slightly different conclusion than "the we are responsible for all of it" means I don't know science.

Because I was actually tasked with checking some of our hardware to make sure it would still work after the new year, all the while people were blowing their savings preparing for the end of technology. Yes certain industries (banking) had to make sure their systems were fixed, but the vast majority would do what one of our systems did by giving a date of 19100, because the date was actually in binary they wouldn't have problems until 2027. Even then you could just adjust the clock. But you couldn't tell anybody that they shouldn't worry, that their car would still run, that the lights would still turn on. Nope they insisted that everything would just shut down, even when I pointed out that their 20 year old car didn't even have a computer. (yes for real)

No I would rather think things out rationally come up with solutions that will actually work, especially considering human nature of most of the population. Most people are resistant to change, sometimes you have to sneak it up on them, make changes without them noticing, convince them on another reason, etc... Heck the price of gas is doing more for the environment than all the environmental brow beating I have been seeing.

I have acknowledged that global warming is happening, and that our emissions are most likely a large contributor to it. Can you show me any scientific evidence whatsoever that it is going to be disastrous?