Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog |
|
| Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 6:39 AM GMT on April 25, 2012 | +14 |
| Permalink | A A A |
|
I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles include ideas from the course. And no tuition!
|
Tropical Blogs
Tropical Weather Stickers®
 |
48 °F
Overcast
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Get Free Weather Stickers® |
 |
Upload Your Photos |
 |
Weather™ API for Developers NEW! |
 |
Become a Site Member |
 |
Find us on Facebook |
 |
Follow us on Twitter |
| Copyright © 2013 Weather Underground, Inc. | About Us - Contact - Support - Employment - Press Releases - Terms of Service - Privacy Statement |
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 — Blog Index
--"However, getting from the stable temperate climate in which our civilizations evolved to a climate where the temperatures are several degrees warmer will be a disruptive path. There will be less land as sea level rises, and since there is a huge concentration along the coasts of the world, there will be huge relocation of people, disruption to nations, and loss of infrastructure. There will be enormous changes in ecosystems and domestic plants and animals... there are cycles and there has been a lot more carbon dioxide in the air, but that has been in the absence of billions of humans, our built environment, and our fragile balances of nations and economies. It is the disruption of the fragile balances of human enterprise where the risk lies"
--"We shape every ecosystem. We consume all forms of energy. Like the balances between plants and animals in the past we change the atmosphere and the ocean. Not only are we a dominate life form, we have this amazing ability to extract rocks and liquids and gas from the Earth and burn it. We have the ability to push around land, to make concrete, to remove mountains, and build islands. We are, therefore, not only biological, we are geological... We are part of the cycle. We don’t simply exist at the mercy of the cycle."
And, IMO, your most excellent point:
--" To me, what makes humans different is we have this ability to accumulate science-based knowledge, which is actionable, which imbues responsibility, which allows us to be different, and to sustain our future."
Some would, of course, shirk that responsibility, and therein lies the rub, doesnt' it?
How sad.
Seldomnever have I seen such wit and wisdom compacted into one perfect sentence. And it's working; your intelligent comment has caused me to rethink my stance on the entire field of climatology. Congrats!BTW: troll much?
Yo bro, I am not making money and I harp so much Ireland made me an honarary leprichan.
What I find more amazing is all the people who harp against global warming never do anything in their life except what makes them feel good. Nary a concern for anyone else and screw the world if it means getting off your comfortable combination barcalounger / sopabox.
2:10 PM GMT on April 25, 2012
Your use of these two words are one of the greatest examples of someone with a superior vocabulary that I have ever seen exhibited anywhere. Your unwillingness to use a complete sentence leaves your words open for interpretation. Would the two words you use be a self description? Should this not be the case, would you care to expand upon your reason for your use of these two words and identify the person they are directed at? A brief summary as to how you arrived at your conclusion would be rather relevant to the discussion.
TemplesofSyrinxC4 - I suspect that the most prominent conspiracy against you is the one you have introduced upon yourself. I believe in being leery, but not to the extent that I would believe that everyone in the world is conspiring against me. My ex-wife may be doing so, but, try as she might, she does not represent everyone else on the planet.
Oh dear, average IQ of deniers on the site just dropped another 10 points!
Xandra, sometimes you are kind, to a near fault. I would consider their drop in IQ, by a mere 10 points, to be too optimistic. Perhaps it is simply your desire that they still would have the ability to claim a double digit IQ? A 20 point drop, in their IQ, would certainly put them at risk of not being able to claim a double digit IQ for themselves. While the true skeptics show they possess sound reasoning ability, "the deniers" show no such abilities at all.
By: Carolyn D. Ruppel (U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA) 2011 Nature Education
Citation: Ruppel, C. D. (2011) Methane Hydrates and Contemporary Climate Change. Nature Education Knowledge 2(12):12
Methane Hydrate Primer
Methane hydrate is an ice-like substance formed when CH4 and water combine at low temperature (up to ~25C) and moderate pressure (greater than 3-5 MPa, which corresponds to combined water and sediment depths of 300 to 500 m). Globally, an estimated 99% of gas hydrates occurs in the sediments of marine continental margins at saturations as high as 20% to 80% in some lithologies; the remaining 1% is mostly associated with sediments in and beneath areas of high-latitude, continuous permafrost (McIver 1981, Collett et al. 2009). Nominally, methane hydrate concentrates CH4 by ~164 times on a volumetric basis compared to gas at standard pressure and temperature. Warming a small volume of gas hydrate could thus liberate large volumes of gas.
A challenge for assessing the impact of contemporary climate change on methane hydrates is continued uncertainty about the size of the global gas hydrate inventory and the portion of the inventory that is susceptible to climate warming. This paper addresses the latter issue, while the former remains under active debate. Dickens (2011) recently estimated 7x102 to 1.27x104 Gt carbon (Gt C) to be sequestered in marine gas hydrates alone, while Shakhova et al. (2010a) estimate 3.75x102 Gt C in methane hydrates just on the East Siberian Arctic shelf (ESAS). A conservative estimate (Boswell & Collett 2011) for the global gas hydrate inventory is ~1.8x103 Gt C, corresponding to CH4 volume of ~3.0x1015 m3 if CH4 density is taken as 0.717 kg/m3. In the unlikely event that 0.1% (1.8 Gt C) of this CH4 were instantaneously released to the atmosphere, CH4
--
Other advocates are making a basic belief based argument that humans are somehow outside of biology and geology of the planet as a whole; that we are not just another age of some dominate life form.
Seems you are (edit) concurring with what I bolded there when you go on to say
To me, what makes humans different is we have this ability to accumulate science-based knowledge, which is actionable, which imbues responsibility, which allows us to be different, and to sustain our future.
Regardless of what has brought mankind and Earth to the relationship perceived at this moment, I doubt we can "sustain our future" as this (edit) Genus/species has done, making, in my mind anyway, the dominant human state biological.
A 40-50 million year old cockroach in Baltic amber
image credit: wiki commons photo by Anders L. Damgaard
Also a couple things I have observed about human nature in general.
~Humans tend to be more reactive than proactive.
~While fear can and does drive human behavior, the two strongest motivators are Love and Money.
This is true, but I was allowing for the true skeptics that do exist elsewhere. ... Overall, I still view overwash12 as someone that is trying to make sense of it all. I will always allow for those that wish to know more before they make a stated commitment. A great way to learn is to get feedback on the, "What if ...." questions you may present.
Good day, Barefoot!
"Thanks for a thought-provoking article - especially the part that postulates mankind is "geological." Considering the vast geology of Earth, not to mention what science says about worlds beyond Earth's atmosphere, I'm not sure the idea of man being geological is logical, and, in a way, this idea perpetuates the attitudes of humans who have been involved in energy conquest since the Industrial Revolution.
Other advocates are making a basic belief based argument that humans are somehow outside of biology and geology of the planet as a whole; that we are not just another age of some dominate life form."
I agree with you that I had never thought of mankind as being geological. The statement did provoke some thought. When you consider that anytime man plants a non native plant then man has began to change the natural geology of the local area. The more aggressive the non native plant is, the more this becomes apparent. When we move to a larger scale, such as filling in a swamp to provide more farmland or housing, then it begins to become more apparent that man changed the natural geology of the area. Man has then become the primary geological factor and has, indeed, become the geology of the area. Also I consider that almost any place we look, on our planet, we will find man. Man, nearly everywhere, has tried to change the local geology to suit man's needs above the interests of anything else. We divert rivers or change their natural flow rates. We build lakes where none had existed before. We clear forests where the forests have long dominated the local geology.
"Regardless of what has brought mankind and Earth to the relationship perceived at this moment, I doubt we can "sustain our future" as this (edit) Genus/species has done, making, in my mind anyway, the dominant human state biological."
The human state is biological and so is the roach. What man does and that the roach does not do is try to change the geology of where it lives. The roach, unlike industrialized man, has always lived its life within the bounds that nature has provided it. Man, on the other hand, has always tried to make changes to feel more comfortable and not to just survive as all of the other species are doing. No other species alive, or has ever lived, on Earth has tried to change the planet for its sole benefit. Man is not just biological. Man is also geological.
"Also a couple things I have observed about human nature in general.
~Humans tend to be more reactive than proactive.
~While fear can and does drive human behavior, the two strongest motivators are Love and Money."
Man tends to be reactive when man should have been proactive. Our own caring for our health is a prime example of this. Many times man will get it wrong as when to be proactive as well. Stopping a river from flooding upstream almost always causes greater harm downstream.
Fear, love and money. I would imagine that most will fear they will never have enough love or money and this is what drives them. When you get to be an old geezer, such as myself, your greatest fear may be that you live too long and see too much. ;-)
Since my IQ is so low, please explain to me why the actual rise in temp is consistently lower than what is predicted by climate models, even though greenhouse gas emissions are consistently higher than anticipated. It seems to me that higher emissions should cause higher than anticipated warming, instead we have large portions of the mid Atlantic states covered in snow in late April...
Xandra never claimed that anyone had a low IQ. Xandra only noted that the average IQ of the deniers, on this site, has dropped another 10 points. Should the average IQ of the denier had been 160, before the latest 10 point drop, then the average IQ of the denier would still be above the average IQ among all of the population. I, on the other hand, suggested that the starting IQ was much, much, much lower than 160.
Show me your evidence that observed global temps are consistently lower than the models' probabilities of what they could be. Please, no Anthony Watts reproduced articles. I do give you considerable credit for your noting that the temps have actually risen and have not remained flat or fallen. This alone should place with an IQ trending towards triple digits.
Snow in April? Over a large part of the east coast? Well, as you should know, this would be regional weather and not global climate. What about the month of March and the record breaking heat over most of the U.S.? Does this count as global warming, or is it just a regional weather event? ..... When you start putting all these regional weather extremes together across the globe then you will start seeing a global trend. Now that is a link to a change in the global climate.
Show me your evidence that observed global temps are consistently lower than the models' probabilities of what they could be.
What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years. Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere, compiled at the University of Alabama from NASA satellite data, can be found at the website http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperat ures/. The latest (February 2012) monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees Celsius, slightly less than the average since the satellite record of temperatures began in 1979.
The lack of any statistically significant warming for over a decade has made it more difficult for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its supporters to demonize the atmospheric gas CO2 which is released when fossil fuels are burned. The burning of fossil fuels has been one reason for an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to around 395 ppm (or parts per million), up from preindustrial levels of about 280 ppm.
source: The Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304 636404577291352882984274.html
You oughta see what the other guys get paid, the ones who argue that nothing's happening; and if something is happening, it's not our fault; and if it is our fault, there's nothing we can do about anyway; and if there is something we can do, then it's probably a marxist, socialist, atheist, communist solution that will enslave us all.
Those who repeat that get paid pretty well by their employers. Of course, those employers make tens of billions of dollars every year, so it's chump change to them.
I'll tell you what: I'm not going to respond to your paranoid, nonsensical ravings on this board. I simply won't pollute Professor Rood's blog with political tripe. Instead, I will do something that I have never before done -- I'll actually write something in my blog. I'll probably do that tomorrow since I've had a busy couple of days and I'm too tired to tackle that steaming pile tonight.
When I post it, I'll notify you, Temples.
There is a second, subtler reason that you don't see true skeptics in AGW discussions. That reason very simply is because true skeptics are interested in reaching sound conclusions based upon the available evidence. Such people inevitably change their minds when they read that evidence. (That is what happened with me.) It is their true skepticism that forces them to accept the fact of AGW.
That leaves only fake skeptics (denialists) to blather on about UN, climatology, marxist plots.
Zing!
Outstanding article, Professor.
And outstanding come back. 8^D
I like that answer, in marketing the key to selling your product is to convince the buyer that they need a product or service, that lack of said product or service will result in a negative consequence, i.e. without "Gatorade" you will be less productive and more thirsty. In actuality you will be better hydrated if you drink water.
You are right Rookie. I thought for a moment that they still would have the ability to a double digit IQ but now afterwards, when I have checked the reality, I realize that it was an unrealistic thinking. 20 points is more realistic ;)
Btw. In 2010, I did a little research about the Arctic sea ice extent, and also a research about how quickly the logical thinking may disappear in deniers. I used Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts/WUWT in my research and what I found was that their ability to think logically correlated well with the decline of the sea ice extent. Very fascinating!
After the minimum in September 2010, the Arctic sea ice increased again, but Bastardi and Watts never managed to get back that little (very very little) logical thinking they once had.
When I checked the Arctic sea ice minimum 2011, I discovered that their logical thinking had been stuck on that very low level. Maybe the year 2010 was a tipping point year for Bastardi and WUWT? Yes, I think so.
click to enlarge
:)
First of all, the way you placed this in your comment, it's not clear (to me anyway) this part is not something I wrote but is quoting Ricky Rood from the blog article: "Other advocates are making a basic belief based argument that humans are somehow outside of biology and geology of the planet as a whole; that we are not just another age of some dominate life form."
For me, this statement from Dr. Rood did not flow well into his statement: "To me, what makes humans different is we have this ability to accumulate science-based knowledge, which is actionable, which imbues responsibility, which allows us to be different, and to sustain our future." The two bolded parts didn't flow together because the second bold, to my mind, illustrates a concept "that humankind is not just another age of some dominate(sic) life form" - what he said they said. lol Dr. Rood's statement "we don't have to be destined to destroy our future" also illustrates this concept because it suggests we can change or control what is happening and other dominant life forms could not.
So, Dr Rood, are we not just another age of some dominant life form, or are we? And if we are, do humans really have capabilities to manage nature in ways previous dominant life forms did not have?
And, Rookie - Still, the concept of Homo sapiens as a geological being does not compute. Why your argument does not ease my doubt the Human is geologic...
The butterfly effect. Did herds of grazing buffalo change geology? Would their absence have? Why is mankind here if he is not meant to behave as he does?
Planting English holly or non-native blackberries can change the flora and fauna in a Doug fir and cedar forest, but I don't get how that would change geology. Less rotting cedar on the forest floor? More rotting cedar?
Sure, dams have effects. Migrating fish come to mind. Yet, plenty other fish live behind those dams. Maybe over a real long haul, a canyon would not form or soil would not deposit where it might have been. And look at man's relationship with the Mississippi River.
Considered within the large existence of the Earth and worlds beyond the atmosphere, which is the context I mentioned, even with human penchants for mining and pouring concrete, mankind's effect on Earth's geology seems minimal on mineral - in the animal, vegetable, or mineral sense. Animal and vegetable life including his own, man has manipulated far more. Does that make man god-like?
Yep, cockroaches survive whatever nature throws their way. They accept their place as biological beings. Mankind, with the exception of what one might call "aboriginal peoples," has not been willing to do this.
Man, as he walks the Earth, is (edit) biological. Until he dies and his body is buried, he is (edit) biological. After that, parts of his body may become geologic. The rest of his being never will be.
Ah. Acting out of fear may generate Money, but it will not bring Love.
:)
And, c'mon. You know you want to live long enough to see what happens in the next couple decades at least. I do.
Many humans do not even think about the questions raised here. And in future many more may not because they are too busy trying to survive. There is so much human suffering in this world right now, I feel kinda guilty sitting here typing a silly comment on the internet.
These gases, and many more like them, are poured into the atmosphere everyday by volcanism and natural earth outgasing. However climate change enthusiasts tend to curb the conversation towards human production of CO2 thereby diminishing the perceived importance of other greenhouse gases.
I am not attempting to sway anyone away from green living, or social activism, however I find it disturbing when people are led to believe that it is "Unequivocal" that human production of CO2 is the source of climate change when there has yet to be a single climate change model that accurately depicts temperature sway.
"What people need to understand is that throughout modern history tyranny has almost always been initially introduced by people that believed that they had "good intentions".
And how did we find ourselves here today?
Don't preoccupy their "focused" minds with inconvenient facts. Ask them why global temperature (as if it can actually be realistically calculated) hasn't followed the "exponential" increase in CO2. In fact, as little as they like to admit, the incalculable global temperature has remained relatively flat.
1. William Happer is a professed skeptic concerning the current climate-change.
2. William Harper's article is using Dr. Roy Spencer's satellite data and I am almost certain that it has been shown that Dr. Spencer misrepresents the satellite data.
3. William Happer's article states that a doubling of the CO2 would cause a warming of 1 degree Celsius. Since we have not yet managed to double the CO2 levels, then this is still a future probability and is not a today reality. - "The direct warming due to doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be calculated to cause a warming of about one degree Celsius. The IPCC computer models predict a much larger warming, three degrees Celsius or even more, because they assume changes in water vapor or clouds that supposedly amplify the direct warming from CO2. Many lines of observational evidence suggest that this "positive feedback" also has been greatly exaggerated." - How can William Happer make any claims towards this when the CO2 level is currently well below a doubling? When we reach 560 ppm of CO2 then we will be able to see what the actual rise in temp will be. ... I can hardly wait to see who is correct. NOT!
With our current and comparatively rapid warming of our climate we have been lucky enough to not experience a year after year continuous rise in temperature. Think of where we would be now if had been. A ten year period of less warming does not make a trend. Scientist look at thirty years of data before they note a trend. There have always been peaks and valleys in short term movements. Do you look at today being cooler than yesterday and declare a 5 degree global cooling?
"The lack of any statistically significant warming for over a decade has made it more difficult for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its supporters to demonize the atmospheric gas CO2 which is released when fossil fuels are burned. The burning of fossil fuels has been one reason for an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to around 395 ppm (or parts per million), up from preindustrial levels of about 280 ppm." - Yes, I agree. When the global temperature has not already exceeded even the most devout denier's expectations, then it becomes difficult to convince others when there has been peaks and valleys in the warming. ... Let us say that your car's transmission begins to slip when you drive at 30 mph (miles per hour). The mechanic drives the car, but he never reaches 30 mph during the test drive. He drives it at 10 mph, then 5 mph, then 20 mph, then 28 mph and then 15 mph. He comes back from the test drive and declares that the transmission is not slipping. Now, just through conversation, convince the mechanic that the transmission is slipping. Let me know how you make out with that conversation. Oh! Make sure you show the mechanic your notepad where you have documented every time the transmission slipped while you were driving the car. That should convince someone that does not want to know the facts!
Water may hydrate you better, but water only helps to wash out more of the electrolytes that your body loses through sweating. You must also replace the electrolytes you lose or you will still be in trouble. Do you now know why professional athletes drink Gatorade instead of water when they practice their sweaty sport? Just as when you want knowledge on our climate, it always best to gain your knowledge from a Climatologist than it is from an Oceanographer. The Oceanographer can give you some insight on climate change, but not the more complete knowledge that a Climatologist can.
Read my previous posts, I have tried, but the fear-mongers make it very difficult to talk sense, I particularly enjoyed the guy who said ZING! lol, as if Mr. Rood had even answered my question, but all you ever get with these people are circular arguments and the feeling that they think they have all the answers, even when they cant program a decent model.
"And I find it interesting that all these nut jobs that are still harping on about it all seem to be making money off of it, like this guy, what is "climate change problem solving" and how did you manage to get payed for teaching it?"
Hmmmm... You come in to the forum for Dr. Rood's very well-written blog, call him a "nut job" who's "harping", and snidely ask how he "manages" to get paid for teaching climate science. Personally, I would have given you an entirely different answer, but Dr. Rood, being more mature and astute than I am, answered you with much more detail than your insult deserved. (Or to put it another way, he answered you with two words, but not the two words I myself would have used.)
Now, when Dr. Rood stated, "Market forces", he was tersely and succinctly explaining that because he has a salable commodity that's in demand--deep knowledge of earth's climate system, and ways we may prevent ourselves from screwing it up--people are willing to pay him. (It's a great system called "capitalism"; Google it sometime.) Whether or not you're capable of understanding it, "market forces" was, then, an entirely satisfactory answer.
Now, you clearly came here to troll. And that's okay, up to a point. But you should know--if you haven't figured it out already--that you won't find much traction here for your ad hominems or tired denialist blather. You won't be able to respond to peer-reviewed science with op-ed pieces from the Wall Street Journal. You won't find a safe soapbox from which to spout debunked inanities. You won't be able to get away with merely cutting and pasting passages from denialist sources, because we've seen every single one of them. And you certainly won't be able to get away with insulting the blog's owner by couching it in the form of a question.
So man-up. Please. Ask respectful questions, and throw down respectful challenges, and I can promise you you'll receive respectful answers. And if you don't do that?
Aye, pobrecito... ;-)
So far as the natural outgassing of CO2, it's estimated that there'd have to be the equivalent of two Mt. Pinatubo-sized eruptions every day, 365 days a year, to equal what we pump into the atmosphere via the burning of fossil fuels.
The 'fingerprints' of warming induced by human-caused CO2 were found long ago, and they are legion. That's not in dispute among credible scientists, and hasn't been for years.
I never really associated logical thinking with Watts and Bastardi. These two are world class cherry pickers and, as we well know, there is not any logical thought processes associated with cherry pickers. Their more reasoned thought is if the cherry is yet ripe for the picking. As we have discovered, they seldom can even choose a ripe cherry. ;-)
Mostly runaway capitalism and authoritarianism, with a dash of imperialism thrown in to make it look important.
Your evidence that the temperature has "remained relatively flat" is...what?
Carbonyl Sulfide? Carbon disulfide? Yeah, they've been studied. Do you have any evidence that either or both are responsible for the current warming?
I think I have to take issue with you here. Dr. Spencer does indeed misrepresent the satellite data in blogs and interviews. However, as near as anyone can tell that data is fairly accurate. IOW, he does decent science but is atrocious when not subject to peer review.
Disregard this post if that is what you meant. The rest of your post I quite liked. 8^D
I forgot to say in my previous post that the level Bastardi and Watts were at, in the beginning of 2010, was already very very low and just 0.1%. ;)
click to enlarge
Dude (or dudette, no disrespect intended), you were trying to be cute and got zinged by Dr. Rood. Live with it.
If you think that something is wrong with the models...well, that's fine. It's your right. If you hope to convince anyone else -which I presume is your intent in posting- then you are going to have to provide some verifiable, relevant, and in-context evidence. Otherwise, you will be stating nothing but your feelings, which are of no consequence.
Good thing you didn't test it against Arctic sea ice volume!
I'm actually going to have to push this back a day at least as it requires me to actually read the UN document. That weighs in at 208 pages, so it'll take me at least another day to finish reading and then point out how silly your source is.
Thank you for clarifying this. Yes, this is what I meant.
That's what I figured -that I was reading it wrong.
Any one of those people that died could have been a husband or a wife or a child. How much money went into that person. If it was a husband, he probably had countless tears and love poured on him and money to get him through school and many hours to earn his money and keep. All of that time and money wasted because he breathed the wrong particles at the wrong times and nobody cared. How many widows broke apart and drank too much to soothe the pain? What about the kids?
Rood points out rightfully that science-based knowledge is one of the things about humanity that makes it so dominant on the planet. Our brain weight to body weight ratio is favorable, but more than that, the human brain (through millions of years of trial and error) gives us the kind of social intelligence that has allowed us to excel where other animals don't. For example, our long-term memory appears to be more developed than is found in other primates. We're lucky to be where we're at, given that it's mostly trial and error. Without being able to sample other planet's histories, we cannot really say how much credit we deserve for our status. I see the whole thing as a lottery, frankly. If you take away our schools and our books and our libraries and our stores of knowledge then we're not much more than monkeys. In fact, chimps have performed better on many short-term memory tests and raw physical strength. Without all our facts and social intelligence, we're weaklings by comparison in the struggle to survive.
What happens if we finely control this planet and our activities on it through the use of science-based knowledge? I won't go into the specifics of controlling nature, but I bet somebody else as. My roundabout opinion is that finely controlling nature will put us into a situation where hte entire planet is a spaceship and we're the zookeepers. Gone are the days when animals roamed wild on an expansive, lush world. This is foreseeable today, and it progressively grows more obvious with each iteration.
So the earth will increasingly resemble a spaceship. Whatcha think?
My most important point is that zookeeping on our planetary spaceship is not sufficient for our species to survive. Nowhere have I seen Rood cover this (evolutionary?) issue. One of the reasons AGW is even a problem is because there're seven billion humans. Humans expand. That's what they do. We're biology. When we come upon the limits of living on this planet, there will be problems. But if man was meant to stay on this planet then it's doubtful he would have had visions of space flight or be enamored by the unknown (for that matter). If we do not leave the planet in some way in the next few centuries, much of the fears about tomorrow (including AGW) are correct. Present attitudes in academia are that we must restrict our activities on the planet and micromanage all its affairs to prevent potential extinction. I think where I specifically disagree with this attitude is that (by itself) it can sustain our species. Without expansion into space or into other places not presently inhabited by humans, humanity will shrivel up and die, once and for all. No amount of science will save him. Expansions is in our dna.
So as part of his survival strategy for humanity, Ricky needs to consider the importance of exploration and expansion into new territory not presently settled.
Link
Evidence is everywhere. Tell the glaciers and arctic ice that the temperature data is manipulated. Maybe they will stop melting.
Viewing: 1 - 51
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 — Blog Index