What Do We Think About Climate Change

Rawenniyo raweghniseronnyh, so be grateful.

 

Akwekon wakyen' tsi katon' ken?

 

that first is pretty common saying so I recognized it without to much trouble

but that last didn't make much sense

something about education and good food and do I understand

were did you dig it up at cause there only a few sites that note my language

most of which I have forgotten

embarrassing enough as it is to admit

 

I think he meant Brent Swain, not Barbara Streisand...

 

Enjoy

Part one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME

Part two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpX-Kae00s8&feature=player_embedded#!

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BJrdSRDVlQ&feature=related

part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf6C0cMq3RU&feature=related

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkSmdaLkd60&feature=related

Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlSSwErKWQs&feature=related

Part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efxToyX5cPw

Part 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGZ1bHo6jR0&feature=related

Part 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzLm7glWwzs

Part 10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2g9pFqCiqI

 

Boston, please visit this site. It is Khenoronhstennis: http://ihss.kisikew.org/eng/i.html

 

Gayogoho:no

I'm Cayuga
its one of the six nations within the haudenosaunee (Iroquois) confederacy

I suppose I should stick to something that is actually my own language cause the last one I used was Potawattomie which is close but not quite, what it is is easier to look up and translate one way or the other

there are only a few hundred people who still speak Gayogoho but there is a dictionary available, two actually one older and less complete and one more modern but less accurate.

I guess I'm a bit preocupied with waiting on an answer on the offer I put in on the boat
the waiting is driving me nuts actually

that and its kinda nerve-wracking cause its a huge life altering move as well as a big financial commitment in financially uncertain times
if i'm not careful I could be flipping burgers to pay dock fee's

 

speaking of other mitigating factors and something to keep myself occupied till tomorrow when should be finding out about the offer I have in

 

Sounds to me like we should get a massive methane digester programme running over there. Free (or nearly free) power for everyone! (ok ok, it would be a lot of work, but if co2 is bad, methane is much worse, which is why it makes sense to burn it rather than let it go to waste otherwise, better to store it but yeah, same goes for trees, better to burn them or use the wood than let them rot and ferment in the forrest.)

On the other side of things I have seen some pretty cool proposals for gas entrainment at the bottom of the ocean, if we wanted to we could just get some really big plastic baggies and put them on the ocean floor and pump them full of co2, methane, propane, other stuff... pressure and temperature of the ocean keeps them compressed or liquified.

 

Sounds like we had better get a handle on emissions. Collecting all the dead wood is impractical and would disrupt the nutrient cycle leading to more losses. Burning methane would work but collecting it from such vast and inhospitable environs is also impractical.

that last bit must have been off the cuff cause methane hydrate is what you would end up with and its extremely unstable stuff. the slightest disturbance can cause catastrophic phase change. Not something you want to have an accident with. You would be hard pressed to maintain methane in liquid form by trying to balance ocean temp and depth.

sorry but those ideas just dont sound very practical

the point of the article is that by altering the chemistry of the atmosphere with CO2 we just might have let the cat out of he bag so to speak. This Methane issue just could be step one of the runaway effect

 

Correct, they are all impractical sort of like any of the "solutions" proposed by the proponents of AGW theory. Even if we turn off every piece of modern industrialization it will amount to about nothing.

If there is any solution to be had it will be with über-tech that is yet to be invented, or revisited tech like thorium nuclear reactors. I propose sending your kiddies to school for physics, chemical engineering, or similar and have them go to work for big oil, big power, DARPA, CERN or any of the other similar groups who are actually inventing über-tech that will change the future for the better.


(also methane hydrate should be stable regardless of temp if you put it deep enough)

 

incorrect
although the solutions you presented were impractical many of the solutions being presented by the world community are highly practical and would likely benefit a far larger percentage of the population than the simply maintaining the status quo and running the planet off a cliff

short term climate forcing agents is the one are we have our best shot at altering

the technology to make these changes is here and now and this fallacy that we must wait for an effective solution is yet another ploy of misinformation from the oil and gas industry

yes but you were talking liquid methane as if we were going to be using it for fuel

step one of any solution is to stop politicizing science and face the truth

we are altering the atmospheric chemistry
and its leading to the fastest most dramatic warming trend ever seen

immediate action is imperative if we want to mitigate effects which will adversely effect us all

 

The scariest thing about AGW theory are the "solutions" people are talking about. I think that our knowledge of climate science is nowhere strong enough that we should listen to some of the crazy people who are in their own words advocating terraforming the planet that we live on.

If that is the plan than perhaps the first and foremost thing that we should do is colonize the moon or mars before dumping iron dust in the ocean, seeding the atmosphere with aerosols, burning the entire globes worth of sulphur etc.

If I were to bet any of those ridiculous ideas would make the imagined doomsday closer to reality than doing nothing.

 

didn't you just suggest covering the ocean floor with more plastic and trying to capture methane seepage

the simple reality is there are far less difficult proposals

some teen age kid discovered the operating mechanism that is now being used in developing artificial trees ( there is really not much to develop as the technology is so simple its spooky )

no new technology is needed as old oil wells could be used as the needed reservoir

the simple solution is staring us in the face

if any company wants to drill for oil they have to build x number of artificial trees and pump x amount of CO2 down the hole when they are done

its a simple mater of making the companies that produced the problem responsible for cleaning it up or for paying someone else to do it

preferably the later

and that is just one simple solution that requires no great level of technology and its ready to go now

only thing holding us back is some few who benefit from the oil and gas industry or those few who buy into there diatribe

once again we must stop these attempts to politicize the science and face the reality of having altered the atmospheric chemistry

we have a scientific consensus
now to gain the public ( which is happening but slowly )
then we can move on to a solution

its a step by step process which begins with education

eventually if we act soon enough we may be able to save something of our dying planet

not sure we can save the oceans but the surface life forms have a chance if we act fast

in case your wondering about that oceans comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fRPiNcikOU&feature=related

 

Collecting/compressing/transporting all that CO2, has no environmental footprint. Nor does keeping al those oil wells pressurized with a water/c02 slurry where geothermal or tectonic activity could cause a breach causing all that mess to rapidly gasify and explode all the remaining petroleum goodies out into the ocean or otherwise making the recent disasters look mild. (ok I am being dramatic, but you see my point right? nothing is perfect.)

Artificial trees? whats the point, why not plant more real ones

I am all for planting trees and other green things everywhere, even where we (environmentalist zealots) think they shouldn't grow. (like california's central valley).

This is a great article how Charles Darwin terraformed Ascension island from a desert wasteland to a tropical paradise. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/509247-charles-darwin-s-ecological-experiment-on-ascension-isle

I would not at all be opposed to doing this to our deserts and other dry lands.