Lauren
-
Posts
7,112 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Lauren
-
-
I onions you not a couple of houses over the road have lost many many tiles and squall isn't here yet!
I'm assuming i'll know when it hits!
-
Have a look here on the free radar!
-
Coast have a look at the radar. there is white almost all down the centre of the squal line!
-
Is that going to hit me Coast at work in maidstone?
-
We haven't had the squall line yet here.
I've got my phone out ready to film. We only have single glazing here at work. Eeeeeekk!
-
It's not just one person though, it is the best sceintific knowledge we have that says we are the most intelligent species.
Of course other animals are intelligent. Hell, scientists now reckon an octopus is more clever than a 10 year old and i certainly don't deny that other species aren't super intelligent. As you say we have the intellect to understand what we are doing and the consequences of our actions, thus we should also be clever enough to limit the negative effects of our actions.
-
Just as i think it's dying down it picks up again even worse.
The house over the road has lost its porch roof and several fences are down.
-
Very windy in the early hours through until now. Highest gust was 58mph.
How come they close the dartford bridge in weather like this, but not the M2 bridge? is it a matter of height?
-
All species are inteligent.
Yes, but some more than others. Science shows that we are very likely the most intelligent species on this planet. As such we should be intelligent enough to know and understand our impact on our environment. It does not take a rocket scientist to grasp the notion that by looking after what is essentially our survival, the best we can (not saying you can't drive etc) is the best option for the continuation of our species.
Other 'higher' species like farm animals, chimps etc do not understand the effect their behaviour has on the environment outside their own little bubble.
Hell, even Darwin acknowledges this and says in a roundabout way a species key to evolution is progressing in it's own evolution whilst balancing the nature of it's surroundings.
-
No Village, you are being purposefully facetious now.
By higher species, I mean intelligence, awareness of our actions etc.
But you knew that.
-
You were drunk?
Nope definitely a mixture of clouds in the sky. I wanted to take a picture but didn't have my phone with me.
-
But, unlike most life, we have the ability to see (and foresee) the consequences of our actions and to decide which actions we take. It makes us a little different.
Of course, many choose to ignore the consequences of their actions in their own trivial pursuit of imaginary wealth and power.
Although some later put that 'wealth and power' to different use:
World pays Ecuador not to extract oil from rainforest
Is it better to make money destroying the rainforest, or to spend money preserving it for future generations (who will, of course, then face the same dilema) ?
This, absolutely. I also tried to quote Boar on the last page under Village's reply to me but it wouldn't let me.
I think it's very dangerous to think that we should be able to carry on doing what we are doing simply because we are part of nature. Being the higher species that we are we should use what nature gave us to improve our world. To say we cannot control our actions or consequences of, is simply not true.
Do you have to be so patronising Village?
-
You see; you continue to use the word "destructive"..... I dont subscribe to that.
I dont feel guilty because I have just as much right to be here in my present form as any other living thing. When I loose the ability to continually fashion carbon molecules into my persona then other life forms will take my place.
OK, you wanted me to name one species on this planet that is more destructive and whose actrions have greater consequences than humans. There are many, but the most obvious;
Bacteria
How can you not think dumping waste into oceans and cutting down rainforest etc etc isn't destructive? I'm being serious, explain that to me.
I'm not saying you should feel guilty for existing, but you SHOULD feel guilty for not doing the best you can for the planet you live on.
You're right bacteria is destructive, but I question whther it is as destructive towards the environment which is what my question was aimed at.
-
What an odd concoction of clouds we had this morning. I simply looked up and could see a mixture of mackerel sky, mammatus and cumulus.
When you have many different cloud types in the sky all at once what exactly does this mean?:
-
Will do. ta.
Are they easy to work as i am quite the technology dunce?
-
Chucking it down here.
-
Tis a tad gusty today!
-
When we've plundered every raw resource this planet has to offer - which is axiomatic, unlike the notion of sustainability, which frankly seems to me to be an idiopathic oxymoron - what happens then? The nth degree of arguing this has to be that the best way to cease polluting our planet is to cease to exist. Or, perhaps, selectively breed human beings based on some nominal sense of what gives value to society with the effect of disallowing existence to those of no perceived worth thus limiting the size of the human race, therefore limiting our consumption. I cannot, I will not, subscribe to that point of view. That, to me, is a horror story of magnanimous proportions.
So where are we, then? Well, we must attempt - and I say attempt because it is virtually impossible by reason of the laws of physics - to limit all forms of pollution that we emit: that includes CO2. Even if one does not subscribe to the apocalyptic high end scenarios, it is surely wise, on the basis of the precautionary principle alone, to do this. But make no bones about it, this action is about kicking the proverbial can down to the road for someone else to pick up. For someone else to fix. For someone else to suffer.
So, I beg of you, please let's drop the term sustainable. It is, frankly, and if you'll excuse the obtuseness, a bloody lie.
This is my point really. I acknowledge we are now too big as a species to be able to exist in balance and we will gradually be our own demise, but that's not to say we can't limit the rate at which we do this. We can't reverse the process but we can slow it right down and that can only be a good thing.
Sustainable is perhaps the wrong word, maybe an addition of 'more' to the front of it would be better? We should find ways of more sustainable fishing, more sustainable resource use than we have at present.
-
In your opinion you think we are destructive....I am interested in how this thought entered your mind..so please explain why you use the term destruction when all we do is no more and no less than eny other living thing?
When you eat your meat and three veg, do you really believe you are being destructive simply because you have altered the molecular structure of carbon molecules?
If thats the case then why dont you apply the same term to every other living thing which also consumes and alters the environment around it?
Is this simply a mindset of yours or did you borrow the theory from somebody else?
For the reasons I gave above. I'd be interested for you to name one species on this planet that is more destructive and whose actrions have greater consequences than humans.
Of course every species is destructive in it's own way, but nowhere near on the same scale as we are. Furthermore those other species do not have the intellect to realise they are being destructive and thus cannot do anything about it, we do and we can.
If you look at various tribes around the world, they take only what they need, use every part of it and in such a way that is sustainable. Granted that's much easier to do when you are a small tribe, but the logic is the same.
I really don't understand the mindest that it is OK to be destructive, because everything else is. You will change nothing thinking like that.
-
Mankind does nothing more and nothing less than any other species on this planet.
I'm sorry but that's really not true is it?
I don't know any other species that can destroy acres of rainforest everyday, pump tonnes of sewage and chemicals into the ocean everyday, overfish and waste fish, destroy miles and miles and miles of important habitat to mine natural resources. The list goes on.
I'm no hippy, but even I'm not blind enough to see we are by far the most destructive species on this planet and we are possibly the only species to use resources so unsustainably.
-
Whether you believe in man made global warming or not, the simple fact of the matter is that the human race IS polluting the earth and gradually taking away it's resources at an unsustainable rate. Instead of focusing on whether this is a natural or unnatural process how about doing everything on your power to make sure the only planet that we call home is protected to the best of our abilities?
As a SCUBA diver the decline in ocean life and degradation of coral in the last 10 years alone is really quite shocking. Quite simply if the fish go (and that won't take long with current fishing methods) then everything else goes. It saddens me that only now ocean conservation has come to the fore. I guess it was a case of out of sight out of mind.
It's sad that as humans being the smartest species on the planet would have worked out much earlier down the line that we were being too destructive to our planet. Sadly money corrupts a lot of the time and any smart person knows being selfish now will only lead to disaster in the future. It's a sad indictment of our species really.
I find the mindset of 'well there's no evidence for it so I'll just carry on on my merry way' quite scary to be honest. Sometimes you don't need scientific papers to know something isn't doing any good. Some example are cutting down rainforests or pumping sewage and chemicals into the sea. You don't even really need much intelligence to work out that is not good for the planet and will cause long term damage. You wouldn't dump rubbish in your own house so why metaphorically do it to our planet? Sure some things are unavoidable, but you'd think we'd be intelligent enough to work out that unavoidable things that are damaging should be done in the most environmentally friendly way possible.
-
That's what I suspected.
How close to the epicentre do the aftershocks have to be to be considered as aftershocks and not a seperate quake?
-
Basically you take a series of photos of the scene at different exposure levels and then use software like Paintshop pro etc. to blend the different images together into one image.
Here's a beginners tutorial video
Ok, unfortunately I don't have that software.
-
Crikey it's got gusty!
Atlantic Storms - January 2012
in Storms & Severe Weather
Posted
Gone eerily quiet..... :huh: