What do YOU think is going on with the climate, and the apparent increased melting of polar ice and Glaciers?
quote:Greenland Glaciers Dumping More Ice By Larry O'Hanlon, Discovery News
Feb. 16, 2006 — It's no longer just one or two coastal glaciers in Greenland that are receding and dumping vastly more ice into the sea; it's now dozens of glaciers and could someday be the whole shebang, according to a new study.
Greenland-wide satellite surveys of all the glaciers that reach the sea show that there is a northward-moving trend of glaciers suddenly and rapidly dropping back from the sea and disgorging huge amounts of ice. These same glaciers are effectively the drain plugs of the entire Greenland ice cap.
In the last five years alone the wave of glacier changes has moved north about 300 miles.
"We don't think these are just bursts," said Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the California Institute of Technology. "We haven't seen any of these glaciers coming back to normal."
Rignot and Kanagaratnum, of the University of Kansas Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets, announced their discovery on Thursday at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in St. Louis. Their full report appears in the Feb. 17 issue of Science.
What do you think, Silkie? I don't think I've ever seen you start a thread with a post that didn't consist mostly or almost entirely of material quoted from elsewhere. It makes me think that you start these threads more as FYIs than anything else. Since I keep tabs on current events in the media through various sources, I heard about this last week. I don't need to be informed as far as the broad strokes are concerned, that's not what I come here for. What I come here for is the interpretations of and opinions on the events, not basic overviews of the events that I've already read elsewhere.
As to my own opinion, I've been very concerned about this for some time, and learning about new developments only makes me more so. I also think it's well past time to shift the focus from attempting to prevent global warming to how we're going to deal with the reality of it. While an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, it's much too late for that now. The world runs on fossil fuels and that isn't going to change anytime soon, so how do we deal with a warmer planet and higher sea levels? I'm not sure.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Well for starters, I could line anyone intrested up with some nice building lots in central Nevada.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Personally I am very concerned, but remain unconvinced that this is necessarily something man-made. I am unconvinced because we only have really accurate weather data for the past...what, fifty years? And that's a bit generous, really.
I am opposed to loosening pollution restrictions for other reasons, generally, than global-warming which I think is often used as a scare-tactic.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Twinky's point is well taken. It dosen't matter if the problem is man-made, natural and cyclical, or a combination of causes. It is measurable and progressive. We can make preprations and react or we can wait and react. But, the world economy will be affected within the life span of many persons on this forum.
EDIT: And locating important systems away from low lying coastal reagons is a good place to start. New Orleans should probably be remembered fondly and not rebuild.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Unfortunately, the reasons for building on coastlines are still good and cogent reasons. To wit, shipping remains, even in this age of trains, highways, and aircraft, the most economical way to transport bulk goods. If you build inland, you're going to have to feed that city by means of land transport, which uses fuel that's only going to become more expensive as time goes by, not to mention the pollution.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Yes. But, we need to start looking at building port facilities that can adapt to the rising sea levels and the changing ocean current patterns. A major port facility serving the purpose of New Orleans needs to be somewhere near the mouth of the Mississippi. But, to build docks, pumps, refineries, tanks, werehouses, rail yards, and a major metropolatan area all below grade is foolish in 2006.
[ February 24, 2006, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Artemisia Tridentata ]
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
MORE Actually, that is why I am here. The most cost effective location for the ammunition magazine for the Pacific Fleet is in Central Nevada. Also,Rail Road track is cheaper to build, maintain, move and modify than dikes. And, compaired to everything other than bulk water shipment, is cost/fuel effective.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Personally I am very concerned, but remain unconvinced that this is necessarily something man-made.
Especially now that NASA has also confirmed that global warming is occuring on planets other than this one...
FG
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Really? I hadn't heard that. Do you know where I can read about it?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
NASA has had several articles that were released to national press at different times that I read.
One place to start would be Here but I also know they recorded it on Pluto as well, and I would have to search for that article.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I too am unconvinced that this is necessarily man-made. If it is true that man-made effects are having virtually no impact on global warming, then that means that pollution controls and other regulations are going to be largely irrelevant for this issue. I think the only option that remains is to try to predict the possible consequences of natural global warming and try to plan accordingly. I don't think we should try to stop or reverse the process, because that would require some very substantial changes in the environment, and I'm not confident that we have enough knowledge of the earth's environment and weather patterns to be able to control them in a predictable manner.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Eh, nobody is disputing that the climate changes over time and goes through natural variations. The question is, and has always been, to what extent human activity contributes to the observable trends. And, since a) the mechanism of the "greenhouse effect" is well understood, b) the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossile fuel is measurable and c) the rapidity of the warming in recent years is, as far as the scientists can tell, unprecedented, it really is quite logical than man is having an effect on global warming.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That has not always been the only question, Tristan. Furthermore, "as far as the scientists can tell" doesn't actually mean very much. That makes it a guess. And therefore not so "logical" at all. There are much better arguments in support of man-made global warming than the one you're making, which is hardly an argument at all.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
To put the conversation in the context I saw it:
quote:Rakeesh: Personally I am very concerned, but remain unconvinced that this is necessarily something man-made.
quote:Farmgirl: Especially now that NASA has also confirmed that global warming is occuring on planets other than this one...
quote:Tristan: Eh, nobody is disputing that the climate changes over time and goes through natural variations. The question is, and has always been, to what extent human activity contributes to the observable trends.
quote:Rakeesh: That has not always been the only question, Tristan.
As far as I know, knowledge of e.g. the existence of ice age(s) -- and thus the insight that the climate has not always been what it is today and goes through natural changes -- predates the global warming debate. Mankind's influence on these natural trends may not be the "only" question, but it IS "the" question as far as it concerns global warming. And since we already knew that the climate changes naturally on earth, Firmgirl's observation (well, NASA's) that the same mechanisms operate on other planets should neither strengthen nor weaken your conviction as to what extent mankind contribute to the current warming trend.
By "as far as scientists can tell" I meant the conclusion scientists reach using the best available current and historical data, measuring techniques and modelling programs. The exact level of certainty achieved I am not qualified to judge, but it is certainly better than a "guess".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
An educated guess is still a guess.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Now you sound like those people who claims that evolution is "just" a theory, Rakeesh.
Edit: And I mean this in the nicest possible way!
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Firmgirl's observation (well, NASA's)
Wow! He called me "Firm" ! That makes me feel so young and spry! Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:b) the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossile fuel is measurable
Yes, it is measurable, but the impact could very well be negligible, especially when comparing the effects of CO2 with H2O.
quote:c) the rapidity of the warming in recent years is, as far as the scientists can tell, unprecedented, it really is quite logical than man is having an effect on global warming.
There are actually many scientists that believe just the opposite. I'll try to dig up some links.
For starters: Global Warming Petition which states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." (not exactly a scientific study, but it's a start)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Mankind's influence on these natural trends may not be the "only" question, but it IS "the" question as far as it concerns global warming.
It seems to me that there are two important questions -- 1) how are we affecting climate change? and 2) how do we want to affect climate change?
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Farmgirl, I am happy on every occasion to offer those little delicate compliments which are always acceptable to the ladies; and although I sometime amuse myself with suggesting and arranging such little elegant compliments which may be suitable to a particular situation, I must confess that this one was entirely spontaneous, not to say accidental.
----------------
quote:There are actually many scientists that believe just the opposite. I'll try to dig up some links
You do that, Camus. Be careful that the research isn't sponsored by the oil industry, though.
I feel I should mention that I am not against being concerned about the environment and our impact on it. In fact, I believe we should be more concerned about it and that we should try to better control the impact that we are having on the earth. At the same time, I worry that the general population will feel that by merely regulating our pollution and emissions we are preventing some natural disaster from occurring and gradually become less concerned about the very real effects that the natural global warming cycle is going to have on our civilization.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Edit: A link to counter-act your link, Camus.
If we cared to spend the time I'm sure both of us can come up with a long list of links that either defend or accuse the Global Warming Petition. My reason for mentioning it was to merely point out that the science community is not even close to agreeing about the process of global warming.
If my memory serves me correctly, there was a long list of scientists that supposedly signed something to signify their agreeing that humans are significantly affecting Global Warming. I think the rebuttals to that list were quite similar to the arguments made in your link.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*waits for The Rabbit, hopefully*
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Camus, the difference is that there is very nearly a consensus between climatologists, i.e. people who are doing the actual research, that man-made global warming is a reality. See e.g. the IPCC assessment report here.
Seriously, this whole issue has many similarities with the evolution debate. Those against very rarely have any credentials in a relevant field and often a clearly identifiable agenda (if you bother to look). Since these people tend to be very loud and since the press has a tendency to give equal weight to opposing view-points (which is sometimes good, but often can be misleading), an image of controversy is created which very poorly reflect the actual state of the science. Find me a peer-reviewed study made in the last five years that seriously question that humans have had an impact on global warming and I will listen. This pseudo-science is only obfuscating the issue.
Posted by xxsockeh (Member # 9186) on :
I know that global warming would be bad, but last year's winter was so bitter, and this year's was just far warmer...I'm kind of glad about this change. =/
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Find me a peer-reviewed study made in the last five years that seriously question that humans have had an impact on global warming and I will listen.
Well, the weekend starts for me in about five minutes and I typically do not spend much or any time on Hatrack during that time. If I have time during the weekend I will try to find some links, otherwise I will work on this on Monday.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
First off, I will point out that we are talking about "Global Climate Change" not "Global Warming". The scientific theories which predict a rise in the global mean temperatures do not predict that the temperature will go up everywhere all the time. If it were simply an issue of everywhere being 1 or two degrees warmer everyday, it would not be a big deal. What the models predict is that climates will change over substantial portions of the world as a result of the rise in global mean temperatures. Over the short term what we can expect is more extreme weather events. More major storms, more droughts, more floods, more bitter winters and more heat waves. Over the long term, there are many possible scenarios but none of them are good.
Second, those who believe that we can dismiss global climate change theory because some scientists disagree, don't understand the nature of science. Nothing in science is a certain. Scientists are supposed to question everything. We are supposed to test and retest theories in ways that question their validity. But the difference between the sciences and the humanities is that we have a well developed methodology for resolving questions. A scientific theory isn't an opinion. It is the best exisisting explanation of natural phenomena as determined by rigorous experimental observations. As a result of the scientific method, the hypothesis that burning fossil fuels and other human activities which increase the concentration of green house gases in the atmosphere could radically change the earth's climate have gone from being highly speculative hypothesis, to broadly accepted theories.
Twenty years ago, global climate change theory was moderately controversial within the scientific community. Today it isn't. The overwhelming majority of scientists who have expertise in the area are convinced of the validity of the theory. Every major scientic society that has experts in the field has released an official statement to this effect. This change has occurred because decades of experimental exploration have disproven virtually every major objection to these theories.
Scientist will of course continue to find new possible wholes in the theories -- that is the nature of science. When they do, other scientists will design experiments to determine whether these objections require wholesale rejection of the theory or only minor revisions. But that process does not indicate in anyway that the current theory is controversial or speculative. The best explanation science has right now for the melting of the greenland ice sheet is greenhouse warming due to burning fossil fuels.
Let me give you a few points about what is known and what remains controversial.
1. The concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has been going up steadily for the past century and the rate of increase is going up. There are no credible scientists who dispute this fact.
2. The most plausible explanation for this change in our atmosphere is the burning of fossil fuels. Calculations have demonstrated conclusively that fossil fuel burning can explain changes of the observed levels. Measurements of the changes in the isotopes are consistent with a fossil fuel source. No other remotely plausible explanation of the increasing CO2 levels has been suggested.
3. Increasing the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will reduce the radiant heat loss from the earth unless there are other compensating trends.
4. Over the past 100,000+ years, global mean temperatures have been very strongly correlated to the level of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere confirming that green house effects have played a significant role in the past climate changes.
5. Over the past century, there has been a significant increase in the earth's surface temperature. Night time temperatures have risen more than day time temperatures and surface temperatures have risen while tempertures in the upper atmosphere have dropped. These trends are all consistent with what theories predict for greenhouse warming.
6. Geological and historic records indicate that the earth has undergone very significant changes in global climate in the past. We know some but not all of the factors which have caused these changes such changes in volcanic activity or solar intensity. We can't explain all of the climate changes that have happened in earth's past so there are clearly processes we do not yet understand.
7. Of the process which we know can effect the global climate, the greenhouse effect is the only one which we can verify is happening now. It is the only one which can explain the trends we are observing. While there is still the possibility that some other unknown process is at work, the greenhouse theory is the best explanation we've got.
8. There is no evidence in the geological records that the composition of the earth's atmosphere has ever changed as fast as it is currently changing. During the ~300,000 years (with the exception of the past century) that humans have lived on the planet, the CO2 levels have been dramatically lower than they are right now. What we are doing to are atmosphere is unpresidented in human or geologic history. As a result, there are many unknowns about the future effects.
9. Because what is happening in our atmosphere right now is so different from what exists in the geologic records, there are many many difficulties in predicting how these changes will influence the earth. Climate is extraordinarily complex. There are many things about ocean currents, ice caps, forests, clouds, and particles that we are still struggling to understand. As a result, the models which predict the results of greenhouse warming have huge uncertainties. Despite this, the overwhelming majority of these models predict changes that will greatly increase human suffering. To ignore these prediction is recklessly irresponsible.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
camus, before you go searching the internet for the odd ball papers that question the validity of climate change theory, I recommend you read through the information at this site.
Spencer Weart has compiled the best history of the science behind global climate change. By looking at his work, you can see how the science has evolved. You will also find that many of the so called "controversies" in the field have been well refuted scientifically years ago. Many of the controveries which were prevalent 2 or 3 years ago, are now convincingly resolved.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Thank you, Rabbit, for the time and the expertise.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky What do you think, Silkie? I don't think I've ever seen you start a thread with a post that didn't consist mostly or almost entirely of material quoted from elsewhere. It makes me think that you start these threads more as FYIs than anything else. Since I keep tabs on current events in the media through various sources, I heard about this last week. I don't need to be informed as far as the broad strokes are concerned, that's not what I come here for. What I come here for is the interpretations of and opinions on the events, not basic overviews of the events that I've already read elsewhere.
As to my own opinion, I've been very concerned about this for some time, and learning about new developments only makes me more so. I also think it's well past time to shift the focus from attempting to prevent global warming to how we're going to deal with the reality of it. While an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, it's much too late for that now. The world runs on fossil fuels and that isn't going to change anytime soon, so how do we deal with a warmer planet and higher sea levels? I'm not sure.
I wanted to gather my thoughts a bit more before I wrote, twinky. My post was an FYI in the sense that I hoped to introduce current news about the subject to anyone who doesn't follow it, like you and me.
I've been 'very concerned about this issue' for some time, too. I watch the PBS program ' NOW ' every week. That link is to their pages about Global Warming. There should be a Podcast of the program on their site, if you are interested in seeing the broadcast. Last week I watched a lecture on Global Warming on a different PBS station. I've watched PBS programs about the subject, and read about the subject it some on the internet. (I am a bit of a Science News junkie!)
I've considered the opinion that says this is naural variation. While it is certainly POSSIBLE that our climate is going through a natural variation, I think that if that is true, then that natural variation has been greatly increased by the industrial age's contribution of greenhouse gases.
Almost all Environmental Scientists agree that Global Warming is happening, and that we humans are a big part of what is going on.
I agree that the Oil companies are funding research designed to cloud the issue of Global Warming. The Pew Institute has an excellent non-partisan multi-national site which has a compilation of the facts about Global Warming, versus the Myths in the speech at that link.
Camus, Scientists now have long term information about past weather patterns that goes back 420,000 years, through Ice Cores. Like tree rings, they vary in size and composition. The amount of snowfall, CO2 levels, ancient Atmospheric Gases and much more can be determined through examining the layers in these Ice cores.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Yes. But, we need to start looking at building port facilities that can adapt to the rising sea levels and the changing ocean current patterns. A major port facility serving the purpose of New Orleans needs to be somewhere near the mouth of the Mississippi. But, to build docks, pumps, refineries, tanks, werehouses, rail yards, and a major metropolatan area all below grade is foolish in 2006.
I have to admit a bias on the subject of rebuilding New Orleans. I was born there and lived most of my life there. It's 'my hometown.'
The Port of New Orleans infrastructure was mostly undamaged, and the Port of New Orleans reopened rather quickly. The original New Orleans - the French Quarter - was built on the riverfront and on a ridge, and that area didn't flood. The greatest difficulty in the Port has been getting and housing workers. There is so much damaged housing and still a lack of infrastructure in so many living areas.
Rebuilding New Orleans is going to happen, foolish or not. Whether it's done by the citizens who went back there - one house at a time - or with substantial help, it's already begun. I doubt that New Orleans will ever be the same as it was. Unless there is substantial federal investment in long term flood planning with wetlands restoration, then rebuilding efforts will be futile. And if the current predictions about the rise of sea level are right, much of New Orleans will eventually be underwater.
Rising ocean levels are not just a danger to New Orleans. It will cause widespread changes around the world. We probably don't know how different our world will be ... yet.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My opinion on this subject has changed someone over the last year. I used to be a diehard environmentalist, well, in the sense that I believed climate change was mostly or partially the fault of man, and that we needed, for the sake of the planet, to stop what we were doing and changed the ways we lived our lives. While at my core, that hasn't really changed, that argument rarely gets me anywhere with anyone not already on my side.
I think a lot of people feel more comfortable believing it's a natural phenomenon, so they are quicker to believe that they have no role in it, it absolves them of guilt, and relieves the pressure of actually having to sacrifice anything personally to solve the problem.
Something else, that hasn't be mentioned yet that I saw is the role that large forests play as carbon sinks to reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the rampant deforestation that has taken place in the last couple hundred years, and the last century especially has radically destroyed these carbon sinks around the world, reducing the planet's ability to handle large amounts of greenhouse gases.
But I've stopped using the "Save the planet" argument because those set in their ways just don't seem to be swayed by it. It won't affect them, giant waves aren't going to come washing over their homes a la "Day After Tomorrow" so they'd rather just wait and take their chances, or pass it off to the next generation. But when you give them more imediate concerns, they tend to be a bit more malleable.
The health advantages of getting toxins out of the air are staggering. The top ten US cities with the most smog are where the grand majority of lung cancer cases and new asthma cases are. Children living in big cities with smog are much more likely to get a lung disease or develop asthma as a result. Reducing these health concerns and for that matter reducing health care costs is a benefit to the health and fiscal health of the nation.
There are national defense and security arguments too. Becoming independent of foriegn imports of oil make us a more stable and safe nation. No one can dictate to us by threatening to cut off our supply of oil. A global economy doesn't mean that we shouldn't be self sufficient.
There are huge economic advantages to renewable energy too. As a new industry it will take thousands of workers to get a renewable energy infrastructure up and going, and to keep it running permanantly. Further, we could export renewable energy technologies to green friendly Europe and to developing nations so they can take better advantage of their land, and skip the terrible fossil fuel stage to become self sufficient themselves. It'd earn us a lot of goodwill around the world, a lot, a LOT, of money at home, and would leave us self sufficient.
I fear, that if multifaceted arguments like that aren't used, people will still bury their heads in the sand until coney island and new orleans and other places are under water. People need to be afraid of this before they will get behind solving it immediately.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Hey, knowledgeable and articulate people who express my views better than I could! Thanks Rabbit and Lyrhawn. Now I can go back lurking on this thread with a clear conscience.
If only someone would acknowledge my channeling mr. Collins above, my life would be complete.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
A quick point about New Orleans. Having been built in the delta, the land is the result of sediment deposits. Old sediment runs down the continental slope into the Gulf where it provides nutrients to the deep ocean. Without those nutrients, the deep ocean goes hungry.
Normally, new sediment would flow down the river into the delta to replace the sediment running off into the ocean. However, New Orleans had its sediment flow disrupted by the Army Corps of Engineers back in the day to keep it from piling up on the city. Now sediment sinks without being replaced. Regardless of global ocean levels, New Orleans will be underwater, or the rest of the Gulf will suffer.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
A quick point about New Orleans. Having been built in the delta, the land is the result of sediment deposits. Old sediment runs down the continental slope into the Gulf where it provides nutrients to the deep ocean. Without those nutrients, the deep ocean goes hungry.
Normally, new sediment would flow down the river into the delta to replace the sediment running off into the ocean. However, New Orleans had its sediment flow disrupted by the Army Corps of Engineers back in the day to keep it from piling up on the city. Now sediment sinks without being replaced. Regardless of global ocean levels, New Orleans will be underwater, or the rest of the Gulf will suffer.
True AvidReader, but there is more to it than that. Building was done in the lowland 'suburbs' (away from the French Quarter) when that old quarter land was fully utilized, and that certainly caused the problem of the 'bowl' effect through subsidence. This 'moving to the suburbs' began in the 1700s. Much of New Orleans is under Sea Level. That's partly because of the effect you described, but some of this land was already under sea level when people built on it. That land was filled to a higher level, and refilled again and again over the years.
Restoration of the Wetlands would at least mitigate the flood situation. The Wetlands acted as a buffer zone when Hurricanes passed through the region. The energy of a Hurricane is spent quickly when it hits land. Updating the turn of the century pumping stations in New Orleans and the COE flood control projects, combined with land filling and raised homes, would at least prolong New Orleans' life.
--- BUT ---
I have to admit that I think that in the long term a lot of New Orleans should not be rebuilt. The fact that the Ninth Ward and most of those areas that flooded are below Sea Level is a reality that cannot be overlooked in our rebuilding. Those areas should not have been developed in the first place.
The painful part is that the majority of people who have lost their homes in those areas will probably never be able to return. Here is a current article about the situation.
quote: Who ended up in shelters? Over 270,000 evacuees started out in shelters. The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health surveyed 680 randomly selected adult evacuees in Houston shelters on September 10-12, 2005. The results of that survey illustrate who ended up in shelters:
64% were renters
55% did not have a car or a way to evacuate
22% had to care for someone who was physically unable to leave
72% had no insurance
68% had neither money in the bank nor a useable credit card
57% had total household incomes of less than $20,000 in prior year
76% had children under 18 with them in the shelter
77% had a high school education or less
93% were black
67% were employed full or part-time before the hurricane
52% had no health insurance
54% received their healthcare at the big public Charity Hospital
Many of the people who were dispersed to various states after Katrina will probably end up staying where they were resettled. They are people who had a marginal existance before the storm. They don't have the resources to rebuild, and many of them have nothing TO rebuild since they were renters.
[ February 25, 2006, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Silkie ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Here's the issue I see with this problem.
If global warming is occurring, and is caused by human industry, then is there an amount by which we can reduce our emissions and solve the problem without crippling human civilization's ability to support a population in the billions?
Personally, I doubt it very much. We're already to the point where we can only support a fraction of the world's population at the level that westerners consider comfortable. I suspect (without evidence, but if someone has it either way, please provide it) that were we to drop the greenhouse gas output of our industry by a large enough amount that we stopped global warming in its tracks, then that would reduce the entire world to subsisting at third-world levels.
Now, I'm quite passionate about finding ways to reduce the cost and consumption of western civilization so that humanity can afford to offer that standard of living to everyone in the world without blasting through all our resources in a few short years.
But what I don't see happening is our civilization surviving the vast restructuring that it would take to halt the output of greenhouse gases, and actually bring their proportions down.
So ... if I'm right about this, what should be done about global warming? If it is a natural consequence of having an advanced society that can feed billions and maintain a high standard of living, then ... should we accept it as a consequence of something we aren't prepared to abandon?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tristan,
Oh, give me a break. No, you didn't mean that in the nicest possible way. That was a statement of eye-rolling contempt on your part.
But I'm not angry. Not even mildly annoyed except at your disingenuousness. Feel free to dish it out, because I can take it.
Humanity has not always known of past ice ages, Tristan. You'll recall that I took issue with your use of the word 'always', remember?
As for good historical weather data, we don't have that beyond maybe two to ten decades ago, tops. Oh, we can find evidence of past meteorological (sp?) catastrophes, but not the fine print, so to speak. We cannot, for example, measure or do anything but guess at the levels of greenhouse gasses in the Earth's atmosphere one thousand years ago, or thirty thousand years ago.
Oh no! Not the oil industry! Those guys are evil! Any scientists contracted by them to study anything must be lying, if the results turn out to be favorable to an oil company somewhere! Good Heavens!
Of course the same thing doesn't apply when other organizations with axes to grind sponsor scientific studies, now does it? Just oil. Only your opposition is a bunch of liars, right?
Please.
I have said that I am not convinced, not that I think we should freaking dismiss it. I swear, every single time this comes up and I say I'm not convinced, it's like I've said the planet rides on the back of a giant turtle or something.
And I'm for tighter restrictions on pollution and greater penalties for violators anyway, for a bunch of other reasons that there isn't any argument about!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Rabbit, your input into the discussions of this that crop up occasionally is invaluable. Thanks for taking the time to post all of that.
*I wonder, though--if we were to stimulate local algae blooms and immediately harvest the excess algae, hauling it back to land for use in fertilizer or something, would the blooms that we could successfully harvest be large enough to have any impact on atmospheric CO2 levels? Assuming that it would, can anybody think of particular risks that would be associated with this plan?
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Rakeesh,
I really did intend my little snark in the nicest possible way. I like you and enjoy reading your posts, so while I did find your dismissal of what amounts to +50 years of scientific studies as an "educated guess" to be reminiscient of anti-evolutionist arguments, I did not mean my analogy to extend beyond the immediate context. Hence my failed attempt at humour. In general, I have great respect for your opinion and I regret my comment insofar as it seems to have led you to assume that I am far more dogmatic on this topic than is actually the case.
quote:Humanity has not always known of past ice ages, Tristan. You'll recall that I took issue with your use of the word 'always', remember?
I never said humanity has always known of past ice ages. I defended my contention that the extent which mankind contributed to global warming had always been the focus of the global warming research by alleging that knowledge of natural climate changes -- and I exemplified with ice ages -- predated that kind of research into modern global warming that we are discussing here. I still think this is true, although I learned by following Rabbit's link that the greenhouse effect theory was conceived much earlier than I'd thought. And by a Swede, no less.
quote:We cannot, for example, measure or do anything but guess at the levels of greenhouse gasses in the Earth's atmosphere one thousand years ago, or thirty thousand years ago.
It was my understanding that scientists were doing exactly that, using geological data and ice cores, etc. It is what the Rabbit refers to in the point eight of her post above. I don't know to what level of exactness this is possible, but again, it isn't exactly "guessing".
quote:Of course the same thing doesn't apply when other organizations with axes to grind sponsor scientific studies, now does it? Just oil. Only your opposition is a bunch of liars, right?
Possible bias should always be taken into account, whether doing so supports your position or not. You get no argument from me here. Since Camus was looking for studies that discredit (man made) global warming and since the oil-industry is an actor with great incentive to support such a conclusion, he would do well to check from whence the research is coming. It would save me having to do it later.
quote:I have said that I am not convinced, not that I think we should freaking dismiss it.
Duly noted. And I never implied (I hope) that you were in favour of dismissing the issue.
quote:And I'm for tighter restrictions on pollution and greater penalties for violators anyway, for a bunch of other reasons that there isn't any argument about!
Good.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Geoff, I don't think it's that extreme.
Even a cut of 50% across the board would give us a lot more time to come up with a solution. Ending deforestation and creating a massive replanting effort to increase carbon sinks would help suck up some of what is up there.
Pumping it into tapped out oil wells and limestone deposits is something to be considered as well, though the trapping and transporting of those gases I imagine would be a huge logistical challenge.
Hybrids, plug-in hybrids and other automotive solutions in the next decade are going to drastically reduce the amount of emissions coming from automobiles, but they require government help if we want the switchover to take place in a decade, and not a half century.
Nuclear energy can help reduce the massive emissions made by the coal fired energy production base of the nation, but again, it requires large government assistance, and now, if it is to make a dent soon.
Free market forces will make all these changeovers happen, but if time is really an issue, and it is, then it needs financial assistance from the governments of the world to kick it into high gear. But the governments of the world would rather debate the issue to death and waste time while things get worse.
The actual debate of whether or not we CAN do it doesn't matter. So long as the major powerhouses of the world refuse to even state that we should do it, this will never become more than an academic debate.
Fact of the matter is, using current technologies, no, we probably couldn't solve the problem, but we could make a HUGE dent, and why not start now, rather than waiting for some magical super technology to get us out of this jam?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Since Camus was looking for studies that discredit (man made) global warming
Well, I wasn't exactly trying to discredit it, rather, I was just trying to show that the extent of mankind's impact on the natural process is still largely being debated. In fact, based on what I remember reading about before, it seemed like the amount of CO2 that was added to the atmosphere paled in comparison to the amount that is naturally added each year. I think somewhere around 2% of all the CO2 added to the atmosphere is from human processes. And of course, CO2 is a relatively minor contributor to global warming when compared to the effects of H2O. (I haven't had the time to try to find any links)
Thus, my position is that even huge reductions in CO2 emissions may still only have a very negligible impact on the global warming issue.
I think the ideas pointed out by Lyrhawn above are all things that we should be doing. However, I don't think we should fool ourselves into thinking that doing those things will necessarily protect our society from the natural climate changes that are happening and which we are unable to prevent from happening.
As Rakeesh said above,
quote:And I'm for tighter restrictions on pollution and greater penalties for violators anyway, for a bunch of other reasons that there isn't any argument about!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ending deforestation? People living in and near rain forests don't do it for fun, you know.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
camus, how do answer The Rabbit's objections? Do you know how many of the scientists in the petition linked are active and published in environmental sciences. The Rabbit (an evironmental engineer PhD, I believe) cotends that among her peers, the issue has been settled (with details to be worked out).
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ending deforestation? People living in and near rain forests don't do it for fun, you know.
I wasn't aware I'd claimed they did in fact do it for fun. If you could point out where I did, I'd be happy to explain it further, and explain to you why you're wrong.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Then perhaps you could offer something more realistic than 'ending deforestation', and my response would not have been so whimsical. We First Worlders are all about ending deforestation. Not so much about replacing its utility for the people actually doing it, at all, really.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Silkie, I agree that the treatment of the people of New Orleans has been pathetic at best. However, I can't say I like the idea of a million people going back to a city that will only become more vulnerable over time. I can't think of why it would be a good thing for people who couldn't get out the first time to go back and be trapped again. Because another hurricane will come eventaully. And New Orleans will not be ready for it. Anyone who stays behind is at risk of death.
Please don't think I'm being flippant. I grew up an hour away from Tampa, the second most vulnerable city in the US. Old Tampa is an architectural treasure and should be preserved as best we can. But unless Tampa learns from New Orleans's mistakes, the same thing will happen when the big one hits there, too.
On a side note, does anyone know how accurate Wikipedia is? The article Silkie posted said busses stopped running Saturday, which would be after a state of emergency was declared. However, mandatory evacuation was not called for until Sunday after Katrina had upgraded to Cat 5. If we as a nation are not willing to declare flood plains uninhabitable, maybe we could declare manadtory evacuations for those areas on a differnt scale than the rest of the city. If people had been forced to leave while the busses were still running, who knows how much better it could have gone?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tristan,
Well...OK. I'm sorry I snapped at you because you did not mean it the way I heard it, but at the time it...I don't know, just read as dripping with sarcasm. It didn't help that there was in my mind a tacit though not actually stated assumption that I was advocating dismissing the issue altogether, just as anti-evolutionists have tried to do in the past.
Maybe that's just my reaction to smilies. I get my dander up when people tack on a smiley to what might be a sarcastic remark-probably because I have the bad habit of sticking them on intentionally sarcastic remarks for added insult. Anyway, I overreacted, and I accept your apology and offer mine in return. Thanks also for your kind words.
I have respect for educated guesses. Often they're all we have to go on. The problem with them is that...well, sometimes they're wrong. Sometimes they're very wrong. Sometimes they're so very wrong in such unexpected ways that people one-hundred years later wonder what in G-d's name those primitive idiots could possibly have been thinking.
Scientifice history is replete with this sort of thing. That is why when we've got incomplete historical data and we've only been studying it for two generations (2.5, maybe) in a serious and modern way with things like computers and satellites and good meteorological data, I'm not going to be inclined to agree with appeals to massively overhaul major segments of human life across the planet in acquiesence with these new scientific discoveries.
That's all I meant. I'm not saying the educated guess is wrong. Personally I'm inclined to believe that the idea that humanity is having a noticeable and worrisome impact on the Earth's climate through things such as greenhouse gasses is a good one and probably right. I just thing a higher standard of proof needs to be reached before making the kinds of changes global warming or climate change requires.
Fortunately, those same changes are required by a whole bunch of other issues which aren't as complicated as global warming.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wood replacements abound, recycling wood has become a major industry and is making up a large component of the wood we use to build things and what not with. So far as construction goes, the best idea would be to use concrete. It saves on home heating bills, drastically reducing the cost of heating and cooling during the year, and makes the home much more sturdy and fire resistant. The only reason it isn't used more often is because not as many construction companies are used to using it in home construction, and it costs more. It's relatively new for home construction. But considering how much wood is used for the home construction industry, it would heavily reduce the amount of wood we use.
Double or triple, hell quintuple planting efforts. Make it a law that starting at a certain date, companies must use wood farms for all their wood. Well, maybe not ALL their wood, it would have to be something that is phased in, but wood farms should be the primary source of wood, not old growth forests. Many people don't understand the difference between getting wood from a tree replanted 30 years ago and a tree that was cut down from an old growth forest. Old growth forests take hundreds of years to regrow, and cutting them down destroys ecosystems and in many ecosystems can totally ruin the land through soil erosion, making it unusable even as farmland after it has been cut down.
Using wood purposefully planted for the use of construction and furniture making and not using old growth forest wood would do wonders for the environment, on many levels. It helps prevent mudslides, like the type that killed an entire village just recently I think in the Phillipines (or Indonesia?), will clean the air, protect endangered species, and in the case of rainforests, could save what might be a future cash crop for tourism, and what might hold potentially life saving medicines. Many of the world's rainforests are still unexplored, and at the rate we're going, they will be destroyed before we get the chance.
I'm not sure what you mean by "replacing its utility for the people actually doing it." Are you talking about the money they get from selling the wood? Wood is pretty cheap, and in the case of America, we have enough domestic wood to make imports really only good for the super rich in the case of exotic rare woods.
If you mean, what are third world countries going to do for things like construction if they don't have rainforests to cut down, then I'm not sure you understand the problem. The rate of rainforest loss doesn't correlate at all to the rate of home construction in countries like Brazil and others where the rainforest is being cut down. Much of what they are using that new land for is farming, but the soil erodes so badly they aren't getting anywhere near the productivity out of the soil that they could and should be. The wood is incidental, but their housing industry isn't anywhere near close to being able to use all that wood.
To solve that problem, I would suggest a domestic tax, not a tariff, as that doesn't really help solve the problem, on goods that come as a result of rainforest destruction. Coffee, some spices, rubber, etc. Put a special tax on these items, and then use the money to help purchase rainforest land and turn it into parks that cannot be destroyed, also use the money to help teach these farmers how to make their land more productive. Americans are the best agricultural producers in the world, and we don't produce most of what they are exporting anyway, so there's no harm to our economy by teaching them better methods of production, it can only help us.
It's realistic, but only if the government takes a serious stance on it, and realizes that to solve anything as big as the problem at hand will take a major commitment, and that ANY solution to the problem is going to be huge in scale.
Posted by Nellie Bly (Member # 9129) on :
quote:On a side note, does anyone know how accurate Wikipedia is?
Wikipedia should never be used as a reliable source. Anyone can edit the information found there, whether it is accurate or not. So while it might be a good jumping off point for research, you should always double and triple check your Wikipedia facts.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There was a report done recently that showed Wikipedia to be as accurate as, if not more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica. It wasn't exactly an extensive search, but they searched a couple hundred articles I believe, and found that EB had more inaccuracies per hundred articles than Wiki did.
Still, Nellie is right, always double check your facts, really, you should double check any internet facts, especially controversial ones where someone might have reason to change it for political or personal reasons.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Virtually every reputable scientist agrees global warming is a reality. Studies of erosion, ice layers, and geological conditions strongly imply an unnatural, recent origin.
...And the Kyoto Protocols, which most agree doesn't go far enough to come close to reversing current trends, aren't ratified by the number one producer of greenhouse gasses.
Soooooo... We're [bleep]'d, not much to be done about it, hand the fiddle to Nero, have a nice day.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Rakeesh,
I thank you for your apology in return. I much prefer discussing things amiably than with steam coming out of my (or my opponents') ears and I'm happy that we seem to have resolved our misunderstanding. Let's see how quickly I can create a new one.
quote:Personally I'm inclined to believe that the idea that humanity is having a noticeable and worrisome impact on the Earth's climate through things such as greenhouse gasses is a good one and probably right. I just thing a higher standard of proof needs to be reached before making the kinds of changes global warming or climate change requires.
I think this statement of yours can illustrate the different perspectives you and I are coming from. First, while we agree that humans might have an effect on Earth's climate we seem to assign different probabilities to the theory. Since neither of us are climate scientists with patience and knowledge to evaluate the evidence for ourselves, I believe that the difference can in large part be attributed to the degree which the theory is deemed controversial in the environment in which we live.
The establishment in Sweden, and in Europe at large, has accepted man made global warming as something very close to a fact and is committed to do something about it. The Kyoto protocol -- inadeqate as it is -- is ratified and on its way on being implemented. A debate as to the validity of the theory similar to the one still ongoing in the US simply no longer exists. The media reports consist mainly of acknowledging new scientific discoveries confirming or refining the existing consensus, articles detailing the strategies implemented to counter the problem and, sometimes, alarmist descriptions of what we can expect in terms of impact on local conditions if we do little or nothing about it. And the politicians are on-board with this definition of the debate. Read e.g. Blair's speech and compare it with what is your experience of the leading US politicians' treatment of the issue.
Secondly, from my perspective, it would be justified to initiate a strong response even if the uncertainty surrounding man made global warming were considerably greater that I perceive it to be. I am not implying that this is a view that you subscribe to, Rakeesh, but I've seen all too many react by saying something like "oh, a couple of degrees warmer in fifty years? That would actually be rather nice. It's too cold anyway." They do not seem to realise that the scientists are talking about mean temperatures and that local or seasonal variations can be -- indeed are expected to be -- MUCH worse. And that possible incidental effects such as a reversal of the Gulf Stream would have a catastrophic effect, basically making northen Europe more or less inhabitable.
Add to this that the uncertainty I admit surrounds these predictions exists in both directions. Just as it is possible that Earth's climate is robust enough to absorb our increased emissions with only relatively minor effects, it is possible that it is even more fragile than our current most pessimistic calculations would indicate. It would be tragic if we ever came to a point where we could only helplessly watch the climate spin entirely out of control and lament that we missed the time when this outcome could have been prevented by prudent action.
As you have said, luckily some, perhaps even most, of the responses required to counter-act global warming are good ideas regardless of the truth of this theory. I just feel that a belief in global warming adds an urgency to these responses that is not equally present when talking about reducing dependency on foreign oil, clearing up smog-filled cities or saving a couple of hundred dollars a year by installing a heat-exchanger or a solar panel. Market forces are mainly reactive whereas government action has the potential of being pro-active. If we rely exclusively on the former we run the risk of having the response occurring far to late to make a difference.
Just to be clear, I am not advocating reverting to a medieval life-style with everyone growing their own carrots and heating their huts with cow-dung. I want stricter government regulations on industrial pollution and emissions (hello Libertarians); tax incentives for individuals to install energy saving techniques in their homes as well as for buying low fuel/alternative fuel cars; increased spending on research on alternative energy sources as well as money/incentives for implementing existing techniques. I am thrilled about the up-coming research fusion reactor in France and only wish that more could be done to quickly develope and get such reactors running commercially. I'm cautiously in favour of developing existing nuclear technology as long as a solution for the waste concerns can be found. I want campaigns to increase the awareness among the public of what can be done to better conserve energy on an individual basis.
And I want a girlfriend. Uh... Wrong thread?
[ February 27, 2006, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Secondly, from my perspective, it would be justified to initiate a strong response even if the uncertainty surrounding man made global warming were considerably greater that I perceive it to be. I am not implying that this is a view that you subscribe to, Rakeesh, but I've seen all too many react by saying something like "oh, a couple of degrees warmer in fifty years? That would actually be rather nice. It's too cold anyway." They do not seem to realise that the scientists are talking about mean temperatures and that local or seasonal variations can be -- indeed are expected to be -- MUCH worse. And that possible incidental effects such as a reversal of the Gulf Stream would have a catastrophic effect, basically making northen Europe more or less inhabitable.
You make a decent case, I'll grant...but like I've said, it's not a case that's very interesting to me, to be honest. Not because I think it's all poppycock or anything, but because there are other, much more direct reasons to curtail pollution and fossil fuel use. Reasons that take much less scientific research, political capital, and rhetorical cleverness to get people behind. And reasons that if addressed would also very frequently address the problems facing humanity if global warming and climate change turn out to be reality.
It's like the house in on fire, and you can either draw water to put it out from the well ten yards from the front door or from the river a quarter-mile away. But the well is dangerously low, and you don't want it to dry out. But...the frelling house is on fire!
Air, water, soil pollution, serious and un-understood major impacts on ecosystems, cancer rates, illness rates, diminishing supplies, the dangerous and complicated sources for fossil fuels, all of these are the things that I believe the environmental movement as a whole would be much better served in pushing. Not because I believe global warming/climate change isn't true, but because those issues are more effective.
Edit: As for your last desire, well unless we're including dim lighting, substantial distance, and intoxicating substances in the mix, I'm afraid I can't help you there.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Rakeesh, my aproach is pragmatic. If by concentrating on the ancillary issues you mention we manage also to counter-act (or by this point perhaps the correct word would be mitigate) global warming, that would be a good thing. I do believe, however, that focusing on global warming can be an effective motivator for policy changes and changes in public perceptions. The weather is perhaps the number one topic of casual conversation in the world and, if we're talking rhetoric and propaganda, we are already at a point where some people are attributing every weather related natural disaster to climate change. This is ridiculous, of course, since we have no way of knowing if any one specific disaster has anything to do with global warming, and I am not arguing fostering these misconceptions. But focusing on what's near and dear to people -- which in the case of global warming can be done without hyperbole -- is an effective strategy.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
If we want to end deforestation, the thing to do is to make the rest of the world more like North America and Europe, where forests have been expanding. And it isn't because we don't use paper! Like those areas in what way, I'm not sure, but I think "rich" and "efficient" are relevant.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not because I think it's all poppycock or anything, but because there are other, much more direct reasons to curtail pollution and fossil fuel use. Reasons that take much less scientific research, political capital, and rhetorical cleverness to get people behind. And reasons that if addressed would also very frequently address the problems facing humanity if global warming and climate change turn out to be reality.
Amen brother. If more people poured their attention into the immediate concerns and using those as justification for helping the environment, we'd make more progress on the topic. Why people expend so much energy on the biggest long shot rather than the sure things in front of them is beyond me.
I'm curious as to whether or not you read my deforestaion post where I gave the specifics you asked for previously. Always nice to have holes poked in my arguments so I can plug them later.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually I've been Hatracking and Sakeing more lately than I have in quite awhile...to the detriment of my quality, such as it is, at either. Looking back, I just noticed your post and I'm sorry I haven't replied yet. I won't be able to right away, but I will reply. Just too tired right now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
I agree that concrete is a better option for the reasons you give-although for the time being, it's my understanding that concrete is more expensive than usual due to shortages involving the PRC buying massive quantities for their dam-building efforts.
As for tree-planting efforts, I think that's a good idea but there might be some aspects of it you haven't considered. For one thing, tree farms require land, and the land that timber industries own is frequently either stuffed full of trees already (which is why a timber company might own it), or isn't and is frequently being replanted anyway. As for doubling and tripling, here we get into agriculture and ecology. This is not the sort of problem we can just plant our way out of. A landscape will only support a certain amount of trees, after all.
And the very best 'building' woods are from those old-growth forests, you know. That's not a reason to just log them all willy-nilly, but it needs to be pointed out that faster-growing trees (which still take a helluva long time compared to other agricultural endeavors) don't really meet all the needs you're mentioning.
As for destroyed ecosystems, that's a good point. Let's just remember, of course, that there was something there before the old-growth forest and so long as we don't turn it into a desert afterwards, there's no reason to think of what comes after it's gone as 'worse' necessarily.
But anyway, I was really talking more about deforestation as a farmng tool more than anything. It is these people out on the "raggedy edge" so to speak, whom your points don't address. Those people need to deforest to live, or they starve to death, but usually their children will succumb first. That needs to be considered.
quote:To solve that problem, I would suggest a domestic tax, not a tariff, as that doesn't really help solve the problem, on goods that come as a result of rainforest destruction. Coffee, some spices, rubber, etc. Put a special tax on these items, and then use the money to help purchase rainforest land and turn it into parks that cannot be destroyed, also use the money to help teach these farmers how to make their land more productive. Americans are the best agricultural producers in the world, and we don't produce most of what they are exporting anyway, so there's no harm to our economy by teaching them better methods of production, it can only help us.
Do you imagine that putting a tariff (and yes, a domestic tax on an imported item is in essence a tariff) would have some effect besides further impoverishing the very people who you, as a liberal, would normally be concerned with helping?
From what branch of government would all of these resources come? It would be funded just from revenue from this new tariff? What I think is much more likely is that if people are faced with higher prices on coffee and spices...they'll buy a different brand, or imitations, that come from elsewhere, without the tariffs.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: If we want to end deforestation, the thing to do is to make the rest of the world more like North America and Europe, where forests have been expanding. And it isn't because we don't use paper! Like those areas in what way, I'm not sure, but I think "rich" and "efficient" are relevant.
Sorry to disagree, but a large part of the reason there's so much deforestation on other continents is North America's hunger for certain crops in all seasons and for cheap beef.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Some, if not much of the resources necessary for my suggestions will have to come from the government, even if it's a joint government finances private venture. Yes, it will cost money, maybe a lot of money, but I think it'll do more for us in the long run than the billions being wasted in the Middle East. Regardless, that money can't be taken back, but if we're willing to waste billions over there, we should be willing to wisely invest a far smaller sum of money for very real gains.
Concrete is easy enough to mix and make, production can be increased, and SHOULD be increased, and/or the price can be partially subsidized by the government. Doesn't solve anything fast, but it's a first step, and first steps have to be taken at some point.
I don't suppose we can solve the problem through replanting efforts alone, which is why the plan needs to be far more comprehensive than that. Firstly, the land doesn't necessarily have to be in the same place where trees previously were. There is much open land in the US, and Canada (much already covered by trees I know, but some also by prarie and plains that could be planted), across Europe and in other place. The land exists somewhere on the planet, and in those places that have the resources to do so, they should plant, and gain rewards for doing so.
Old growth forests are a one time deal. You can't build new ones, you can't replant and expect them to come about even in the next thousand years. Their ecology is one of the most fragile in the world, mostly because it cannot really be recreated (not en masse anyway) anywhere else in a short period of time. There are ways to cull an old growth forest that aren't just clear cutting or slash and burn. Those effectively kill the land, and destroy the ecosystem. Old growth trees can still be harvested, as they are needed, but it can be done much better than it is now, where little to no care is taken in some areas for forest conservation and preservation.
quote:As for destroyed ecosystems, that's a good point. Let's just remember, of course, that there was something there before the old-growth forest and so long as we don't turn it into a desert afterwards, there's no reason to think of what comes after it's gone as 'worse' necessarily.
By what determination isn't it worse? I suppose from a local standpoint, sure, but from a global standpoint, eliminating a major carbon sink in favor of farm or prarie land isn't by any stretch of the imagination better. Presumably, whatever that land was before, changed because of climatological changes, and those changes made the land more conducive to forest land, just as elsewhere in the world they probably made forest land less hospitable and it became desert or some such. The point is, there's a worldwide balance that has been achieved and preserved naturally. Paul Bunyan choppin down all the forests is not part of the natural process, and there is no yin to that yang. And like I said previously, the problem isn't necessarily desertification, it's top soil erosion. It might not turn into the Sahara, but especially in high rain areas such as a rainforest, when old growth forests are eliminated, rains wash away top soil through erosion and the land becomes unplantable. This is part of what I was talking about with teaching some of the people on the "raggedy edge" more advanced farming techniques so they don't waste plantable land in haste and without knowledge.
quote:But anyway, I was really talking more about deforestation as a farmng tool more than anything. It is these people out on the "raggedy edge" so to speak, whom your points don't address. Those people need to deforest to live, or they starve to death, but usually their children will succumb first. That needs to be considered.
I think I rather covered it in the paragraph you quoted just following saying that. If it's a matter of farming tools, do what many small aid groups in Africa are doing and provide dozens of small business loans to local farmers so they can tend the land better, help them to feed their families, AND become more productive so less land is needed and they can gain wealth in the process. The money will be eventually repaid, the farm equipment can be American, and thus everyone is happy. Wrap the deal together with an agreement from the farmers that these loans and equipment come at the expense of further deforestation, which they shouldn't argue with anyway since they'll have their hands full tending the land they have.
This ties into a larger issue, which becomes less about deforestation and more about helping the underprivileged work their way up out of poverty, which benefits the nation, it's trading partners (the US), and the world at large.
Maybe the tax part of the plan won't work, but something has to be done to at least somewhat decrease the demand for these consumables. It's not a necessary component for the plan, and can be modified to effect everyone, thus leveling the playing field, or it can be pushed back until economically feasible.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Concrete is easy enough to mix and make, production can be increased, and SHOULD be increased, and/or the price can be partially subsidized by the government.
Concrete may be easy but Cement, which is the binder for Concrete is in critically short supply world wide. It requires great capital outlay for production capacity. And is a very fossel fuel intensive process. The price, right now, is artifically low.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:As for destroyed ecosystems, that's a good point. Let's just remember, of course, that there was something there before the old-growth forest and so long as we don't turn it into a desert afterwards, there's no reason to think of what comes after it's gone as 'worse' necessarily.
Wrong! There is a very good reason to believe that what comes after the old growth forest is cut will be "worse". In large old growth forests, the ancient trees have essentially sucked all the nutrients out of the soil. Virtually all of the potasium, sulfur, phosphorus and other nutrients that plants need to grow are in the biomass and not in the soil. When the trees are cut down and the biomass is hauled away to a chop stick factory or a papermill, what is left behind is not the soil that was there before the forest grew. It is a soil that is virtually devoid of the nutrients needed to support new growth.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Concrete may be easy but Cement, which is the binder for Concrete is in critically short supply world wide. It requires great capital outlay for production capacity. And is a very fossel fuel intensive process. The price, right now, is artifically low.
Also, the cement making process is a very dirty one, that hasn't been improved much through new technology. Ramping up cement production would create a nasty air pollution problem.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:We cannot, for example, measure or do anything but guess at the levels of greenhouse gasses in the Earth's atmosphere one thousand years ago, or thirty thousand years ago.
I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong. We have an excellent measurements of the greenhouse gasses in the Earth's atmosphere for the past 650,000 based on the analysis of gases trapped in artic and antartic ice cores.
These measurements are of course far from perfect, but they are not guesses.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Concrete may be easy but Cement, which is the binder for Concrete is in critically short supply world wide. It requires great capital outlay for production capacity. And is a very fossel fuel intensive process. The price, right now, is artifically low.
Also, the cement making process is a very dirty one, that hasn't been improved much through new technology. Ramping up cement production would create a nasty air pollution problem.
Then let's get cracking on this problem too. More money needs to be spent on R&D to make it a cheaper, easier, and more clean process. Can something be done with air scrubbers to clean up the process? What is it about the process that makes it dirty? Perhaps a new binding agent could be created or an artificial concrete that does the same thing without the negative aspects.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Concrete is responsible for 7-10% of [man-made] CO2 emissions worldwide, making it the biggest climate change culprit outside of transportation and electicity-generation." When considering all costs -- mining and production equipment, transportation, etc, water, forming, etc -- closer to 10%. And while the linked article contains some possible future replacements, if those replacements are more expensive, then they are probably also generating more CO2 in the overall process of becoming the finished product.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Worse by what standard, Rabbit? That's the point I'm making: we have only our own standard. What is useful to us. I really should have been more specific, but I was talking more about the perspective that romanticizes nature-a perspective which hasn't been made here, really.
Your point about past gas measurements is well made. I stand (or rather sit) corrected, they appear to lead to pretty solid reasoning. One question remains unanswered, though, and really only guessed at so far as I can tell: what will happen?
The two default positions are depressingly either "nothing major" or "end of the world". It's very, very unlikely that the former will turn out to be true and a bit unlikely that the latter will, but that's the stance people frequently make.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
<---- Has no clue what you are refering to as far as global warming is concerned. <---- Is freezing his butt off in NY. It's cold I tell ya!
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:The BBC has learnt the [ICCP] report will state that greenhouse gas emissions are the only explanation for changing patterns of weather across the globe. (Continued...)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Worse by what standard, Rabbit? That's the point I'm making: we have only our own standard. What is useful to us. I really should have been more specific, but I was talking more about the perspective that romanticizes nature-a perspective which hasn't been made here, really.
What other standard do you want to use? The standard of the people who won't get viable farmland out of the dead soil, or the standard of the plants and animals that will go extinct when their habitat is destroyed?
Or some other standard?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:One question remains unanswered, though, and really only guessed at so far as I can tell: what will happen?
Rakeesh, You keep undermining your own arguments with your apparent ignorance of the state of climate change science. According to Websters dictionary to guess is "to form an opinion of from little or no evidence." Scientists aren't simply guessing about what will happen next.
The scientific predictions about what will happen as a result of global climate change aren't opinions based on little or no evidence. They arise from models based on solid scientific evidence and widely validated theories. We know that there are big uncertainties in these predictions because we don't understand all the parts of the process but that doesn't make these predictions guesses. What's more, we know that some parts of the prediction are far more certain than others. For example, we know that increases in ocean temperatures will result in increases in the level of the oceans due to thermal expansion of the water. That is a certainty. We know that any substantial reduction in the polar ice caps will also result in increases in the level of the ocean. We are quite certain that the rapid changes we are making in the composition of our atmosphere will lead to more severe weather events such as blizzards, droughts and hurricanes even though we can not accurately predict exactly when and where these severe events will occur.
Nils Bohr once said ""Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." That statement is still true. The important question to ask here is not whether scientist know with certainty what will happen in the future, but whether the the scientific predictions are accurate enough and serious enough to warrant action. The overwhelming majority (ie >90%) of scientists involved in the research agree that this is the case. What expertise do you have which would justify a different conclusion?
Imagine there were a hurricane forming in the gulf coast today and scientist using their best models, predicted that it would cross the florida keys as a category 5 storm on Saturday. What would you think of leaders in the keys who advised people to do nothing at all because there was uncertainty in the forcast?
Global climate change has the potential to be far more devastating than a hurricane. And it will impact more than a tiny region but could be devastating to billions of earth's inhabitants. Why then do we tolerate leaders who refuse to make even the smallest efforts to mitigate the effects of this disaster because the forcasts are still uncertain?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Worse by what standard, Rabbit? That's the point I'm making: we have only our own standard.
You are correct in asserting that what is better and what is worse can not be objectively assertained. But it is difficult to imagine any standard by which land which is unable to support any plant or animal life would be considered preferrable to land which was supporting a diverse complex ecosystem. By any standard which I have ever heard suggested by any reasonable human being, things are worse after the rainforests are cut down. If you know of some standard I don't please tell me. Otherwise you are simply arguing that we claims that any act is bad or good are irrelevant.
If you use your argument to justify destruction of the rainforest, you could just as well use it justify murder, torture, theft, or even genocide.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Then let's get cracking on this problem too. More money needs to be spent on R&D to make it a cheaper, easier, and more clean process. Can something be done with air scrubbers to clean up the process? What is it about the process that makes it dirty? Perhaps a new binding agent could be created or an artificial concrete that does the same thing without the negative aspects.
To do what you are asking would be inventing an entirely new building material, not simply improving concrete.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Then let's do that.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
The basic recept for Portland Cement is Calcium Carbonate(limestone) and Silica (sand) heated up to 2700 degrees F. The Calcium Carbonate loses a carbon atom and picks up a silica atom becoming Calcium Silicate. Limestone is dusty, Sand is dusty. and 2700 degrees requires some pretty serious fuel.
The process involves massive machinery, mills, explosives, and the largest single tool ever placed in service, a kiln. The wear and tear is high compaired to other chemical processes. All of the above takes a lot of money, and with todays cement prices you can generate a greater return on that money in the stock market or building condos in Cleveland. No one is going to fix this problem in todays economy.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Then let's get cracking on this problem too. More money needs to be spent on R&D to make it a cheaper, easier, and more clean process. Can something be done with air scrubbers to clean up the process? What is it about the process that makes it dirty? Perhaps a new binding agent could be created or an artificial concrete that does the same thing without the negative aspects.
Been there, done that. A good friend of mine has his ph.D (iirc) in hazardous waste incineration using cement kilns as the incinerator. We did some work together on multiple hearth incinerators, and burner research for rotary kilns.
They've been trying to improve the cement making process for a long time, with incremental success, but it's still a filthy process. And bear in mind that scrubbers don't get rid of anything, they just turn air pollution into water pollution.
They're also coming up with new building materials all the time, asphalt replaced cement in road building a long time ago. Now they're adding used tires (crumb rubber) to use up tire waste and improve traction. But cement usage keeps on going up, even as replacements are found for specific uses.
The real answer is that we have to make fewer babies, and use fewer resources.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Also, the nature of a rotary kiln is such that it's almost impossible to seal the combustion space well enough to contain the flue gases. You'd have a hard time putting a scrubber on it in the first place.
And the sealing issue is also a major cause of NOx production. You can't control the air flow well enough to improve the combustion to bring down the NOx.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:To do what you are asking would be inventing an entirely new building material, not simply improving concrete.
quote:Then let's do that.
Great idea Lyrhawn. Let us know when your finished.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:To do what you are asking would be inventing an entirely new building material, not simply improving concrete.
quote:Then let's do that.
Great idea Lyrhawn. Let us know when your finished.
I'm sorry, you're right.
Let's do things the way we usually do them. Use more, pollute more, be wishywashy about whether or not we think there is a problem, and in general pass it off to the next generation. We'll all be finished, a lot sooner that way.
Eventually, regardless of how hard something sounds, or how impossible it may seem, someone in power is going to have to stand up and say "let's get it done."
I'm glad Kennedy didn't give up when someone said, "great idea John, let us know when you get there."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Rabbit,
I should have been more specific. I meant to say: no one knows what will happen long-term. How would such a radical series of climate changes, not just regional weather, affect weather patterns throughout the planet? Humanity has difficulty predicting weather more than a week or two in advance-it is this difficulty I was referring to, not any difficulty in knowing what would result exactly one step down the line.
quote:The important question to ask here is not whether scientist know with certainty what will happen in the future, but whether the the scientific predictions are accurate enough and serious enough to warrant action. The overwhelming majority (ie >90%) of scientists involved in the research agree that this is the case. What expertise do you have which would justify a different conclusion?
The degree of certainty is what I'm talking about. I'm certainly not suggesting we wait until we're certain that a very large majority of scientists are right about climate change before we do anything about it, because such certainty is impossible.
As for the rest of your paragraph I just quoted...well, frankly I trust scientists to tell us what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen. I am uncomfortable just sitting back and letting them actually dictate policy about how to address the future. I know that's not what you were saying-I just thought I'd mention it.
quote:Imagine there were a hurricane forming in the gulf coast today and scientist using their best models, predicted that it would cross the florida keys as a category 5 storm on Saturday. What would you think of leaders in the keys who advised people to do nothing at all because there was uncertainty in the forcast?
Imagine there were fifty tornadoes that suddenly appeared in the Atlantic. Together (but still seperately) they are moving towards coastal eastern United States. Imagine I think this is what is actually happening, and I think they may even together all spell 'hurricane' and not just 'bunch of tornadoes'. Imagine as well that I think it's quite likely that they spell 'hurricane' and not just 'bunch of tornadoes' (maybe 'twirl of tornadoes' would be a good term to describe a herd or pack of `em).
So while you and many other climate scientists are warning, "Hurricane!" I'm suggesting maybe it would be more effective to say, "Fifty tornadoes!" while at the same time acknowledging the high likelihood of a hurricane as well.
I've said as much on several occassions here at Hatrack, but as usual it gets ignored or glossed over. Even uncertainty about climate change is pounced upon, around here and elsewhere. Even the kind of certainty that like mine doesn't conclude, "Do nothing until we know for sure."
quote:You are correct in asserting that what is better and what is worse can not be objectively assertained. But it is difficult to imagine any standard by which land which is unable to support any plant or animal life would be considered preferrable to land which was supporting a diverse complex ecosystem. By any standard which I have ever heard suggested by any reasonable human being, things are worse after the rainforests are cut down. If you know of some standard I don't please tell me. Otherwise you are simply arguing that we claims that any act is bad or good are irrelevant.
The standards I'm in favor of using are standards of usefulness. I do think that removing the rain forests would be very unuseful and in fact harmful. That is I think a vastly more effective tool to persuade those who disagree with you than the one I hear frequently, the one that advocates saving the rain forest (and the environment) because it's somehow intrinsically noble or holy or something.
People don't care about the latter. They're pretty damn concerned about the former, though.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:As for the rest of your paragraph I just quoted...well, frankly I trust scientists to tell us what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen.
Let's not forget the handy bonus uses of brainstorming and testing solutions. We should get the most mileage out of our scientists that we can.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm sorry, you're right.
Let's do things the way we usually do them. Use more, pollute more, be wishywashy about whether or not we think there is a problem, and in general pass it off to the next generation. We'll all be finished, a lot sooner that way.
Eventually, regardless of how hard something sounds, or how impossible it may seem, someone in power is going to have to stand up and say "let's get it done."
I'm glad Kennedy didn't give up when someone said, "great idea John, let us know when you get there."
Lyrhawn, I sympathize, but you're being a little harsh and unrealistic. I mean, I know for a fact that I have very little gift for chemistry beyond a certain level. Am I suddenly going to abandon all work and projects to pursue the education that might make me useful to such a project?
Or am I going to perhaps hope that others who are far more gifted in such matters might take up the project?
quote:That is I think a vastly more effective tool to persuade those who disagree with you than the one I hear frequently, the one that advocates saving the rain forest (and the environment) because it's somehow intrinsically noble or holy or something.
People don't care about the latter. They're pretty damn concerned about the former, though.
It's hard enough to get people to listen to a simple message like "the rainforests are beautiful". When you get as far as "the rainforests are being cut down to make pastureland that will be useless after a couple of years" or "the rainforests are a source of biodiversity rare anywhere else on earth, and could be the source of medicines that could save thousands of lives" or "the destruction of the rain forests has the potential to threaten all life on earth"... The sound-bite people are already tuning out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think the message, "Deforesting the rain forest causes your grandchildren to suffer," is pretty short.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Not bad, not bad. Though some might read it as new-agey. (Some people read anything that mentions ancestors or descendants as new-agey...)
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:
quote:To do what you are asking would be inventing an entirely new building material, not simply improving concrete. [quote]Then let's do that
Great idea Lyrhawn. Let us know when your finished.
This is a little glib. Yes, let's us (whoever us is) do that. And we are doing that. But it's evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Revolutionary changes do occur from time to time. We changed the glass industry over from air fuel combustion to oxyfuel combustion during the 90's, and the result was a dramatic reduction of NOx production. By now it's pretty standard in the industry.
We tried to do the same with cement, but since there's so much air infiltration, oxyfuel actually makes more NOx. You can't just count on a brilliant idea that revolutionizes an industry.
But as has been pointed out here, there isn't much economic incentive to develop a cleaner process. That's where political incentive might be of some use. I'd never thought in terms of how big a part cement production plays in the global picture, but from what's been stated here, it's pretty big. So It sounds like maybe the government should take a two pronged approach: provide some funding to develop a cleaner process, and apply some penalties to the dirtiest cement producers, so that they have incentive to clean up their act.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Sterling:
You don't have to invent the new process. All you have to do is call for society to make the change. I dunno, boycott cement, or write your congressman and tell them that they should support a clean air initiative on cement production. Be willing to support government spending on it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was thinking about this last night, somewhat in relation to something Blayne said on the "Fall of the British Empire" thread about Americans being addicted to luxuries and being too pampered to deal with the real world, more or less.
I think a series of small luxury taxes should be added (on top of existing ones, if they exist) to excessively used utilities. People who use too much water, or electricity or heating oil (sadly it'd be too hard to track gasoline usage), should be charged just a little extra for it, and that money can be funneled back into an R&D effort to create new, clean, technologies. Be they a new building material to replace cement, or more research in solar energy to make cells more efficient and raise the rate of energy capture.
The government has aready created some standards that have reduced the amount of resources used, like requiring that toilets use less water per flush.
Incentives and penalties should extend beyond the business world's wastefulness. The poor won't be effected at all by this, and that's necessary, as they are already struggling to get by in some places. But for the wealthy, and for the wasteful upper and middle classes, it's time to either cut back or pay. Showers that used to last forty minutes should be curtailed to half that, well, probably much less than that actually, it depends on how much water is determined necessary for usage. For the wealthy who insist on showers that have eight nozzels all spraying mass amounts of water on them for extended periods of time, that's fine, just pay for it.
It's not just a luxury tax, it's a Wastefulness Tax. And the point isn't necessarily to generate capital, it's to deter wastefulness in average people. It's so parents start telling their kids to turn off lights when they leave the room, or to cut showers short, and to not leave doors open in the winter so heat escapes (all things my mother always told me). And so everyone in general starts doing these things as common practice. Less use, less waste, less stress placed on our environment, and a healthier nation in general is the goal. I think this is very doable, and very reasonable.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Rabbit, I should have been more specific. I meant to say: no one knows what will happen long-term. How would such a radical series of climate changes, not just regional weather, affect weather patterns throughout the planet? Humanity has difficulty predicting weather more than a week or two in advance-it is this difficulty I was referring to, not any difficulty in knowing what would result exactly one step down the line.
Reading a news article today kind of brought my frustration with this to a point. It mentioned that Antarctica is losing ~36 cubic miles of ice a year due to global warming. However, this is the exact opposite of what computer models and studies done in 2001 predicted. They predicted more ice in the Antarctic right now, not less.
It's these kind of contradictions that really chip away at the credibility of climatologists and their predictions.
That being said, I'm enjoying the discussion in this thread. I like the ideas thrown around here and wished more citizens cared enough to get the government and private industry to do something. It's just that the arrogance of the scientific establishment in this case gets on my nerves.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)