Changing environment due to pollution

[Student Pilot 0]

I assume you are talking about over population or is my sake impairing my reading comprehension?

I think what Iroquois Pliskin is saying (or at least what I am interpreting him to say) is that the push for climate controlling green technologies will necessarily result in a rise in costs and subsequent decrease in consumption of products necessary for continued life in developing nations. Attempts to ban things like fertilizers, gasoline-powered engines, and various chemicals will retard the growth of these nations into proper modern national entities. Such changes could in fact put these nations backwards. There are millions (edit: billions) of people that rely on "dirty" technologies for their basic survival, and banning these would result in millions dieing and the standard of living decreasing to unacceptable levels. This is why he says "almost any "developing" country would rather face death before even a thought of reduced consumption enters their mind."

If this is indeed what he is trying to say, then I do agree with him for the most part. Western civilization did not get to where it is by using expensive, inefficient green technologies. We abused the hell out of the environment during the late 1800s up to around 1980-1990, using cheap oil, polluting factories, and harsh chemicals to increase our production and consumption of goods and services, especially argricultural products. The result was a fantastic rise in our standard of living never seen before that time. If we deny developing nations the chance to develop like we did, we could set them back for a very long time, and this is not in the best interest of anyone.

I would especially caution the push toward "green" agricultural products. Before any nation can become industrialized, it must have a solid agricultural base. Expensive, inefficient green agri-food products raise the cost of farming and lower the yield compared to traditional "dirty" products. This alone can seriously stunt the economic growth of developing nations.

-Student Pilot

[Akira 0]

The problem with hydro is its "green" claim. Yes it pumps out little or no carbon, but the very act of damning up a river/estuary/water source damages the environment and generally produces extreme ecological impacts.

I agree 100% with the point you bring up. I was going to bring it up earlier myself. I do call into question your definition of what is 'green', though. The selection of a sight or sights for a hydroelectric dam can be made to reduce the impact on the surrounding landscape. Near where I live, for instance, the Cleveland dam creates a man made lake above the Capilano river, however the environment below the dam and above it is flourishing. Plus, once the sight is selected and the dam is built, its further effect on the environment is much less than other forms of energy. The system uses the sun (in the form of water evapouration to move it up stream) and gravity (as it moves downstream) in order to generate electrical power, rather than chemical energy. The downside to this kind of power plant is that not everywhere is suitable for them, and it is not wise to build a dam on every suitable stream.

I should say that the Cleveland dam is not used for hydroelectricity, but for the watershed, but it is the only dam that I come into close contact with on a regular basis.

Actually, this goes to prove my point.

There was no lake before the dam was built. Once the dam was built, the free-flow state of the river was altered (affecting any species relying on the free flow) and a lake was formed. Whatever natural eco-system used to be evolving along the river is now under the lake, gone. What you see around the lake may be pretty, but it is not a natural eco-system.

"Green" has many definitions, but all include some level of not altering the natural order, and the attempt to minimize the anthropogenic effects upon the natural status of the Earth. Making large man-made lakes that drown out eco-systems is not very "green".

Solar is too expensive right now, and still has problems with storage (though current research may reduce these negatives). Wind is erratic and may have issues with endangered species and a weird low-level hum has been reported. Plus there is the alteration of the landscape by so many wind-towers. Nuclear is pretty clean as far as emissions, but you have that pesky problem of the site being irradiated for a few thousand years and the waste associated.

Corn ethanol may be an option, but then you run into the problem of part of your food supply being diverted to make fuel.

I'm a personal follower of algae based fuel. You get about 10x the amount of fuel that corn produces, and the algae is a carbon-sink in the processes that produce the fuel. Continental tested a 777 (I think) partially run on algae-produced fuel with no measurable drop off in energy produced.

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:11 PM ----------

I would especially caution the push toward "green" agricultural products. Before any nation can become industrialized, it must have a solid agricultural base. Expensive, inefficient green agri-food products raise the cost of farming and lower the yield compared to traditional "dirty" products. This alone can seriously stunt the economic growth of developing nations.

Actually recent studies have shown that "green" agriculture can yield 80-98% of the yield of "dirty" agriculture. Some crops have higher yield without fertilizers or other modern techniques, it just depends on the climate, soil, and crop being planted. These tests were conducted in what we would term developing nations (Latin America).

If this is indeed what he is trying to say, then I do agree with him for the most part. Western civilization did not get to where it is by using expensive, inefficient green technologies. We abused the hell out of the environment during the late 1800s up to around 1980-1990, using cheap oil, polluting factories, and harsh chemicals to increase our production and consumption of goods and services, especially argricultural products. The result was a fantastic rise in our standard of living never seen before that time. If we deny developing nations the chance to develop like we did, we could set them back for a very long time, and this is not in the best interest of anyone.

It should be noted that we didn't get to where we are by using "green" technologies because there were no green technologies to use (windmills and water based energy aside). Nor did anyone have the inkling of what burning massive amount of fossil fuels would do, or building a canal to join two separate bodies of water, or do anything that altered the natural balance, because they had no idea about the Earth as a system. They had no idea about the consequences, but it's questionable if they would have cared if they did know. But now we do know.

Western powers have to aid developing nations in reducing carbon emissions by financial, technological, medical, and agricultural aid. It can be done, just no one has the scrote to do it. As sea levels raise, it is the developing nations that will be hurt the most, not the western powers that have the technology and finances to adapt. Either way they will die. They can die from consumption or die from earth changes. As the major consumptive culture, it would be on us to aid them to not go down the same road. If nothing is done, just imagine the carbon of TWO industrial revolutions being pumped into the air as India and China, each with a population approximately equal to the total world population during the first industrial revolution, continue to "develop."

[Baff1 0]

That's because the cure is worse than the disease.

One way we attempt to see off a potential future apocalpyse, the other we guarentee an immediate one of greater proportion.

[Student Pilot 0]

Actually recent studies have shown that "green" agriculture can yield 80-98% of the yield of "dirty" agriculture. Some crops have higher yield without fertilizers or other modern techniques, it just depends on the climate, soil, and crop being planted. These tests were conducted in what we would term developing nations (Latin America).

But what is the cost involved? And does this relate to the majority of crops, or just a few? Some luxury crops may not require fertilizers and pesticides, but I dare say that commodity crops such as corn and wheat would do much worse without them.

Western powers have to aid developing nations in reducing carbon emissions by financial, technological, medical, and agricultural aid.

No we do not, and we should not. Agrictultural aid is already killing African agriculture, and if we do not stop Africa will never leave its stagnant state. These countries need to advance by themselves without our aid and money. With all of the money we have thrown at places like Africa, have you seen any progress? No, and this is because these places have not had the chance to develop their own infrastructure because of our "help".

This debate about green technologies and the developing nations is where our differences truly come head-to-head. I do not believe we are harming the environment near as much as you do, and as a result fully support industrial revolutions which require dirty technologies as their foundation. You, believing the environment is being irreparably destroyed, cannot support such movements. The only problem is, we are being green at the sacrifice of billions of people, putting environmental issues before human issues. I believe the environment will take care of itself, and as a result we humans should focus on taking care of ourselves. China, India, Brazil, and the other developing nations will eventually move to greener technologies after their industrial revolutions are complete and they can afford it. If we force the issue those nations will not advance.

-Student Pilot

[riffleman 20]

But what is the cost involved? And does this relate to the majority of crops, or just a few? Some luxury crops may not require fertilizers and pesticides, but I dare say that commodity crops such as corn and wheat would do much worse without them.

No we do not, and we should not. Agrictultural aid is already killing African agriculture, and if we do not stop Africa will never leave its stagnant state. These countries need to advance by themselves without our aid and money. With all of the money we have thrown at places like Africa, have you seen any progress? No, and this is because these places have not had the chance to develop their own infrastructure because of our "help".

This debate about green technologies and the developing nations is where our differences truly come head-to-head. I do not believe we are harming the environment near as much as you do, and as a result fully support industrial revolutions which require dirty technologies as their foundation. You, believing the environment is being irreparably destroyed, cannot support such movements. The only problem is, we are being green at the sacrifice of billions of people, putting environmental issues before human issues. I believe the environment will take care of itself, and as a result we humans should focus on taking care of ourselves. China, India, Brazil, and the other developing nations will eventually move to greener technologies after their industrial revolutions are complete and they can afford it. If we force the issue those nations will not advance.

-Student Pilot

you are good thinker, but everyone need development now days man

[Akira 0]

This debate about green technologies and the developing nations is where our differences truly come head-to-head. I do not believe we are harming the environment near as much as you do, and as a result fully support industrial revolutions which require dirty technologies as their foundation. You, believing the environment is being irreparably destroyed, cannot support such movements. The only problem is, we are being green at the sacrifice of billions of people, putting environmental issues before human issues. I believe the environment will take care of itself, and as a result we humans should focus on taking care of ourselves. China, India, Brazil, and the other developing nations will eventually move to greener technologies after their industrial revolutions are complete and they can afford it. If we force the issue those nations will not advance.

Environment and human issues go hand-in-hand. We are part of the environment. The environment and humans interact on a daily basis and if you intend to fix human issues you better fix environmental issues. The environment and nature will indeed fix itself, and it will do so with no regard to us. You undoubtedly think that I am more concerned with the environment and protecting it than humans, and there you are wrong and your fundamental lack of understanding of the system comes out.

Do you understand that carbon takes time to interact with the atmosphere? Carbon based changes in the environment today are not from carbon pumped out yesterday, but from years ago. What China and India are pumping out, we haven't seen the full effects from, and with their populations, each country will likely pump out an amount of carbon equal to the industrial revolution. Again I say it...each.

Global warming is melting ice caps and the permafrost across the tundra. The first northwest passage transits ever to have taken place have occurred this year because arctic ice is melting. The sub-arctic tundra alone holds 550 gigatons of carbon that hasn't even been entered into global warming equations. A recent study in the journal Science measured increases of carbon exhaled around 40%. Sea level rise will completely cover most coral islands in the Pacific leading to millions of refugees that have to go somewhere. Developing nations (unlike developed nations) will be unable to do much as their coastlines are altered from raising seas. It should be noted that many of their industrialized site are near water. Continued deforestation will lead to the systems reduced ability to capture carbon, and desertification and soil erosion.

How are developing nations suppose to "advance" with reduced agricultural output and soil quality? If they can't feed their people it will just lead to greater reliance on developed nations.

No we do not, and we should not. Agrictultural aid is already killing African agriculture, and if we do not stop Africa will never leave its stagnant state. These countries need to advance by themselves without our aid and money. With all of the money we have thrown at places like Africa, have you seen any progress? No, and this is because these places have not had the chance to develop their own infrastructure because of our "help".

How are these nations suppose to develop when many lack the natural resources to do so? Europe and America developed so quickly because of a vast resource base, a base most developing nations lack.

The problem with agricultural aid today is that it is to promote globalization, not local farmers. That is not what I advocate. I advocate aid in the form of local-specific techniques, crops, and governance. Medical aid and education to reduce the population growth and burden on agricultural development, and technological aid to get them away from dirty forms of energy and greater economic growth.

Part of the problem of Africa is political as well. They still haven't recovered from the colonial era of the 19th and 20th centuries, and policies in place today (as you partly pointed out) are only leading to neo-colonialism.

[Student Pilot 0]

Environment and human issues go hand-in-hand. We are part of the environment. The environment and humans interact on a daily basis and if you intend to fix human issues you better fix environmental issues. The environment and nature will indeed fix itself, and it will do so with no regard to us.

I think I may be misunderstanding you somewhere. You seem to present a contradiction. In your first sentence you say human and environment issues go hand in hand, which I do not disagree with. However, you say in your fourth sentence that nature will fix itself. If this is true, then humans should not have to be so concerned about the environment, and should focus on improving our standard of living using whatever technologies are available to us, green or not.

As for melting icecaps and permafrost, and whatever other global warming problems there are, I do not disagree that they may be happening. What I disagree about is the cause. I do not believe the events cited by environmentalists are caused by man. I believe that they are caused by factors not under our control such as sunspot activity (though this may not be the only non-human factor). As such, eventually the earth's climate will reverse itself, permafrost and icecaps will freeze again, and the world's agriculture will be saved, all without our intervention.

How are these nations suppose to develop when many lack the natural resources to do so? Europe and America developed so quickly because of a vast resource base, a base most developing nations lack

Almost every nation has resources available to it, it is just up to that nation's residents to exploit them for their own benefit. Even Africa has undeveloped resources. What about nations in the desert areas you may ask? Create glass factories...

Your advocation of aid such as local-specific techniques and short-term medical I can agree with. Governance and crops, though, I think they can do without. Let them govern their industries themselves, and let them grow their own crops or trade for them.

I would go further with this, but this topic is about climate change and further conversation on my part about African aid would be off topic. I will let you have the last word on this if you so choose in your next post. After this, aid and Africa is off my conversation list for this topic.

-Student Pilot

EDIT:

About global warming leading to rising water levels and decreased agricultural output: This assumes that temperatures keep rising. I believe they will, and may already have, hit a peak and start going down. Therefore, these consequences will not happen. This again goes back to my belief for the reasons of climate change being non-human in nature.

I understand where you are coming from. If I believed that humans contributed to global warming, I too would be worried as hell about the upcoming years. Thing is, is I do not believe that and have not seen evidence that fully convinces me.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Student Pilot

[Akira 0]

I think I may be misunderstanding you somewhere. You seem to present a contradiction. In your first sentence you say human and environment issues go hand in hand, which I do not disagree with. However, you say in your fourth sentence that nature will fix itself. If this is true, then humans should not have to be so concerned about the environment, and should focus on improving our standard of living using whatever technologies are available to us, green or not.

There is no contradiction. Nature always seeks a balance. Whatever we do, nature will adapt. The question is, what effects will nature adapting have on us? Adapting will entail climatic changes, landscape changes, species changes, etc. that will produce large agricultural changes and crop failures, coastal changes as mentioned before (some 80% of the worlds population lives within 500km of the coast, estimates are that 10% of the world population live below sea level), The question is can we adapt when nature adapts? As I said, nature will fix itself with absolutely no regard for our well-being.

The Earth has gone through multiple climatic changes through its life, some natural, some not, and the earth is still here. What isn't here are species from those times, and humans have just as equal a chance of becoming the next extinct species.

As for melting icecaps and permafrost, and whatever other global warming problems there are, I do not disagree that they may be happening. What I disagree about is the cause. I do not believe the events cited by environmentalists are caused by man. I believe that they are caused by factors not under our control such as sunspot activity (though this may not be the only non-human factor). As such, eventually the earth's climate will reverse itself, permafrost and icecaps will freeze again, and the world's agriculture will be saved, all without our intervention.

And what do you base this on since it flies in the face of all the scientific literature out there. What sources do you use to come up with this belief?

You don't think pumping millions of tonnes of carbon, a known greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere every year might cause some kind of climatic change?

And the problem with the sun-spot theory is the belief that sun-spots have increased since the 1700s when sun-spots were first observed and recorded, corresponding with an increase in temperature. This doesn't take into account changing technologies that enable us to observe more sun-spots and sun-spots that would have been unnoticed with the technology of the 1700s and 1800s.

And you also fail to realize that as the carbon is released from the tundra, the earth heats up more, which releases more carbon, etc. It's called a positive feedback loop. The arctic and tundra may freeze again, but it will be after thousands of years and drastic climatic shifts. There will be no agriculture to save.

Almost every nation has resources available to it, it is just up to that nation's residents to exploit them for their own benefit. Even Africa has undeveloped resources. What about nations in the desert areas you may ask? Create glass factories...

This is such a ridiculous statement I don't even know how to respond. You think all they need to make glass is sand? And your serious suggestion for economic growth in a desert is to make glass?

Your advocation of aid such as local-specific techniques and short-term medical I can agree with. Governance and crops, though, I think they can do without. Let them govern their industries themselves, and let them grow their own crops or trade for them.

By governance I mean local governance and production, not globalization governance.

[Student Pilot 0]

And what do you base this on since it flies in the face of all the scientific literature out there. What sources do you use to come up with this belief?

It flies in the face of all widely-publicized and politically-recited scientific literature out there. I would hardly say the scientific community is in consensus over global warming.

I have read figures which maintain that man's output of greenhouse gases is nothing compared to nature's output, with man's greenhouse emissions equating to a fraction of a percentage of total greenhouse emissions. This would mean that any change we contribute is so negligible as to be irrelevant. I must admit, though, that I do not have the sources at hand, and therefore this claim is only that, a claim. I do not have the time or energy right now to substantiate it...maybe later.

Regarding sunspot activity, just because our measurement tools now can see more than the tools of the past does not mean it fully explains the increase in sunspot activity. It is just one factor that may or may not be relevant, and we will never know for sure.

This is such a ridiculous statement I don't even know how to respond. You think all they need to make glass is sand? And your serious suggestion for economic growth in a desert is to make glass?

Actually, that comment was made in jest. It was meant to be a humorous side-comment in what is usually a tense debate.

By governance I mean local governance and production, not globalization governance.

Ok, I misunderstood you, my apologies.

-Student Pilot

EDIT:

Ok, I guess I do have time and energy to look up my claim. Here is a site that analysis greenhouse gases using numbers from the US Department of Energy.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Notice how little man contributes to CO2 emissions, and notice how little man contributes to total greenhouse gas emissions when water vapor is considered.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Student Pilot

[Akira 0]

Actually, that comment was made in jest. It was meant to be a humorous side-comment in what is usually a tense debate.

Fair enough, my apologies.

But it does illustrate a point. What do countries in the Sahel and other hostile landscapes do for economic growth (aside from the debate about how to power that growth)?

It flies in the face of all widely-publicized and politically-recited scientific literature out there. I would hardly say the scientific community is in consensus over global warming.

I have read figures which maintain that man's output of greenhouse gases is nothing compared to nature's output, with man's greenhouse emissions equating to a fraction of a percentage of total greenhouse emissions. This would mean that any change we contribute is so negligible as to be irrelevant. I must admit, though, that I do not have the sources at hand, and therefore this claim is only that, a claim. I do not have the time or energy right now to substantiate it...maybe later.

Actually, scientists are in consensus that man-made greenhouse gases are the likely cause of global warming. However I will await your sources which I presume won't be the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) or other Exxon and petroleum industry funded "think tanks."

[Student Pilot 0]

My source was edited into my previous post while you were posting. The information about greenhouse gas emissions excluding water vapor are from the US Department of Energy. The water vapor information is from various other sources and possibly suspect (I have not confirmed the validity, so take it how you like). Either way, both sets of information show the point I am trying to make.

Greenhouse gases may be the cause of global warming, I will not deny that, but the question is how much does man really contribute to greenhouse gas emissions? The source I found, using US DOE numbers, shows not much.

-Student Pilot

[Soldier of Anarchy 10]

Watch a series called "LIFE AFTER MAN". It shows how the earth will repair itself over time when mankind has died off. Might sound grim, but as long as money comes befor the planet, it's inevitable.

You shouldn't put a price on the survival of the human race ,yet it's done every day.

[Student Pilot 0]

Might sound grim, but as long as money comes befor the planet, it's inevitable.

I think you will see that, if you read my link, we have very little effect on the greenhouse gas emissions of this planet, and therefore very little effect on climate change.

I just did some calculations using wikipedia's numbers for the percentage of water vapor to greenhouse gases. The lower bound in wikipedia is 36%, so I am using this as a worst-case scenario.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Even if water vapor only accounts for 36% of total greenhouse gases, man only contributes 4.045% of total greenhouse gas emissions. While not as drastic as .28%, 4.045% is still very small.

-Student Pilot

EDIT: My calculations:

Edited August 18, 2009 by Student Pilot

[Akira 0]

Greenhouse gases may be the cause of global warming, I will not deny that, but the question is how much does man really contribute to greenhouse gas emissions? The source I found, using US DOE numbers, shows not much.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Take the source as you like, but it has links to scientific journal articles backing up their statements.

EDIT:

Here is also a link about water vapor:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Again, contains links to journals.

A NOAA link

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

Basically states that water vapor is not causing global warming, but a by-product of global warming, as well as an amplifier.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Akira

[Student Pilot 0]

You make a good point about water vapor. However, I somewhat disagree with this:

as well as an amplifier.

Firstly, the last link you posted says this about the water vapor feedback loop: "The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood." Saying that water vapor is an amplifier is somewhat premature at this stage. In addition, that link also stated, and it makes sense, that with increasing water vapor clouds form more often. This causes more radiation to be reflected back into space, which has an effect of cooling the earth. It almost sounds like water vapor is nature's tool of dealing with excess human CO2 pollution, as well as any potential situations where CO2 pollution is not high enough.

Also, the link I posted shows man's contributions without water vapor, using US DOI data, which is around 5.5%. Even without water vapor our contributions to greenhouse gases are minimal.

-Student Pilot

[Akira 0]

Also, the link I posted shows man's contributions without water vapor, using US DOI data, which is around 5.5%. Even without water vapor our contributions to greenhouse gases are minimal.

The link I posted above gives an analysis of this claim. As I previously stated, the earth is a system. Yes, natural processes expel tonnes of CO2, however the system is balanced such that there are process that re-capture this carbon for continued life processes.

Man's contribution is above what the system is capable of recapturing. There are journal articles showing that a number of these capturing systems (ie oceans, forests, etc.) are either at saturation point or, in the case of forests, being destroyed. Biomass for deforestation of the Amazon is also releasing captured CO2 beyond what the system can capture while at the same time destroying this CO2 capturing rain forest.

[Student Pilot 0]

Man's contribution is above what the system is capable of recapturing.

Who is to say that earth will not or has not adapted to the increased levels? Considering how little greenhouse gases we expel, the earth would not have to adapt much at all. Nothing is static in the environment, so saying that the system is incapable of recapturing the excess CO2 is trying to take a snapshot of the environment and apply it forward. This earth is very adaptable to whatever we throw at it, especially considering that we throw very little at it.

Ultimately, we know very little about the young science of climatology. There may be complex processes occurring which keep the earth in balance that we do not even know about. Right now, considering our ignorance in the matter, I would rather wait and trust that earth will take care of itself than implement costly, inefficient green technologies which reduce our standard of living and threaten the lives of so many in developing countries.

And with that, I think I have exhausted my energy on this debate for now. You can have the last word. I have enjoyed debating with you, and thanks for keeping it civil.

-Student Pilot

Edited August 18, 2009 by Student Pilot

[max power 21]

The problem with hydro is its "green" claim. Yes it pumps out little or no carbon, but the very act of damning up a river/estuary/water source damages the environment and generally produces extreme ecological impacts.

Actually, this goes to prove my point.

There was no lake before the dam was built. Once the dam was built, the free-flow state of the river was altered (affecting any species relying on the free flow) and a lake was formed. Whatever natural eco-system used to be evolving along the river is now under the lake, gone. What you see around the lake may be pretty, but it is not a natural eco-system.

"Green" has many definitions, but all include some level of not altering the natural order, and the attempt to minimize the anthropogenic effects upon the natural status of the Earth. Making large man-made lakes that drown out eco-systems is not very "green".

Solar is too expensive right now, and still has problems with storage (though current research may reduce these negatives). Wind is erratic and may have issues with endangered species and a weird low-level hum has been reported. Plus there is the alteration of the landscape by so many wind-towers. Nuclear is pretty clean as far as emissions, but you have that pesky problem of the site being irradiated for a few thousand years and the waste associated.

Corn ethanol may be an option, but then you run into the problem of part of your food supply being diverted to make fuel.

I'm a personal follower of algae based fuel. You get about 10x the amount of fuel that corn produces, and the algae is a carbon-sink in the processes that produce the fuel. Continental tested a 777 (I think) partially run on algae-produced fuel with no measurable drop off in energy produced.

I don't think that giving the most restrictive definition to 'green' is really helpful. Solar, wind- pretty much any kind of energy collection- alters the landscape at least slightly. You need a lot of land for a wind farm, and you need quite a bit for a solar power plant aswell. The good news is that none of those sources of power emits any significant amount of toxic chemicals while they run.

One need not create a lake, either. One might Dam an existing lake, and control the flow of water out. I don't know what your definition of free flowing is, either. The Capilano river seems to fill its banks quite nicely. It's not like they reduced this raging river to a trickle. You want as much water flowing throw a hydro electric dam as possible to generate electricity. Simply keeping all of the water upstream doesn't make any sense.

[Akira 0]

I don't think that giving the most restrictive definition to 'green' is really helpful. Solar, wind- pretty much any kind of energy collection- alters the landscape at least slightly. You need a lot of land for a wind farm, and you need quite a bit for a solar power plant aswell. The good news is that none of those sources of power emits any significant amount of toxic chemicals while they run.

I don't think I gave the most restrictive, but the most inclusive definition. That is why I included "minimize the anthropogenic effects." Solar and Wind are by far more "green" then a coal fired plant. No matter what we do, in some way we alter the environment. Would I rather our energy portfolio include solar and wind? Yes. Do I acknowledge that these forms of energy will also have some environmental effects, whether we know about them or not? Yes. Doesn't mean I don't wish my house had a solar panel on it.

One need not create a lake, either. One might Dam an existing lake, and control the flow of water out. I don't know what your definition of free flowing is, either. The Capilano river seems to fill its banks quite nicely. It's not like they reduced this raging river to a trickle. You want as much water flowing throw a hydro electric dam as possible to generate electricity. Simply keeping all of the water upstream doesn't make any sense.

Free-flowing by definition, and included in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (and amendments), means a river not dammed. It is literally...free-flowing.

I'm not anti-hydro...but at the same time you have to include the eco-system destruction that is inherent in dam building.

Who is to say that earth will not or has not adapted to the increased levels? Considering how little greenhouse gases we expel, the earth would not have to adapt much at all. Nothing is static in the environment, so saying that the system is incapable of recapturing the excess CO2 is trying to take a snapshot of the environment and apply it forward. This earth is very adaptable to whatever we throw at it, especially considering that we throw very little at it.

Ultimately, we know very little about the young science of climatology. There may be complex processes occurring which keep the earth in balance that we do not even know about. Right now, considering our ignorance in the matter, I would rather wait and trust that earth will take care of itself than implement costly, inefficient green technologies which reduce our standard of living and threaten the lives of so many in developing countries.

Since you said I could have the last word I will.

First off, you can't "trust the earth will take care of itself" from us pumping excess CO2 in the air, and then be 'concerned' about the developing world. The developing world is the one that is going to be hardest hit by any changes, including the eradication of part of their land.

Second, I'm not just pulling CO2 saturation outta my butt. It's in the link I posted as well as the journal that documents it. Yes the earth system is ever-changing, but it doesn't change overnight just as species don't evolve overnight. It takes time, and I mean geologic time, not human time. In the meantime we keep pumping millions of tonnes of a known greenhouse gas. Regardless of how much we put in the air, it is in excess of what the system has evolved to handle. At the same time, we are destroying many of these carbon sink landscapes.

And more importantly, because the earth is currently warming, the arctic tundra is melting releasing even more CO2...as in billions of tonnes. One conservative estimate has it at an amount equal to one-quarter of the total in the atmosphere or 10 years worth of human produced emissions.

Firstly, the last link you posted says this about the water vapor feedback loop: "The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood." Saying that water vapor is an amplifier is somewhat premature at this stage. In addition, that link also stated, and it makes sense, that with increasing water vapor clouds form more often. This causes more radiation to be reflected back into space, which has an effect of cooling the earth. It almost sounds like water vapor is nature's tool of dealing with excess human CO2 pollution, as well as any potential situations where CO2 pollution is not high enough.

First you say water vapor is causing global warming and now you are saying it is causing global cooling??

[Baff1 0]

I don't think that giving the most restrictive definition to 'green' is really helpful. Solar, wind- pretty much any kind of energy collection- alters the landscape at least slightly. You need a lot of land for a wind farm, and you need quite a bit for a solar power plant aswell. The good news is that none of those sources of power emits any significant amount of toxic chemicals while they run.

The bad news is, you still need the wind and the sun.

The entire British islands were becalmed during Febuary.

@Akira, the ice sheets melt every year. It's not really as big a surprise as all that. It's called summertime.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

We do not care about their people; all we need is their resources and the energy that can be developed from them.

They do not care about what you think, or your scientists think; more than 2k environmental scientists world-wide singed an official petition that man-made Global warming is a fraud, since they know how grants in the scientific community work; and this is why NASA will get pennies for their Constellation Project. Either way, global warming to me and to men in power is nothing more than another legend, with objectives to induce a certain behavior when the need arises.

You may dream & wish that this is the new Golden Era of (Western) civilization.

You may dream about green energy, but you may never achieve it due to the reasons stated above. Nuclear energy - you don't mention it a lot, at all.

Facts of the matter are - Asia went for a revolution in weapons as their primary concern, just like the Europeans did; second step for the East was of course a revolution in transport & communications to effectively wage wars with the weapons they've developed. Europeans pushed the Agricultural and then the Industrial revolutions, since men like John D. Rockefeller and Mr. Morgan were men of pragmatism, not bullshit theories; they knew exactly what the plebes wanted: you wanted more food, more clothes, then you wanted personal transportation, at the climax you are working 8 hours a week thanks to the above mentioned people, you are now at a sandy beach, away from all the civilization's downs, global cooling is being pushed forward in the box and over the radio - the seventies. Then you wanted healthcare, you wanted insurance, insurance against nature, you got it, you've received your 401k, that turned into 200.5k due to your own ignorance, greed; housing bubble - is your child, the average people's making.

Now, where were we? Ah, yes, indeed - the 3rd step of development of other civilizations; 3rd step for them - revolution in sanitation & medicine - treat the wounded in wars that are raging non-stop. POPULATION EXPODES. Last, but not least the agriculture to generate new soldiers & to keep the peasants/cattle at bay. Industrial revoution was the 4th step.

What does this tell you, you tell yourself if you can still think for yourself - a feature of a conscious human being. This is a new religion, and what your priests are not telling you is that salvation is in consuming more, whole seas, ecosystems, moons, asteroids, planets, star systems... But plebes are not ready for that quite yet; yet human beings are pushing ever further for the final solution, if only the peasants were civilized enough.

Post Scriptum: If you are discussing the Western civilization, then I have no objections; you may bathe in your own ignorance. But when you take a leap over the border, trust this truth: if you restrict other nations in any way, they will come to murder the average Joe & Mary in their sleep.

This problem that you've imagined, can be dealt with a short thermonuclear war, between 3rd world nuclear-capable states, sponsored by yours truly. But this would be the first world war that actually makes an objective of wiping out billions of people; first two were there for you to reconsider your behavior that embarked you on a journey of commodities, nationalism and much more, and to embrace something called the United Nations, formerly the Club of Rome. And I endorse this organization.

[Akira 0]

I don't even know what to make of the above...

@Akira, the ice sheets melt every year. It's not really as big a surprise as all that. It's called summertime.

Har-dee-har

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Quoting myself, this piece will be easier for you to comprehend: they knew exactly what the plebes wanted: you wanted more food, more clothes, then you wanted personal transportation, at the climax you are working 8 hours a week thanks to the above mentioned people, you are now at a sandy beach, away from all the civilization's downs, global cooling is being pushed forward in the box and over the radio - the seventies. Then you wanted healthcare, you wanted insurance, insurance against nature, you got it, you've received your 401k, that turned into 200.5k due to your own ignorance, greed; housing bubble - is your child, the average people's making.

You and your lot are the culmination of arrogance, ignorance, hypocricy in today's Roman Empire. Just a few years ago you have done everything that you despise, and it seems, the sharade continues. Even if you personally have not done so, doesn't matter, you all sink together.

[Akira 0]

Quoting myself, this piece will be easier for you to comprehend: they knew exactly what the plebes wanted: you wanted more food, more clothes, then you wanted personal transportation, at the climax you are working 8 hours a week thanks to the above mentioned people, you are now at a sandy beach, away from all the civilization's downs, global cooling is being pushed forward in the box and over the radio - the seventies. Then you wanted healthcare, you wanted insurance, insurance against nature, you got it, you've received your 401k, that turned into 200.5k due to your own ignorance, greed; housing bubble - is your child, the average people's making.

You and your lot are the culmination of arrogance, ignorance, hypocricy in today's Roman Empire. Just a few years ago you have done everything that you despise, and it seems, the sharade continues. Even if you personally have not done so, doesn't matter, you all sink together.

Uh...so me and my "lot" are to blame, and whether or not I did anything, it's still my fault.

Ummm..ok.

[Soldier of Anarchy 10]

A wait and see attitude, could mean making some alternations to world maps and globes.....hope you got plenty of blue markers.

On the plus side, maybe I'll finally own some beach front property.......in Missouri!!!