So about the environmentalists and global warming...

X · 2007-05-24 21:02:32

I don't really believe that manmade global warming is that big of a concern, and even if it is I'm not certain it's that bad of an idea. I mean I think it's too hot already so making it hotter doesn't really make me feel worse off.

I've slowly been reading some of the books Rick over in the terraforming forum posted. They've further increased my feeling that humans should be releasing carbon into the atmosphere. I mean if we prove to be a long lived species we're going to have to sometime so why not do it now while there's some money and benefit in it aside from just freeing up carbon?

The point of this is that environmentalists seem to never worry about returning carbon in the atmospheric carbon cycle to the geological carbon cycle. This seems to me to be what they should be trying to do if they really think manmade global warming is happening and is a big problem.

Fledi · 2007-05-26 07:57:32

Did you know that if you extrapolate the periodic cycle of warm periods/ice ages during the last some 100,000 years we should have already been in an ice age for a couple of thousands of years. It seems that when man started to grow crops and erased forests to make more room for the fields this cycle changed and we might have actually prevented a new ice age without knowing it.
If you compare vegetation during the last ice age and now you will see that there was generally much less life on the planet than now. he whole planet was a lot dryer, the Sahara was bigger, there were dry forests in Brazil where there are rain forests now...
But this whole issue is not so well founded as you could make the stone hard decisions some environmentalists are forcing through now. But I think that is not even their primary concern, they just want more political power/influence and if there would be no CO2 "problem" they would just look out for something different to have a reason to slow down growth (which tends to lead to change) and thereby consolidate their status.
By the way have you heard anything about the ozone hole recently? Seems like it doesn't change that much over the long term and was certainly there before we could even measure it. Anyway isn't it funny that it's mainly over the South Pole even though most of the worlds industry is located on the northern hemisphere? But such little details hardly can convince a die hard ecologist.

RobertDyck · 2007-05-26 11:50:18

Did you know that if you extrapolate the periodic cycle of warm periods/ice ages during the last some 100,000 years we should have already been in an ice age for a couple of thousands of years.

Um, no. Wrong. The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. Some people think interglacial periods last 12,000 years, but the previous interglacial period lasted 28,000 years. So will the next ice age start in 2,000 or 18,000 years? Milankovitch cycles predict the next ice age will begin 50,000 years from now. So which theory do we believe? In any case it shouldn't be here by now.
Reference: Ice age from Wikipedia

One worry is how humanity is messing with our climate. Ice cores from Greenland showed the last ice age came on in just 10 years. It went from a temperate climate like we have today to an ice age where snow and ice did not melt in summer over North America. Just 10 years; that's faster than scientists had expected. Their best theory to explain it was melting polar ice caused a pool of fresh water that pushed the Gulf Stream. Instead of carrying warm tropical water from the Gulf of Mexico along the east coast of North America and across to Europe, it went directly from the Caribbean to Africa. That triggered an ice age; they're worried our interference with the climate will do the same now.

Note the conclusion: if global warming occurs slowly so melting ice can mix with ocean salt water then the planet will continue to get warmer, but if global warming occurs fast it will trigger an ice age. We don't need to stop global warming, just slow it down.

Fledi · 2007-05-26 15:33:10

Hmm that's the problem there are a lot of theories and every one says something different. I heard about this ice age thing first in a scientific tv-show on the Bavarian channel called Alpha Centauri. Luckily all their shows are on the net and I reviewed it, the guy really did say that we probably prevented an ice age, it was not just the voices that usually talk in my head.

Anyway I searched up that theory and found it on the same wikipedia page you reffered to. Here it is:

William Ruddiman has proposed the early anthropocene hypothesis according to which the anthropocene era, as some people call the most recent period in the Earth's history when the activities of the human race first began to have a significant global impact on the Earth's climate and ecosystems, did not begin in the eighteenth century with advent of the industrial era, but dates back to 8000 years ago, due to intense farming activities of our early agrarian ancestors. It was at that time that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations stopped following the periodic pattern of the Milankovitch cycles. In his overdue-glaciation hypothesis Ruddiman claims that an incipient ice age would probably have begun several thousand years ago, but the arrival of that scheduled ice age was forestalled by the activities of early farmers. Other important aspects which contributed to ancient climate regimes are the ocean currents, which are modified by continent position as well as other factors. They have the ability to cool (i.e. aiding the creation of Antarctica) and the ability to warm (i.e giving the British Isles a temperate as opposed to a boreal climate).

As I said all this seems too controversial to me to make some major changes to the way we are doing things based on it, although that rapid cooling you talk about can be potentially dangerous, we should definitely take a look into what we could do to stop it if we saw something like that beginning to happen.

RobertDyck · 2007-05-26 18:00:02

although that rapid cooling you talk about can be potentially dangerous, we should definitely take a look into what we could do to stop it if we saw something like that beginning to happen.

That's the nasty thing, once it starts to happen it's too late to stop it. It's like a car at the top of the hill with no gas and the brakes don't work, if it starts to move a little toward the downward slope you can push it back up, but once it's on the slope heading down you can't push a car. Similar with ocean currents, you can prevent moving the ocean current but once it has moved you can't move it back. It's just too big. Once the process of global cooling starts, you're screwed. The only early sign would be formation of a pool of fresh water in the Arctic Ocean. Once that starts you have to ensure it has the same salinity as the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf Stream will move. How do you change the salinity of something the size of the Arctic Ocean? The only thing we can do is watch the rate at which arctic ice and Greenland ice melts, and if it's too fast slow the process. They have already seen arctic ice thinning, and Greenland ice melting at a rate never seen before. The economy is something also very slow to change, so they made a decision to start the process to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now so it will be in place by 2012, then they'll see how fast Arctic and Greenland ice is melting. Actually, the Kyoto Accord was based on the fact that modern industrial countries caused global warming, so they have to reduce their emissions first. Specifically, between 2008 and 2012 industrial countries must reduce their emissions to 5.2% below 1990 levels. I saw a presentation by Dr. David Suzuki who said third world countries will have to similarly reduce their emissions after 2012. Emissions include all analyzed greenhouse gasses: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

noosfractal · 2007-05-26 19:36:54

While it is true that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas was an extraordinary event and a legitimate example of abrupt climate change (although even the ice cores you mention put the transition duration at 40-50 years not 10 and others have the transition at > 100) the theory that it was caused by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_o … irculation has problems (e.g., why then did South America cool first?) and the alternative explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_event has support (e.g., the global deposition layer marking the beginning of the Younger Dryas).

In fact following a Jan 2006 Nature review of the topic, realclimate posted the following summary ...

Everyone quoted is however agreed on one thing: "the notion that [a future change in the themohaline circulation] may trigger a mini ice age is a myth”. The evidence of previous changes for instance at the Younger Dryas or during the 8.2 kyr event is quite strong, and significant coolings were observed particular around the North Atlantic, but even such localised coolings are not predicted to occur if the circulation slows as an effect of global warming.

And now even the mainstream alarmists are giving up on that particular bugaboo ...

Scientists Back Off Theory of a Colder Europe in a Warming World
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22colder+europe%22

So you'll need to try something else Robert. I believe the hippest eco-doomers are moving on to biological collapse of the ocean ecosystem.

To help with deprogramming, the car without breaks image comes from the neo-Malthusian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_Growth which has gained scriptural status among climate alarmists despite its being consistently wrong in theory and in practice.

RobertDyck · 2007-05-26 22:46:48

Interesting information, but I'm quoting from a documentary on Discovery Channel that said they looked at dust in ice layers of Greenland ice cores. Based on dust blown off of North America, the last ice age occured with a transition of only 10 years. That means the same accumulation of dust per year as today, followed by no dust. Lack of dust means an ice age, the ground was frozen or covered by snow throughout the summer.

As much as you don't like it, facts don't go away.

noosfractal · 2007-05-27 00:24:29

Interesting information, but I'm quoting from a documentary on Discovery Channel that said they looked at dust in ice layers of Greenland ice cores. Based on dust blown off of North America, the last ice age occured with a transition of only 10 years. That means the same accumulation of dust per year as today, followed by no dust. Lack of dust means an ice age, the ground was frozen or covered by snow throughout the summer.
As much as you don't like it, facts don't go away.

Shall we trust infotainment or peer reviewed literature?

Ice core reveals gentle start to last ice age
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040906/ … 06-10.html
(alt: http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1136 )

based on this paper ...
High-resolution record of Northern Hemisphere climate extending into the last interglacial period
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 … 02805.html
(alt: http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~www-glac/ngrip/pa … fs/201.pdf )

I'm disappointed Robert, I didn't think you were the type to uncritically swallow alarmist propaganda.

RobertDyck · 2007-05-27 09:42:57

Thank you for the link to BioEd online; I don't have a subscription to Nature.

Science is a tricky thing. Scientists are always learning more, and always challenging established knowledge. Those who aren't scientists, especially those who regularly attend a church which says "you must believe" really don't understand science. Just because science always studies everything does not mean you can dismiss what they say. Those who pollute or consume non-renewable resources in an irresponsible manner have always challenged any attempt to change their behaviour; they attempted to discredit the science. It's a known fact that polar ice is melting, bays that have never thawed since Europeans first discovered North America have completely melted during summer, a chunk of an Antarctic ice shelf larger than Rhode Island broke off, ice is measurably thinner than ever before, tundra is melting and polar bears in northern Manitoba are fewer, the global temperature has measurably risen at a more rapid rate since 1970. From a resource point of view, peak oil occurred last winter, from now on global oil production will be less per year. That while China and India are getting scooters and cars instead of bicycles and oxen. I read one prediction that Canada's natural gas deposits will only last 25 years, and that was a couple years ago. Despite that the coal burning power plants in Manitoba have been converted to natural gas, and large power plants in Ontario have been built, each one of which dwarfs the total thermal power generation of Manitoba. Extracting oil from tar sands is done with steam, but they aren't burning oil produced to generate steam, they're using natural gas. Power plants and tar sands extraction are consuming our natural gas, it would last a hell of a lot longer if it was only used to heat homes and other buildings.

George W. has refused to sign on to the Kyoto accord and oil companies in the U.S. don't want to do anything that would affect their profits. They don't care that they are consuming a valuable, limited resource at an irresponsible rate. They don't care about hurricanes that hit Florida and New Orleans. Did you know the year of hurricanes Katrina and Rita there weren't any more tropical storms than usual, instead the warm water of the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico converted harmless storms into hurricanes. Rita was not even a category 1 hurricane before it reached the Caribbean, it was just a storm. The reason I mention this is to point out it does affect Americans. As for oil, remember when OPEC limited oil in the 1970s to drive their profits up? Washington demanded all oil available be sent to the United States so Brazil was completely cut off. The reason Brazil produces ethanol for cars now is to ensure they have domestic production for fuel, they don't want to be cut off again just because America feels a need. So America affects the rest of the world.

Last week gas prices here in Winnipeg reached $1.29 per litre. Everyone is asking how this can be when Canada is an oil producer. How could we let prices get that high? I still remember the controversy in the early 1990s when one gas station refused to comply with price fixing by major oil companies, he sold gas at 38¢/L when major companies jumped prices to 42¢/L. I thought northern Ontario was gouging when stations along the Trans-Canada highway charged 61¢/L. Americans often claim prices are related to distance from some refinery in Texas or Louisiana, but I don't care what happens in the southern US; I live in Canada, my fuel comes from Calgary. An obvious solution is to limit oil exports to increase supply, then let the laws of supply and demand drop prices. But the US federal government insisted the bi-national free trade agreement include a clause that prohibits any restriction of export of oil to the US. When it was replaced by NAFTA that clause remained. Of course it also prohibits what the US has done with soft wood lumber, so the US is in violation of NAFTA. This means America is directly affecting what I have to pay.

So, I had a very simple explanation of why global warming was something we had to fix. An explanation from scientists with documented data to back it up. Now you want to discredit that. I am very sceptical.

noosfractal · 2007-05-28 00:40:30

Science is a tricky thing. Scientists are always learning more, and always challenging established knowledge. Those who aren't scientists, especially those who regularly attend a church which says "you must believe" really don't understand science. Just because science always studies everything does not mean you can dismiss what they say.

So are you one of those people? If not, then why are you dismissing the copious peer reviewed science I have presented to you? The information in the Discovery Channel program you watched probably came from the NGRIP guys. If you actually bother to read the article they say: we realized on our previous dig that past a certain depth the ice was all folded up and was giving us bad readings, so we moved to a new location where we could bore deeper.

They’ve taken better measurements. The state of scientific knowledge has changed. Why can’t you accept that? Because you’ve joined the Church of the Ecological Apocalypse. Things can only get worse, they can never get better. Any information that contradicts immediate overwhelming eco-catastrophe is funded by oil companies, anything vomited out by the Club of Rome – no matter how implausible – is scripture. Where is the science in this? For some reason you _want_ the apocalypse, just like fundamentalist Christians _want_ their version. It isn’t healthy.

peak oil occurred last winter

So many of my friends do this: “So what if climate models have holes you could drive a truck through? There are lots of good reasons to end oil dependency.”

I agree that there are lots of good reasons to end oil dependency. So why not use those reasons? Why pervert science and conjure immanent climate catastrophe? Science is our only defense against slavery to superstition. It’s too important not to try and stop it being hijacked by ideologues.

So, I had a very simple explanation of why global warming was something we had to fix. An explanation from scientists with documented data to back it up. Now you want to discredit that. I am very skeptical.

Good, be skeptical. But be a little bit skeptical about what the commercial media and the climate alarmists are feeding you as well. This may help ...

Understanding Common Climate Claims
R. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Refer … Claims.pdf

Fledi · 2007-05-28 12:33:50

Similar with ocean currents, you can prevent moving the ocean current but once it has moved you can't move it back. It's just too big.

I have no idea how to move it yet, but will tell you if something comes to my mind.

Actually, the Kyoto Accord was based on the fact that modern industrial countries caused global warming, so they have to reduce their emissions first. Specifically, between 2008 and 2012 industrial countries must reduce their emissions to 5.2% below 1990 levels. I saw a presentation by Dr. David Suzuki who said third world countries will have to similarly reduce their emissions after 2012. Emissions include all analyzed greenhouse gasses: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6

Good luck, we can't even stop countries from building nukes, how do you want to enforce such a law globally?

Science is a tricky thing. Scientists are always learning more, and always challenging established knowledge. Those who aren't scientists, especially those who regularly attend a church which says "you must believe" really don't understand science.

Yes and you remember that tv-show I was talking about? Two months after that episode it was off the air, against the will of the guy who run it and was quite popular before. Was it because of this particular subject, I don't know. But I've heard of other scientists being harassed because they questioned the mainstream propaganda, that, by the way, is as uncritical as some east block literature I've read from the '60ies.

It's a known fact that polar ice is melting, bays that have never thawed since Europeans first discovered North America have completely melted during summer, a chunk of an Antarctic ice shelf larger than Rhode Island broke off, ice is measurably thinner than ever before, tundra is melting and polar bears in northern Manitoba are fewer, the global temperature has measurably risen at a more rapid rate since 1970.

It is also known that there has been a minor "ice age" in the 17th century and the climate was much warmer during the medieval period. Why was Greenland called like that after all?

Extracting oil from tar sands is done with steam, but they aren't burning oil produced to generate steam, they're using natural gas.

That's intersting, I assume the net profit is still positive energy-wise, why would they be extracting the oil at all otherwise?

They don't care that they are consuming a valuable, limited resource at an irresponsible rate.

If these resources are becoming depleted, prices will rise to a point where it will be cheaper to switch to other sources of energy and there are alternatives (like the ethanol production you are talking about). The net CO2 output will drop then anyway, so you should really be happy that prices are going up if you really think that is the main cause of global warming.

I agree that there are lots of good reasons to end oil dependency. So why not use those reasons?

I agree, I always support new concepts like Windmills, solar cells, upwind power plants or nuclear reactors, not to forget power from space. It's just that over the last years I've become tired of listening to all this green political propaganda that's being preached like the gospel.

RobertDyck · 2007-05-28 13:36:56

Extracting oil from tar sands is done with steam, but they aren't burning oil produced to generate steam, they're using natural gas.
That's intersting, I assume the net profit is still positive energy-wise, why would they be extracting the oil at all otherwise?

Industry representatives claim they burn 1 barrel of oil for every 2 they extract, so the net product is half the oil in the ground. However, as I said they're actually burning natural gas, not oil. Financially, it costs $28 per barrel to extract crude oil. As long as the price of crude is above that it's profitable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

C M Edwards · 2007-05-29 20:00:21

Yeah, there's a lot of crazy, ignorant, mathematically-challenged fear mongerers in the environmentalist movement.

However, I'm not certain that using the lunatic fringe of the environmentalist movement as a bogeyman to avoid dealing with underlying functional issues is an appropriate response to it.

For example, because of my hobbies and other personal interests, I pay attention to my local climate (not today's weather - the climate), and over the past twenty years it has changed for the worse as far as I'm concerned. We're in the midst of a drought, one of a series in a decade of below average rainfall, and that's mucking up all sorts of things for me. It's getting warmer, too. Summers are hotter, and the average date of last frost is a month earlier than fifteen years ago. But, on the bright side, I have finally taken Robert's advice and moved far enough inland that I can now receive hurricane evacuees instead of becoming one again.

I am having an environmental problem.

But I've no plan for going to Washington, or even my state capital (except on shopping trips). I'm not marching on anybody. I even waited until gasoline headed back toward $3+ per US gallon before bothering with a fuel efficient car (but you'd better believe I did it, and I'm now looking for a plug-in hybrid). My lack of desperate action has some of my more socially vocal friends looking at me cockeyed and muttering under their breath, because I'm doing something that is anathema to every shouting protester off picketing their local refinery.

I'm adapting.

And along the way, I've made an important discovery: on the whole, the conservationists are right. Many of the lifestyle changes being promoted by modern conservationists not only conserve resources but money. If you don't give in to consumerism and just buy whatever new "green" product the voices in your TV tell you, then conservation of your household resources can not only save you money, it can do so without costing you capacity. Ultimately, efficiency is the best way to adapt to reduced resources if you want to save money.

Efficiency has given me more expendable income, and has actually made me a more effective advocate for things I really do care about, like scientific research.

X · 2007-05-29 20:10:07

^You could always get a motorcycle. Maybe it wouldn't work for you, but for me I don't usually need to haul cargo around. When I buy something ro go on a trip, but that's about it. A small motorcycle's pretty cheap compared to a car, and those things get a lot more to the gallon than any of these hybrids everyone's going gaga over. Ride it most of the time, and it'd pay for itself relatively quickly.

I agree though at least some of the things do save you moeny, and they don't promote that enough.

C M Edwards · 2007-05-30 06:29:25

^You could always get a motorcycle.

No, sadly, I could not. I have five kids, and I need the capacity of a larger vehicle at this time. We would just look too odd trying to all ride on the same bike.

Fortunately, I'm able to tighten my budget in other areas enough to afford a car without increasing my net expenses. I don't have to swear off of gasoline, and my expenses don't need to expand to match my income, either.

Fledi · 2007-05-30 17:22:30

It's good to hear that you and your family are well and have found a new home after Katrina, loosing one must be a terrible shock.
Basically I agree on not wasting energy senselessly and consumerism is something I never quite understood. Why work day and night to make more money, then throw it out on a lot of unnecessary luxury goods?

For example I have no car at all, go to the uni by train (both the uni and my home are very close to train stations). On the rare occasions when I need a car I use my parents' (better save that money for the Canada trip next year).

But on the other hand I don't think it would be good to establish some sort of upper limit on what amount of energy one may spend. There is that thermonuclear reactor up in the sky after all (it's also called the Sun) and we only use a very tiny fraction of its energy yet, most of it is spent making it visible as a little dot in the skies of worlds in other star systems.

In the end I have no problem with environmentalists, as long as they don't try to decrease our chances of ever getting off this planet.

C M Edwards · 2007-05-30 18:54:23

It's good to hear that you and your family are well and have found a new home after Katrina, loosing one must be a terrible shock.

Thank you. Actually, I did not have much problem with Katrina. Rita shut us down for a month, though. After four tropical storms in five years, I made the decision to move before nature made it for me.

In the end I have no problem with environmentalists, as long as they don't try to decrease our chances of ever getting off this planet.

And that's the real danger, isn't it?

Radical environmentalists are not just asking us to conserve resources and increase efficiency, they're asking us to abandon material innovation as a driving force for our society. Unfortunately, we're already living so close to the carrying capacity of the Earth that that is no longer an option. What radical environmentalists are really calling for is collapse, caused by removing resources from society rather than deriving alternatives. They want to turn back down the evolutionary path of humanity, and have set their sights on a pleasant wooded pasture at the trail's end.

There is no worldview more opposed to that of the Mars Society.

RobertDyck · 2007-05-30 19:33:18

Would you call me an environmentalist? I've heard some people call for homes built from straw bails covered in stucco. I cringe, I've seen hay stacks rot and get infested with rats. My idea of an environmentally friendly home is a concrete house, extending the basement wall all the way to the roof. There are new styrofoam concrete forms that stay in place, acting as insulation for the house. Just put brick siding on the outside and you're done. These systems even have plastic sheets in places that will hold drywall screws, so you can screw drywall directly to the styrofoam form. I would use titanium-steel alloy for all exterior doors, door frames, and window frames; insulate doors with polyurethane foam insulation. Titanium-steel alloy is just as heavy as steel, but 3 times as strong as mild steel and so hard that the best high carbon tool steel can't even scratch it. Ok, my house was broken into 4 times in 1992, I want a house that's burglar-proof. Anodized colour on the metal will not fade, peal, chip, or crack; no maintenance required. Windows made of AlON: aluminum oxynitride, a material developed in the early 1980s by the US army for tank windows. This makes the exterior hurricane-proof. Glass cutters will not cut or scratch AlON, and a crowbar will not break it: burglar-proof. Use that new form of drywall developed by Georgia-Pacific that uses fibreglass felt instead of paper, making it mildew-proof and fire-proof. It also has glass fibres throughout the gyprock adding strength; a 5/8" thick board will remain intact for 60 minutes in a raging house fire. Use galvanized steel wall studs, and steel trusses for floor joists. Use the same thin galvanized steel as wall studs for a cover over the U-channel of steel floor joists; OSB floor can be fastened by drywall screws. Granite kitchen counter, cultured marble bathroom vanity counter, and entry/kitchen/bathroom flooring that is either ceramic tile, marble, terracotta, or some other non-flammable material. The point is all new material, and everything durable.

However, solar panel roof, windmills, batteries in the basement, and geothermal heat pump. This will make the house entirely energy independent in winter, and generate surplus electricity in summer that can be sold to the power utility.

Then again, I also want to replace one of the two giant coal-burning power plants in Alberta with a nuclear power plant, and change tar sands extraction to use nuclear power. Not exactly the wooded pasture, but then again I am a Mars Society member.

Spatula · 2007-05-30 21:50:17

I don't really believe that manmade global warming is that big of a concern, and even if it is I'm not certain it's that bad of an idea. I mean I think it's too hot already so making it hotter doesn't really make me feel worse off.

I think the threat of tropical diseases in temperate regions and lower oxygen supply for fish stocks are pretty good reasons to try to avert global warming, though there are others.

It is true that Earth has been warmer for much of its history, indeed, it could have been warmer for most of its living history. Instead of interpreting this as a sign that it should be warmer, I rather see it as a sign that earth is most comfortable to humans at its early modern temperatures. Rapidly reverting to the hot climates that might have been ideal when all of the life on Earth was bacterial, or when dinosaurs were large and ferocious instead of little feathery things that Col. Sanders built a business off of cooking, doesn't seem to bode well to the established collection of species.

I would make the horrible, hippy treehugging socialist claim that rapidly heating up earth would destroy species variety and reduce the scientific interest and natural beauty of a lot of places on earth. This is pretty well certain.

We could debate the effect it would have on the economy all day.

The economy is a machine that makes certain types of decisions very well. It will make decisions that try to foster its growth. It will deal with arcane problems like carrying capacities and diminishing exotic biota on a reactive basis, as long as they don't harm its growth. Foresight only applies where growth can occur, to the limits that culture and scientific knowledge allow. Peak oil doesn't need to happen. Half the agricultural lands don't need to dry up. Major flooding and other economic arguments for averting global climate change don't need to happen. Chances are, the economy will be clever enough to deal with them anyway. It'll move people around, switch between resources, and advance itself out of harm's way. We have a very can-do attitude when it comes to surviving things.

Unfortunately the stuff we eat, breath, and admire in national parks doesn't seem to adjust on quite the same speed.

noosfractal · 2007-05-31 00:09:44

Radical environmentalists are not just asking us to conserve resources and increase efficiency, they're asking us to abandon material innovation as a driving force for our society. Unfortunately, we're already living so close to the carrying capacity of the Earth that that is no longer an option. What radical environmentalists are really calling for is collapse, caused by removing resources from society rather than deriving alternatives. They want to turn back down the evolutionary path of humanity, and have set their sights on a pleasant wooded pasture at the trail's end.

Right, but when they say that their aesthetic preference is a world population of 1 billion they negate the existence of 85+% of humanity. Billions of people are dismissed as vulgar.

They plan to undermine the quest of billions to escape grinding poverty by raising the cost of the most basic of commodities: energy. It is wrong to do that.

And they know it is wrong. That's why they conjure fantasies of imminent catastrophe. Because nothing else can possibly justify denying those people their right to improve their living conditions until they too can spend more than the briefest of moments on anything other than basic needs.

But their apocalyptic fantasies can never come true. If we actually obtain solid evidence that climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is closer to the alarmist claims of 5 degrees than the currently observed value of 0.5 degree (notice the classic order of magnitude, limit of credibility difference between observed and prophesied), then the cost of a couple of hundred tons of carbon black at Earth-Sun L1 every few years cannot compare with just the intellectual loss of the billions who cannot participate in the global conversation because they can’t afford education because all their time is spent in the slavery of subsistence agriculture.

Climate alarmists and the little horror movie thrill they give each other are indefensible.

C M Edwards · 2007-05-31 08:01:33

Would you call me an environmentalist?

Sure. It's not a dirty word, nor is it an inaccurate description. It sounds like you're just as much of an environmentalist as I am. That sounds like a lot of fascinating plans you have for your house, and I wish you the best of luck with them. Its always better to do a good and useful thing for yourself rather than running around trying to pressure other people into doing it.

I would not characterize you as particularly radical in your environmental outlook.

Then again, I also want to replace one of the two giant coal-burning power plants in Alberta with a nuclear power plant, and change tar sands extraction to use nuclear power. Not exactly the wooded pasture, but then again I am a Mars Society member.

What's wrong with that?

Fledi · 2007-05-31 10:01:25

I didn't mean to offend you either, Robert. We probably just have different experience with that movement. Over here in Germany, when they were part of the government they actually stopped construction of all nuclear plants and forced the industry to sign an agreement on closing all existing plants within some 20 years.
I hope that there will be change in this attitude in the future, although there is still a lot of unjustified fear mongering going on and unfortunately many people still believe them.

noosfractal · 2007-05-31 11:17:57

I can't believe these don't get more press ...

http://www.llnl.gov/global-warm/

Particularly ...

Teller et al., Global Warming & Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change, 1997
http://www.llnl.gov/global-warm/231636.pdf

It discusses multiple scattering systems to compensate for greenhouse warming - stratospheric, LEO and Earth-Sun L1 - the only one I've even heard mentioned is SO2 injection into the stratosphere.

The L1 scattering system described uses 3400 tons of aluminum, is positioned a little sunward of L1 so that the gravitation attraction of the Sun cancels out the light pressure, and includes a stabilization system.

I guess this one isn't mentioned much because the paper also describes several systems available for < $750 million per year, and one for $70 million per year.

Quite a contrast to the multi-trillion dollar per year carbon trading schemes touted at climate conferences.

C M Edwards · 2007-05-31 11:58:47

Look at all these folks worried about a mere 1 degree Celsius change in the Earth’s average temperature. Why, we deal with models for climate modifications that large all the time here at New Mars.

Let us at it. We’ll get you ten degrees Celsius, easy.

RobertDyck · 2007-06-01 01:51:13

Ok. I've said one of the reasons we in Canada should do everything in our power to comply with the Kyoto Accord is to cover our ass. Global warming will mean longer summers and warmer climate further north. That will permit agriculture further north, and longer growing seasons where we already have agriculture. Climate models in the 1970s and 1980s predicted more rainfall in the Red River valley, including Manitoba, North Dakota, South Dakota. That means more productive agriculture and more water running through our hydro dams. This is all very good news for Manitoba. It also means more chaos and more frequent floods, so the Winnipeg floodway will have to be dug deeper and small communities in southern Manitoba will have to shore-up their ring dykes. Work on all that has already begun, deepening the floodway started last fall. So we're covered. In fact, there were many days this spring when it was rather chilly, I keep asking where is the global warming, how can we increase it.

But the rest of the world would suffer. Predictions are the glaciers in the Rocky mountains will melt, and observations shows they're already less than half their size of a century ago. Alberta and western Montana rely on streams from melting glaciers when there's a drought. Once those glaciers age gone droughts will completely dry up the streams. Scientists studying tree rings found in the past there were deep droughts that lasted 10 to 15 years at a stretch. Then there are the more dire predictions: El Niño will get stuck causing severe flooding in California and drought in central Africa. Hurricanes will get worse in the Atlantic, affecting the Caribbean, Gulf states, and east coast states. Ironically once El Niño gets stuck the hurricanes will go away; winds from El Niño break up hurricanes. Melting glaciers in Alaska, Greenland, and Antarctica will raise ocean levels, flooding coastal cities like New York, Miami, New Orleans, London England, and others. Some tropical Pacific atolls will become completely submerged, destroying those islands. Much of southern Florida will be submerged. Monsoons in India will get worse.

Global warming will also remove ice from off-short oil deposits in the Beaufort Sea, and open the North-West Passage to shipping. Again good for Canada, bad for the rest of the world. CYA: Cover Your Ass.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-05-24 21:02:32

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#2 2007-05-26 07:57:32

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#3 2007-05-26 11:50:18

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#4 2007-05-26 15:33:10

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#5 2007-05-26 18:00:02

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#6 2007-05-26 19:36:54

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#7 2007-05-26 22:46:48

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#8 2007-05-27 00:24:29

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#9 2007-05-27 09:42:57

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#10 2007-05-28 00:40:30

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#11 2007-05-28 12:33:50

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#12 2007-05-28 13:36:56

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#13 2007-05-29 20:00:21

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#14 2007-05-29 20:10:07

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#15 2007-05-30 06:29:25

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#16 2007-05-30 17:22:30

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#17 2007-05-30 18:54:23

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#18 2007-05-30 19:33:18

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#19 2007-05-30 21:50:17

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#20 2007-05-31 00:09:44

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#21 2007-05-31 08:01:33

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#22 2007-05-31 10:01:25

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#23 2007-05-31 11:17:57

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#24 2007-05-31 11:58:47

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

#25 2007-06-01 01:51:13

Re: So about the environmentalists and global warming...

Board footer