ILtemprd
Full Access Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2006
- Messages
- 3,019
- Reaction score
- 0
very disturbing Roy.Prof said:
Our Conspicious Consumption...
- Thread starter Prof
- Start date
jelms
Full Access Member
Prof said:
Very informed article Roy. I did enjoy reading this, not really. Makes you wonder what environment we are leaving behind to our children and grand-children.
-jeff
Jeff there is a lot of information about options for our environmental future. But I would be willing to bet that not more than three or four people who saw the post were willing to read the article.
But that is not just us here at VTCOA. The percentage of readers of the Wharton Newsletter is probably not much higher. The fact that the Bush administration would not sign the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 and that it will expire in 2012 was a major blow to world efforts to get out in front on this issue.
The consensus is strong that human impact on global warming is massively impacted by our carbon emissions has been slow to come but now seems to exist. For the first time a month ago, our President referred to human based carbon emissions.
There is hope but the general population is not aboard. Only the scientists seem to be working the issue.
But that is not just us here at VTCOA. The percentage of readers of the Wharton Newsletter is probably not much higher. The fact that the Bush administration would not sign the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 and that it will expire in 2012 was a major blow to world efforts to get out in front on this issue.
The consensus is strong that human impact on global warming is massively impacted by our carbon emissions has been slow to come but now seems to exist. For the first time a month ago, our President referred to human based carbon emissions.
There is hope but the general population is not aboard. Only the scientists seem to be working the issue.
Prof said:
And then, only some scientists. Not everyone agrees that it's an issue.
Venom Power
Full Access Member
This is very interesting thread. Stuff like this brings out the intellect in all of us. I know one isn’t too popular for writing such long threads, but Prof and Silverback will appreciate the reading, I’m sure. In addition this gives me the opportunity to rant, but I'll attempt to condence my thoughts down as much as possible while trying to maintain sence.
So far, Roy and John have raised some very good points. But what we are forgetting is that this earth isn’t the one in danger. All living creatures that reside on this little rare rock are the ones in danger. For people to believe this world is ours for us to dump on, or protect in fear of damaging it is simply human arrogance. The earth is over 4.6 billion years and more than 99.9% of its history is devoid of humans altogether… and still it went thorough it’s many changes.
Since the dawn of time the existence of life has always took its toll on the environment in some way shape or form while wreaking havoc for other forms of life sharing this world. Living things (green plants in general) have pumped countless volumes of oxygen into the atmosphere, thereby altering atmospheric gases to what “carbon based” life considers comfortable for breathing. Any life on earth that would have relied on a rather different chemical mix of atmosphere, like NH3 (ammonia) and CH4 (methane) would have no choice but to perish with the abundance of oxygen, nitrogen and CO2.. Who was here to complain at that time?:dontknow: There were more diverse species of life that have lived and died in during the earlier history of the earth than what exists today. But that was done by profound climate changes, aka natural selection… Natural selection was the earliest process that dramatically changed the environment into what we see today.
Currently, the atmosphere is ~21% free oxygen. And how did oxygen reach these levels? We’ll revisit the oxygen cycle:
• Oxygen Production
* Photochemical dissociation - breakup of water molecules by ultraviolet
* Produced O2 levels approx. 1-2% current levels
* At these levels O3 (Ozone) can form to shield Earth surface from UV
* Photosynthesis - CO2 + H2O + sunlight = organic compounds + O2 - produced by cyanobacteria, and eventually higher plants - supplied the rest of O2 to atmosphere. Thus plant populations
• Oxygen Consumers
* Chemical Weathering - through oxidation of surface materials (early consumer)
* Animal Respiration (much later)
* Burning of Fossil Fuels (much, much later)
As you can see change is inevitable. The earth changed itself (volcanic out gassing producing water, plate tectonics causing continental land mass shifting leading to oceanic current changes leading to climate changes, etc.); meanwhile, all life STILL affects the planet at different levels. For instance, the mighty Silverback eats from the land and alters the atmosphere minutely with its flatulence but produces waste to fertilize the land and breathes out CO2 and will eventually die to return to the earth. As a result from all this, green plant life will benefit and continue the cycle that binds all life. All walks of life are threatened one way or another by what’s going on today it’s only the humans that have the ability to cause such destruction to the environment and life (through artificial selection). At the same time we can look around us and determine something has to be done.
Although humans are considered as an intelligent species (a way for the cosmos to look at itself), for the sake of our progress in technology we happen to profoundly alter the environment like the life before us and around us; but we do this at an alarming rate in such a short period of time. However, we too give back to the environment like the Silverback and other life forms plus we recycle as well (perhaps not as much as we should but doing SOMETHING makes a bit of difference that adds up with greater numbers). Showing the amount recycled by a percentage of humans would compliment the big consumption problem picture that is depicted in Chris Jordan’s website. But then again many would think, “oh, the next guy is doing his part so I don’t need to.” This is sad but a reality.
Let’s face it, the environment will never go unchanged whether we advance in technology or not… whether we recycle or not. Unchanged environments are found on places the like our dead moon (other than the occasional bombardment of a meteor). Ours is a dynamic world and the life upon it is merely a cancer of this planet. Life has to adapt to exist like it always has done through the planets ever changing climates. Thankfully, Mother Nature has the ability to repair itself. Otherwise we couldn’t drive what we do and we wouldn’t be here discussing this at all. My ranting is done. Everyone can take it apart now.
So far, Roy and John have raised some very good points. But what we are forgetting is that this earth isn’t the one in danger. All living creatures that reside on this little rare rock are the ones in danger. For people to believe this world is ours for us to dump on, or protect in fear of damaging it is simply human arrogance. The earth is over 4.6 billion years and more than 99.9% of its history is devoid of humans altogether… and still it went thorough it’s many changes.
Since the dawn of time the existence of life has always took its toll on the environment in some way shape or form while wreaking havoc for other forms of life sharing this world. Living things (green plants in general) have pumped countless volumes of oxygen into the atmosphere, thereby altering atmospheric gases to what “carbon based” life considers comfortable for breathing. Any life on earth that would have relied on a rather different chemical mix of atmosphere, like NH3 (ammonia) and CH4 (methane) would have no choice but to perish with the abundance of oxygen, nitrogen and CO2.. Who was here to complain at that time?:dontknow: There were more diverse species of life that have lived and died in during the earlier history of the earth than what exists today. But that was done by profound climate changes, aka natural selection… Natural selection was the earliest process that dramatically changed the environment into what we see today.
Currently, the atmosphere is ~21% free oxygen. And how did oxygen reach these levels? We’ll revisit the oxygen cycle:
• Oxygen Production
* Photochemical dissociation - breakup of water molecules by ultraviolet
* Produced O2 levels approx. 1-2% current levels
* At these levels O3 (Ozone) can form to shield Earth surface from UV
* Photosynthesis - CO2 + H2O + sunlight = organic compounds + O2 - produced by cyanobacteria, and eventually higher plants - supplied the rest of O2 to atmosphere. Thus plant populations
• Oxygen Consumers
* Chemical Weathering - through oxidation of surface materials (early consumer)
* Animal Respiration (much later)
* Burning of Fossil Fuels (much, much later)
As you can see change is inevitable. The earth changed itself (volcanic out gassing producing water, plate tectonics causing continental land mass shifting leading to oceanic current changes leading to climate changes, etc.); meanwhile, all life STILL affects the planet at different levels. For instance, the mighty Silverback eats from the land and alters the atmosphere minutely with its flatulence but produces waste to fertilize the land and breathes out CO2 and will eventually die to return to the earth. As a result from all this, green plant life will benefit and continue the cycle that binds all life. All walks of life are threatened one way or another by what’s going on today it’s only the humans that have the ability to cause such destruction to the environment and life (through artificial selection). At the same time we can look around us and determine something has to be done.
Although humans are considered as an intelligent species (a way for the cosmos to look at itself), for the sake of our progress in technology we happen to profoundly alter the environment like the life before us and around us; but we do this at an alarming rate in such a short period of time. However, we too give back to the environment like the Silverback and other life forms plus we recycle as well (perhaps not as much as we should but doing SOMETHING makes a bit of difference that adds up with greater numbers). Showing the amount recycled by a percentage of humans would compliment the big consumption problem picture that is depicted in Chris Jordan’s website. But then again many would think, “oh, the next guy is doing his part so I don’t need to.” This is sad but a reality.
Let’s face it, the environment will never go unchanged whether we advance in technology or not… whether we recycle or not. Unchanged environments are found on places the like our dead moon (other than the occasional bombardment of a meteor). Ours is a dynamic world and the life upon it is merely a cancer of this planet. Life has to adapt to exist like it always has done through the planets ever changing climates. Thankfully, Mother Nature has the ability to repair itself. Otherwise we couldn’t drive what we do and we wouldn’t be here discussing this at all. My ranting is done. Everyone can take it apart now.
Last edited:
The concept is totally correct...the earth will go on, how long and what quality of life human have is the issue. The impact we have is minor in the geological sense, but the quality of life during that time is the motivation.
John, the introductory paragraph states: "The scientific community now overwhelmingly agrees that earth's 6.5 billion inhabitants are contributing to global warming through heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions."
I choose to place the analysis that derives these kind of opinions in the hands of scientists. Those that do not concur need to give me their evidence to the contrary, and then cite their sources...where do they get their information? To not believe scientists in this issue, (that humans are the cause of this "festering" ((to use Silverback's jargon)) environmental problem) is like accepting Annu's analysis of your engine knock when Dan at DC Performance has a different conclusion.
The really interesting economic approaches for business to become more responsible it an exciting concept...and we as individuals can be important influencers in the process!
John, the introductory paragraph states: "The scientific community now overwhelmingly agrees that earth's 6.5 billion inhabitants are contributing to global warming through heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions."
I choose to place the analysis that derives these kind of opinions in the hands of scientists. Those that do not concur need to give me their evidence to the contrary, and then cite their sources...where do they get their information? To not believe scientists in this issue, (that humans are the cause of this "festering" ((to use Silverback's jargon
)) environmental problem) is like accepting Annu's analysis of your engine knock when Dan at DC Performance has a different conclusion.The really interesting economic approaches for business to become more responsible it an exciting concept...and we as individuals can be important influencers in the process!
First off Anthony, very good post. :rock:
There was a release by a group of German scientists yesterday that said we are now in for a 10 year cycle of global cooling.
Do I believe them? No, not any more than I believe the global warming scientists. Want to know why? Most scientist now days have an agenda, and their research it slanted to support the outcome they are driving towards.
Just look at all the research related to food and drinks. One group will conclude it's bad and shortens your life. The next year another research group will say it's good for you and you will live longer.
A few years ago here in the Festering Shit Hole, we were warned about extreme fire danger due to a dryer than normal year. Okay, that made sense. The following year we had a great than normal snow pack and rain fall. Guess what, they warned us that we once again had an extreme fire danger that year. Want to know why? Because it was wetter that year, the underbrush had grown up more and presented more of a danger. So, when do you not have a greater than normal fire danger? Beats the hell out of me. Guess it has to be just right.
Anyway, I'm just an old crotchity bastard, and it's all bullshit to me that's driven by groups that only want to cash in on their point of view.
And guess what. I'm going to die before it's a real issue. And so far the human species has adapted to what we have to date. I'm assuming they will continue to do so, or die out. Guess what, that's life.
Your turn.
There was a release by a group of German scientists yesterday that said we are now in for a 10 year cycle of global cooling.
Do I believe them? No, not any more than I believe the global warming scientists. Want to know why? Most scientist now days have an agenda, and their research it slanted to support the outcome they are driving towards.
Just look at all the research related to food and drinks. One group will conclude it's bad and shortens your life. The next year another research group will say it's good for you and you will live longer.
A few years ago here in the Festering Shit Hole, we were warned about extreme fire danger due to a dryer than normal year. Okay, that made sense. The following year we had a great than normal snow pack and rain fall. Guess what, they warned us that we once again had an extreme fire danger that year. Want to know why? Because it was wetter that year, the underbrush had grown up more and presented more of a danger. So, when do you not have a greater than normal fire danger? Beats the hell out of me. Guess it has to be just right.
Anyway, I'm just an old crotchity bastard, and it's all bullshit to me that's driven by groups that only want to cash in on their point of view.
And guess what. I'm going to die before it's a real issue. And so far the human species has adapted to what we have to date. I'm assuming they will continue to do so, or die out. Guess what, that's life.
Your turn.
Come on Roy, I'm waiting.
Silverback said:Come on Roy, I'm waiting.
I love and respect who and what you are too much to argue with you.
But we need to keep in mind that minor variations with in a year or deviations from the trend line over hundreds or thousands of years is just random deviation and well within the normal dispersion of random deviation.
The risk of non-action, if that turns out to be the wrong thing to do is catastrophic. The downside of action when it is really not needed, is a huge expense and consequently just wasted money...I would prefer to risk money rather than catastrophic consequences for our decedents. Just my opinion and like sphincter muscles, we all have one...but mine doesn't stink...
Prof said:I love and respect who and what you are too much to argue with you.
But we need to keep in mind that minor variations with in a year or deviations from the trend line over hundreds or thousands of years is just random deviation and well within the normal dispersion of random deviation.
The risk of non-action, if that turns out to be the wrong thing to do is catastrophic. The downside of action when it is really not needed, is a huge expense and consequently just wasted money...I would prefer to risk money rather than catastrophic consequences for our decedents. Just my opinion and like sphincter muscles, we all have one...but mine doesn't stink...
Damn, you got my best side in that picture Roy.
See, I'm cracking a smile.
jelms
Full Access Member
Prof said:The concept is totally correct...the earth will go on, how long and what quality of life human have is the issue. The impact we have is minor in the geological sense, but the quality of life during that time is the motivation.
John, the introductory paragraph states: "The scientific community now overwhelmingly agrees that earth's 6.5 billion inhabitants are contributing to global warming through heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions."
I choose to place the analysis that derives these kind of opinions in the hands of scientists. Those that do not concur need to give me their evidence to the contrary, and then cite their sources...where do they get their information? To not believe scientists in this issue, (that humans are the cause of this "festering" ((to use Silverback's jargon
The really interesting economic approaches for business to become more responsible it an exciting concept...and we as individuals can be important influencers in the process!
I also did appreciate Anthony's post. Was nice to read a little science. I've posted many times on this subject and really am going to stop. I've said my peace many times and have posted some very factual articles taken from Scientific American and other more nerdo publication. The fact that humans have changed this planet's chemistry is without debate.
All in all we only have another couple of billion years before the sun goes into its red giant phase and any life at that time is toast. At the rate we are going we humans will be far gone from the face of this planet. I just find it hard to look at my children and my future grand children and say sorry I left you a big piece of crap to deal with. You figure it out and if you can't too bad. You will die off because I was to narrow minded to change my ways.
-jeff
wheredwhogo?
Full Access Member
on the topic of Global Warming...correct me if I am wrong, but they have recorded the REFREEZING of the polar ice caps or something to that effect. Where does that fit into this whole discussion. Does that mean we are doing some good or is it the earth doing what it does because thats how it rolls?
jelms
Full Access Member
wheredwhogo? said:
WHAT?!?! Were is the backup for this one? Article after article have shown the retreat of the glaciers and melting of the ice caps.
Take a listen:
http://aprn.org/2007/10/17/2007-polar-ice-retreat-documented-in-remarkable-new-animation/
Is all the melting of the polar ice caps due to humans? Maybe not, but we have contributed to it at some level.
-jeff
wheredwhogo?
Full Access Member
jelms said:
heres what i found. dont know if it holds water or not.:dontknow:
http://www.climatepatrol.com/forum/18/3151/pg1/index.php
jelms
Full Access Member
wheredwhogo? said:
I don't think those posts hold much water but I'll look into very recent observations of polar ice melting. I just don't have my mags in from of me to post the facts of recent views.
I have found one very recent SA article that states recent observations:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-unquiet-ice
Seems that long time ice shelves are sliding into the sea.
-jeff
Last edited:
mopower1958
Full Access Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2006
- Messages
- 2,482
- Reaction score
- 0
My question to all the Al Gore types is have you reduced the size of your home or do you live in a huge house that sucks up more energy than necessary and needed way more natural resources to build in the first place? Do you have gas guzzlers or just economy cars? You can restore an old car and make way less of a carbon footprint than if you buy the latest and greatest economy car. Do you carpool to work or is it too inconvenient? Make sure that ALL of your actions are inviromentally friendly before you preach to the masses!
Do you baptize your children with fire?
wheredwhogo?
Full Access Member
i went into west virginia to visit with some friends that recently moved here from Austin TX, and they dont even have a recycling program in thier town! So yes there is much more that can be done!!! I am sure thier town isnt the only town in the states that dont have a recycling program....are these people living in the dark ages or what?
We have a recycling program here in the Seattle area. We even pay more for our garbage because of it.
Last time I heard, 80%+ of the recycled items still end up going into a landfill. It's one of those feel good things. Really does not help.
Last time I heard, 80%+ of the recycled items still end up going into a landfill. It's one of those feel good things. Really does not help.
Support Us
Become A Supporting Member Today!
