The environment thread

[Y2HH]

Frankly, the divide in the Scientific community at this point is whether the total accumulated warming will be 3-5 degrees C (like the IPCC reports predicted, they tended to take the most conservative approach possible since they were in no small part politically driven) or something significantly sharper than that. The reality is...at virtually every point, the actual effects on the earth and the atmosphere have been beyond the worst case scenario so far presented. The divide you talk about between people who buy in to human-caused climate change and people who don't just doesn't exist. It's only there in the media and in the few people who get directly funded to say that there is a debate.

 

So, what is your suggestion for the overpopulation problem? Given the energy input from the sun, I contend that the Earth can handle a load of humanity actually greater than what the earth is currently holding. You claim it cannot. Is your solution famine/war to cut down on the population?

 

My solution isn't a very popular one, and probably not the most humane...but yes, if people reproduce to the point they can't feed themselves, than maybe they were meant to die off. The strong survive. It's how it's always worked. I feel our constant meddling in this is making things worse and worse long term. I feel that the Earth will eventually take care of itself in this case...if it wants to get rid of some of us, it will...and it has plenty of time to do it in. In the mean time, we'll do everything to make sure it doesn't happen -- as our human egos cannot accept the fact that the Earth doesn't need us, nor would it miss us when we're gone -- but we need it, and although I can't speak for everyone, I'm sure as hell going to miss it when my times up.

[Balta1701]

There really isn't anything in the vicinity of "as much science debunking it as there is supporting it". Just a few months ago, someone in this very forum posted a super-study looking at peer reviewed scientific pieces. And there were thousands that supported not only the existence of global warming, but specifically at least some degree of human effect on it. The number of those articles saying there was none was some very tiny number, or zero. There is no split of the scientific community on this - it is a unison chorus with one or two hacks interrupting from the gallery.

It actually came out nearly 5 years ago, and the number then was "zero". That study has also withstood a number of industry-funded attacks on it as well since then (although the counter-articles still get cited by folks like Sen. Inhofe and various other internet sources).

[NorthSideSox72]

My solution isn't a very popular one, and probably not the most humane...but yes, if people reproduce to the point they can't feed themselves, than maybe they were meant to die off. The strong survive. It's how it's always worked. I feel our constant meddling in this is making things worse and worse long term. I feel that the Earth will eventually take care of itself in this case...if it wants to get rid of some of us, it will...and it has plenty of time to do it in. In the mean time, we'll do everything to make sure it doesn't happen -- as our human egos cannot accept the fact that the Earth doesn't need us, nor would it miss us when we're gone -- but we need it, and although I can't speak for everyone, I'm sure as hell going to miss it when my times up.

This is all a very good argument for:

 

1. The fact that global warming is a result of, and earthly reaction to, human behavior (like a defense mechanism).

 

2. Being good conservationists and environmentalists, keeping our impact on the planet to a reasonable minimum, so that the planet doesn't react as badly in response.

 

[Y2HH]

There really isn't anything in the vicinity of "as much science debunking it as there is supporting it". Just a few months ago, someone in this very forum posted a super-study looking at peer reviewed scientific pieces. And there were thousands that supported not only the existence of global warming, but specifically at least some degree of human effect on it. The number of those articles saying there was none was some very tiny number, or zero. There is no split of the scientific community on this - it is a unison chorus with one or two hacks interrupting from the gallery.

 

And by the way, you were the one that brought up the hysterical example to begin with.

 

Finally, how is it that you think overpopulation is having a negative effect, but somehow it isn't effecting the atmosphere?

 

I don't think it has no effect on our atmosphere, I'm simply stating that not all science agrees. Science has been pretty clear that the Earth heats and cools with or without us here -- core samples have shown the Earths temp was higher and lower at points in the past, with or without industry, and it will be again.

 

I'm not claiming to know everything. But I do know that we've gone through warming periods and ice ages before we existed...and we will again, after our existence. I think humans love to think they have a bigger effect than they actually have...bottom line is, the Earth will be here long after us...and as a race, we don't like that idea.

[Y2HH]

And for the record, I think there is something to personal accountability and we should all respect nature more. I'm an avid outdoors man, I go camping, fishing, hiking, etc...as a matter of fact, it's what I love more than anything else in this life. I do respect the environment, I don't just talk about respecting it.

 

That said, I do what I can, but I also don't believe we're as much of an impact as we'd like to think.

[Balta1701]

I don't think it has no effect on our atmosphere, I'm simply stating that not all science agrees. Science has been pretty clear that the Earth heats and cools with or without us here -- core samples have shown the Earths temp was higher and lower at points in the past, with or without industry, and it will be again.

This is certainly true. The Earth does display variation on its own. But that does not imply that if humanity gives the earth's climate cycles a gigantic kick, it won't respond to what we've done. In the past 150 years we've taken CO2 vastly outside of the range that's been accessible for the last 2 million years, and very soon we'll be outside the range seen in the last 40 million years.

 

 

The red line is humanity's contribution. The black line comes from the cores you speak of. And I think this graph is 2007 data, so we've already picked up another 5 ppm on the red line.

[NorthSideSox72]

And for the record, I think there is something to personal accountability and we should all respect nature more. I'm an avid outdoors man, I go camping, fishing, hiking, etc...as a matter of fact, it's what I love more than anything else in this life. I do respect the environment, I don't just talk about respecting it.

 

That said, I do what I can, but I also don't believe we're as much of an impact as we'd like to think.

That is good to hear. I was just discussing with someone the other day, the subtle but important differences between being a good conservationist, and a good environmentalist. They are related but not always the same. But a lot of people talk about it, or expect the government to "green" everything for them, yet do nothing to reduce their own impact.

 

[Y2HH]

That is good to hear. I was just discussing with someone the other day, the subtle but important differences between being a good conservationist, and a good environmentalist. They are related but not always the same. But a lot of people talk about it, or expect the government to "green" everything for them, yet do nothing to reduce their own impact.

 

Yea, it's pretty commonplace for people to talk about how into the "green movement" they are, but they waste more energy than anyone around them. Things like leaving the heat on when you aren't home, or leaving lights on...I see it all the time. It's like they think they're into this movement because they bought a more gas efficient car, but they do nothing else in their lives to respect the environment, including simple things like not littering.

 

Also, just using public services like a picnic or campground brings money to those causes/places. For example, buying a fishing license actually funds water conservation and whatnot for future generations.

[StrangeSox]

Yea, it's pretty commonplace for people to talk about how into the "green movement" they are, but they waste more energy than anyone around them. Things like leaving the heat on when you aren't home, or leaving lights on...I see it all the time. It's like they think they're into this movement because they bought a more gas efficient car, but they do nothing else in their lives to respect the environment, including simple things like not littering.

 

Or they think they're helping because they buy the water bottles that use 30% less packaging instead of not buying bottled water in the first place.

 

Also, just using public services like a picnic or campground brings money to those causes/places. For example, buying a fishing license actually funds water conservation and whatnot for future generations.

 

True, but the more use, the more wear and tear on the area. They had to put boardwalks up over much of Starved Rock park because of erosion.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

True, but the more use, the more wear and tear on the area. They had to put boardwalks up over much of Starved Rock park because of erosion.

Another good reason to protect more wilderness and green space.

 

[StrangeSox]

Another good reason to protect more wilderness and green space.

 

But how do you do that with record numbers of people using public lands? Do you limit access to national and state parks somehow? (this is a "tragedy of the commons" argument)

[Y2HH]

But how do you do that with record numbers of people using public lands? Do you limit access to national and state parks somehow? (this is a "tragedy of the commons" argument)

 

They do this in the Boundary Waters, I visited there for an extended trip two years ago, wonderful...peaceful, not a lot of people.

 

The answer is more limited access and MORE places, the fact is they're selling these places off and there are less and less of them.

 

As for starved rock -- meh -- tourist attraction, nothing more. They need to keep these places on the wild side and not so overbuilt with pop-machines and easy services...it attracts the wrong people. :/

Edited March 4, 2009 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

As for starved rock -- meh -- tourist attraction, nothing more. They need to keep these places on the wild side and not so overbuilt with pop-machines and easy services...it attracts the wrong people. :/

 

That's why I usually stay away from the main areas and go in the back.

[NorthSideSox72]

They do this in the Boundary Waters, I visited there for an extended trip two years ago, wonderful...peaceful, not a lot of people.

 

The answer is more limited access and MORE places, the fact is they're selling these places off and there are less and less of them.

 

As for starved rock -- meh -- tourist attraction, nothing more. They need to keep these places on the wild side and not so overbuilt with pop-machines and easy services...it attracts the wrong people. :/

Exactly.

 

The government already owns a ton of land that could be protected as wildernes, or set up to be parks, but aren't. Dozens of "Wilderness Study Areas" that you could promote to full wilderness, at very little cost. And, there are ecologically key areas that adjoin existing parklands, or seperately, that could be had for cheap in the current environment. This has some nice side effects as well, taking more land out of the system, thus increasing property values (which we could use right now). You spread out the use levels that way.

 

And the BWCA is a classic example of doing it right - limited entry with fees to cover costs of maintenance.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

So here is an example of how the Obama administration is so much better than predecessors at being non-partisan, and simply more effective as an administration, when it comes to matters of science.

 

The Bush Administration, just before leaving, elected to pull the Grey Wolf from the ESA in certain regions where they claimed it had recovered enough to be sustainable - MT, ID, WA, parts of UT, MN, WI and MI. Environmental groups complained.

 

Well, Ken Salazar had his team analyze things, and made what appears to me to be a logical, science-based decision, to materially agree with the previous ruling. In those areas, the recovery is doing well, so they agree. In WY, where the state game commission is apparently run by buffoons, the ESA will still apply because the state laws are not strong enough (they want to make 90% of WY a "predator zone" where they can be shot on sight without cause), and because the population isn't as well established yet. The ESA will still also apply to wolves in other states where they are, or may be, present, such as CO, OR and ND. And the Mexican Wolf (aka Lobo) in NM and AZ will remain under ESA protection as well. And by the way, for those unaware, there are grey wolf packs well south in WI now, and approaching the IL border.

 

This is what these agencies are supposed to do - act on science and logic, not political motivation. Well done.

 

[Balta1701]

Fascinating.

 

Over the last 30 years, Lake Michigan's ice cover in the winter has declined significantly. Having the lake exposed to the atmosphere all year round has led to increased evaporation and more moisture leaving its watershed area. This has led to a drop of a full foot in lakelevel over the past few years. Superior is having severe lake level problems as well. That's an interesting mechanism.

 

Some studies seem to predict up to 8 feet drops in lake level this century from this effect.

[NorthSideSox72]

Fascinating.

 

Over the last 30 years, Lake Michigan's ice cover in the winter has declined significantly. Having the lake exposed to the atmosphere all year round has led to increased evaporation and more moisture leaving its watershed area. This has led to a drop of a full foot in lakelevel over the past few years. Superior is having severe lake level problems as well. That's an interesting mechanism.

 

Some studies seem to predict up to 8 feet drops in lake level this century from this effect.

The ecosystems in Lake Michigan are already so screwed up, its not the same lake anymore anyway.

 

[Balta1701]

If you have a few minutes, here's a bit on another of those simple little regulatory changes that when enacted seems to drive an enormous switch to production of alternative energy.

[Texsox]

Even if humankind was not making too much of an impact, why would you want to pollute and do things harmful to our environment? It just seems to make sense to be good stewards of our planet.

[kapkomet]

Even if humankind was not making too much of an impact, why would you want to pollute and do things harmful to our environment? It just seems to make sense to be good stewards of our planet.

I agree with this.

 

[Texsox]

I agree with this.

Must be the damn painkillers I am on

[NorthSideSox72]

Not sure where else to put this...

 

The Border Patrol sees an issue with the dense vegetation alone some stretches of the Rio Grande that are being used as hiding places for bandits. So, they want to get rid of the vegetation in some places.

 

Now, that idea has some problems in and of itself - it will have an effect on erosion and waterflow of the river. But, national security probably should take precedence.

 

Here is where it gets just plain stupid. Their plan is to poison the vegetation along a pilot mile stretch. Poison? Seriously? Its a riverbank, morons, you want to poison the river? These areas are high desert or chapparal, which burn over naturally every so often anyway... why not do that? Why introduce a toxin which will have unknown negative effects, instead of using the mechanism that nature does?

 

Ugh.

 

[BigSqwert]

Not sure where else to put this...

 

The Border Patrol sees an issue with the dense vegetation alone some stretches of the Rio Grande that are being used as hiding places for bandits. So, they want to get rid of the vegetation in some places.

 

Now, that idea has some problems in and of itself - it will have an effect on erosion and waterflow of the river. But, national security probably should take precedence.

 

Here is where it gets just plain stupid. Their plan is to poison the vegetation along a pilot mile stretch. Poison? Seriously? Its a riverbank, morons, you want to poison the river? These areas are high desert or chapparal, which burn over naturally every so often anyway... why not do that? Why introduce a toxin which will have unknown negative effects, instead of using the mechanism that nature does?

 

Ugh.

 

Sometimes I wonder why humans are considered an intelligent species.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Today is the 20th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez spill.

[BigSqwert]

Chrysler’s bold new move: More of the same

After White House scolding, will debut a new Grand Cherokee in N.Y.

 

NEW YORK - It sounds crazy: Just a week after the White House scolded Chrysler LLC for relying too much on gas guzzlers, the company is heading to a marquee auto show Wednesday to unveil a new SUV.

 

Chrysler insists the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which clocks in at 20 mpg in its two-wheel-drive version and 19 in four-wheel-drive, is a crowd favorite and a crucial part of its lineup.

 

LINK