I'm of the mind set that nature heals itself.

 

When China and India reach the US's industrialized levels, will nature be able to heal itself quickly enough?

Excellent posts, Trinity Alum. People tend to oversimplify this issue and just gloss over the overwhelming scientific evidence with platitudes like "mother nature will heal itself". It has been established that there is more CO2 in the earths atmosphere currently than in the past through analysis of air bubbles contained in ice cores from deep drilled holes in arctic ice. It has been established that ice that had existed for thousands of years in certain parts of the world is retreating in the chronological equivalent of the blink of an eye. For the first time polar bears are turning up drowned in the open ocean because their icepack habitats are melting. It has been established through the study of radiative heat transfer that CO2 allows energy emitted from high temperature bodies (like the sun) to pass through, but significantly impedes energy emitted from relatively low temperature bodies (like the earth) to pass through. These physical properties of CO2 are believed to be behind global warming and have been well understood for quite some time now. It doesn't take a very large increase in temperature (as little as 1 degree) to affect large swaths of ice that had been in temperature balance (that is, just cool enough so as not to melt). As more ice melts, the greenhouse effect may accelerate far beyond recent trends because ice, which is very reflective of solar energy, will be replaced by ocean surface, which is very absorptive of solar energy.

 

The earth is a complex and delicate system--it is entirely possible that very minor changes (indeed, changes induced by human activity) will cause very substantial and potentially irreversible effects. Before cavalierly dismissing the overwhelming climatic, ecological, and geologic science that suggests mankind is responsible for global warming and that the problem is serious, one should ponder what mankind's options would be if the earth became unlivable.

Excellent posts, Trinity Alum. People tend to oversimplify this issue and just gloss over the overwhelming scientific evidence with platitudes like "mother nature will heal itself". It has been established that there is more CO2 in the earths atmosphere currently than in the past through analysis of air bubbles contained in ice cores from deep drilled holes in arctic ice. It has been established that ice that had existed for thousands of years in certain parts of the world is retreating in the chronological equivalent of the blink of an eye. For the first time polar bears are turning up drowned in the open ocean because their icepack habitats are melting. It has been established through the study of radiative heat transfer that CO2 allows energy emitted from high temperature bodies (like the sun) to pass through, but significantly impedes energy emitted from relatively low temperature bodies (like the earth) to pass through. These physical properties of CO2 are believed to be behind global warming and have been well understood for quite some time now. It doesn't take a very large increase in temperature (as little as 1 degree) to affect large swaths of ice that had been in temperature balance (that is, just cool enough so as not to melt). As more ice melts, the greenhouse effect may accelerate far beyond recent trends because ice, which is very reflective of solar energy, will be replaced by ocean surface, which is very absorptive of solar energy.

 

The earth is a complex and delicate system--it is entirely possible that very minor changes (indeed, changes induced by human activity) will cause very substantial and potentially irreversible effects. Before cavalierly dismissing the overwhelming climatic, ecological, and geologic science that suggests mankind is responsible for global warming and that the problem is serious, one should ponder what mankind's options would be if the earth became unlivable.

 

Thanks for the kind words. I have done a fair amount of environmental modeling over the years. I have done it enough to know that it has its limitations. The systems I have modeled are primarily water systems on very localized areas and short time frames - a lot easier than modeling the earth over many years. One of the reasons to proceed with all deliberate speed is that there is also the chance that some of the "alarmists" are UNDERESTIMATING the long term effects. Venus at one time had an atmosphere very much like earths. It is an example of global warming to the extreme. I also think that it is important for the United States to get out in front of inovation for control of carbon dioxide. I see it as a growth industry in the 21st century.

Excellent posts, Trinity Alum. People tend to oversimplify this issue and just gloss over the overwhelming scientific evidence with platitudes like "mother nature will heal itself". It has been established that there is more CO2 in the earths atmosphere currently than in the past through analysis of air bubbles contained in ice cores from deep drilled holes in arctic ice. It has been established that ice that had existed for thousands of years in certain parts of the world is retreating in the chronological equivalent of the blink of an eye. For the first time polar bears are turning up drowned in the open ocean because their icepack habitats are melting. It has been established through the study of radiative heat transfer that CO2 allows energy emitted from high temperature bodies (like the sun) to pass through, but significantly impedes energy emitted from relatively low temperature bodies (like the earth) to pass through. These physical properties of CO2 are believed to be behind global warming and have been well understood for quite some time now. It doesn't take a very large increase in temperature (as little as 1 degree) to affect large swaths of ice that had been in temperature balance (that is, just cool enough so as not to melt). As more ice melts, the greenhouse effect may accelerate far beyond recent trends because ice, which is very reflective of solar energy, will be replaced by ocean surface, which is very absorptive of solar energy.

 

The earth is a complex and delicate system--it is entirely possible that very minor changes (indeed, changes induced by human activity) will cause very substantial and potentially irreversible effects. Before cavalierly dismissing the overwhelming climatic, ecological, and geologic science that suggests mankind is responsible for global warming and that the problem is serious, one should ponder what mankind's options would be if the earth became unlivable.

Link please.

Thanks for the kind words. I have done a fair amount of environmental modeling over the years. I have done it enough to know that it has its limitations. The systems I have modeled are primarily water systems on very localized areas and short time frames - a lot easier than modeling the earth over many years. One of the reasons to proceed with all deliberate speed is that there is also the chance that some of the "alarmists" are UNDERESTIMATING the long term effects. Venus at one time had an atmosphere very much like earths. It is an example of global warming to the extreme. I also think that it is important for the United States to get out in front of inovation for control of carbon dioxide. I see it as a growth industry in the 21st century.

Did the Venutians industrial age cause that?

Does that help? While your not burning the coal, the local electric company is burning coal to generate the electricity you are now using.

Wouldn't one source of coal burning beat 100? And not all electric is powered by coal.

Wouldn't one source of coal burning beat 100? And not all electric is powered by coal.

Coal was the fuel used to generate the largest share (50.8 percent) of electricity in 2003 1,974 billion kilowatthours(kWh). This is over one and a half times the annual electricity consumption of all U.S. households (1,273 billion kWh). Natural gas was used to generate 650 billion kWh (16.7 percent), and petroleum accounted for 119 billion kWh (3.1 percent).

Coal was the fuel used to generate the largest share (50.8 percent) of electricity in 2003 1,974 billion kilowatthours(kWh). This is over one and a half times the annual electricity consumption of all U.S. households (1,273 billion kWh). Natural gas was used to generate 650 billion kWh (16.7 percent), and petroleum accounted for 119 billion kWh (3.1 percent).

^^yer good.

When China and India reach the US's industrialized levels, will nature be able to heal itself quickly enough?

Why would you think otherwise? It has always in the past. What proof is there that it won't?

Why would you think otherwise? It has always in the past. What proof is there that it won't?

Cumulative effect.

People tend to oversimplify this issue and just gloss over the overwhelming scientific evidence with platitudes like "mother nature will heal itself".

Evidence proves that it has for a lot longer than man has been around. What is it about now that makes you so fearful that the sky is falling?

Cumulative effect.

Care to elaborate?

Care to elaborate?

Sure, I'm game.

 

The US, with its incredible industrial capacity over the past 100 years, combined with the recent emergence of India and China as industrial powers, makes for an unfortunate cumulative effect over the years. And with a cavalier attitude about the problem, I guess we should just not worry about it (or just not worry about concerns about the environment that jive with our preconceived notions — notions might force us to question why we invest money where we do and such things).

Evidence proves that it has for a lot longer than man has been around. What is it about now that makes you so fearful that the sky is falling?

 

Too many disparate pieces of scientific evidence that all support the same conclusion. If you're on the expressway and see traffic stopped up ahead, you don't wait until your car slams into the line of parked cars to think about putting on the brakes, do you?

... If you're on the expressway and see traffic stopped up ahead, you don't wait until your car slams into the line of parked cars to think about putting on the brakes, do you?

Well why wouldn't you just drive 65 MPH the whole way?

 

I mean, for the last 30 days, when I drove on that part of the highway, traffic was heavy, but it always cleared up before I got there...

 

 

 

Frances