------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Simple

As for water vapour its conc. in the atmosphere is so high to change its concentration significantly enough to effectuate a change in its contribution to global temperature would take a huge influx of water vapour and therefore I think its reasonable to say that the Greenhouse gas effect from water although important to the world is relatively static.

Infra red raditation band width saturation is possible but remember CO2 has four bands due to the way it oscillates and can also absord in side bandwidths of thesse four.

Whether plants will bloom with increasing Co2 is debateable. It seems likely to me there will be a level to which growth will be enhanced and after that there will be no gain. That is there will be a optimal CO2 level for plants and the level for each plant will be different. What the optimal levels are is unknown although an easy experiment to do.

Therefore I feel reducing Co2 emissions seems a sensible approach.

As for all the actions of man that are causing harm (e.g. Pesticides, fertiliser, monoculture, overfishing, etc, etc, etc) just stop. It beggars beleive that on the whole organic farming once established can actually increase yields, improve soil (which hholds more CO2) and increases biodiversity.

Therefore do no harm, prevent actions that do harm, encourage actions enhance the environment.

Simple.

Hi Simple,

I don't think it is safe to say water vapor influence is static. Especially when many regions are literally evaporating. Warm air holds more water and this increased volume of water vapor should not be ignored.

Again, I agree with you that CO2 is an issue. I am also prepared to accept the consequences of mitigation both economically and otherwise. However, in truth, I don't think it is enough. Nor am I absolutely convinced that CO2 is the primary input causing climate change.

Let me put it this way, I believe man's carelessness may have sped up an already worrisome natural cycle. Do I think we can undo our damage? Yes. Do I think we will? No. We're not up to the task. We're like that old man that lived at the bottom of Mt. St. Helens. When interviewed he said, "If I have to move and change my ways I may as well be dead." Well, it blew and he's dead.

I support CO2 initiatives. It would be a way to reign in our excessive behaviors until we ascertain whether or not they are suicidal. I think Peak Oil will accomplish the same results much faster...and much sooner than people are prepared for.


~Paradox

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by imp

I just willingingly accept the increase in uncertainty because "hedging" the environmental uncertainty with CO2 mitigation is not worth the cost.

Imp,

We must do something. What do you propose.

~Paradox

[imp]

Paradox:

imp wrote:
I just willingingly accept the increase in uncertainty because "hedging" the environmental uncertainty with CO2 mitigation is not worth the cost.


Imp,

We must do something. What do you propose.

But I disagree with your premise. We don't have to do anything. The closer an economy is to capitalism (i.e. LESS government intervention) the more dynamic and flexible it is, and the easier it is able to adapt to change. My solution is to increase globalization and to increase capitalism throughout the world. Whatever global warming has in store for us, a free market is the best market to see that the required adaptations happen quickly and relatively pain-free.

The IPCC has actually stated that it will be the dynamic economies, such as those in the developed world, that will find the transition easiest, and may even see teir GDP go up as a result.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by imp

But I disagree with your premise. We don't have to do anything. The closer an economy is to capitalism (i.e. LESS government intervention) the more dynamic and flexible it is, and the easier it is able to adapt to change. My solution is to increase globalization and to increase capitalism throughout the world. Whatever global warming has in store for us, a free market is the best market to see that the required adaptations happen quickly and relatively pain-free.

The IPCC has actually stated that it will be the dynamic economies, such as those in the developed world, that will find the transition easiest, and may even see teir GDP go up as a result.

Imp,

We'll see Imp. I actually hope you are right. It just seems like a fantasy with such glaring challenges on the horizon. I am an entrepreneur and believe (at least fundamentally) in some aspects of your argument (ie- less government). But where do you draw the line between ideology and saving ones ass?

Taking in all of the material that is available on the subject and weighing it against natural forces currently at work, I find it hard to believe we are not in for a very rough ride.

~Paradox

[Paradox]

Sea Level Rise-Wikipedia

Amazonian drought

Backwoods Ice Age

Is Global Warming Changing the Arctic?

[Simple]

Imp,

You've forgotten the markets are fueled by growth and everything that grows has a limit.

The world's population is expanding rapidly how are ging to solve that one.

Also our approach will encourage practices that harm landscapes (e.g. growing soya rather than rain forest. The amazon is closing in on becoming a desert and that would a massive effect on the global systems). It encourages exploitation for cash, it encourages monoculture cash crops like tabacco, cotton, coffe, palm oil all devastating whole evironments look up the Aral sea for example, its nice what our greed can do.

It encourages exploitation of people and countries as the rich countries move their manufacturing etc to poor countries to capitalise on cheap labour and lax laws on pollution and waste.

Also remember that USA and Europe are likely to become the poorer relations to the East and Russia. America already owes CHina billions and CHina is slowly but surely securing an awful lot of oil reserves and Russia will emerge very powerful as it has so much oil. WIll this mean ecomonic depression in the west possible don't you think. CHina has nuc's as does RUssia so no chance offighting them.

SO yeah globalise, spread industry, increase monoculture, fish te oceans dry, destroy the rain forests, increase the deserts and that doesn't even include the effects global warming at all.

The market will prevail...........only for the rich.

Simple

[imp]

simple:
I disagree with almost everything that you have posted - either because the content of the post is wrong, or because an anthropocentric view like mine doesn't care about the implications that you have stated.

We are nowhere near our capacity for growth. Population growth alarmists like yourself have been around since Thomas Malthus in the 18th century, and Paul Ehrlich in the 1970s. These people, like yourself, have been proved wrong, and will contuinue to be proven wrong. Population growth benefits our species - find there is a massive body of literature that supports my statement (increased labour specialization, improved economic efficiency are the two main reasons it is good).

Russia and China economic powerhouses in the future? Neither will come close to the US. Both have serious demographic problems that will cripple them in the coming decades. Additionally, oil consumption as a % of GDP has been going down overall over the past few decades. But for doomesday sayers like yourself high oil prices are another reason to say the SKY IS FALLING.

[Simple]

Imp,

I don't think the sky isn't falling in, its just changing and the change is likely to make life more uncomfortable for the majority.

I never mention doomsday just describe whats already happening.

For world population could you explain how the trend for growth won't reach a point of resource exhaustion because I relly don't understand?

I pressume that the earth must have a finite limit to how much food can be produced (even with best technology and labour allocation). This much food will be able to feed X population. When the population becomes greater and X don't we have a problem or does X never become reached due to naturally tendencies for population growth to slow after industrialisation as is the case in UK for example.

Simple

[Simple]

Paradox,

The man could have saved himself but knew he couldn't stop the volcano and he choose to accept the risk to fulfill his life. His choice only affected his own density whereas now our choices could effect everybodies density.

Peak oil is too unpredictable and predictions of its consequences often seem alarmist.

I'll keep trying to do no harm although what is harmful? I find that is difficult to assess... although it is not a premise not only beholdant to doctors. (e.g. Buddists)

I don't ignore water and agree the changes could be significant in a choatic system, its just for its percentage influence to increase would take a lot of extra water vapour as there is so much of it.


Simple

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by imp

We are nowhere near our capacity for growth.

Imp,

I heard we could give everyone in the world a 100 square foot plot of land in Texas. That leaves a great deal of room for growth.

The Pentagon Report elaborates on how 'carrying capacity' is alarmingly challenged at the moment. Even the signals are exposing weak links in the chain. Imagine when these feedbacks take hold and their intentions are realized.

Remember, our fate is one that has already been experienced by our ancestors time and time again throughout history AND has been scientifically documented. Tell Leilan for example. The scientist, deMenocal compared us to our ancestors by saying, "The thing they couldn't prepare for was the same thing that we won't prepare for, because in their case they didn't know about it and because in our case the political system can't listen to it. "

We must rally to address this threat or face consequences that are difficult to comprehend. Doomsayers (as you call them) have been watching their peers eat crow for some time now. The same crow you will be eating when you come to terms with reality.

Respectfully,

~Paradox