[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by vbneteng

Causes: Automobiles. Modern processing plants. Burning of fossil fuels. Does anyone disagree, or have more to add (sorry, I am joining the discussion late...)

Solution: Create enviornment friendly transportation in all sectors. Standing up to oil companies and putting these methods to use.

Only 3-4% of all GHG emissions come from mankind. 96-97% of all emissions occur naturally.

[johnnyburst79]

Of all the coal burning from the last century, hundreds of millions of cars on the road, plants spewing out tons on noxious gases a year, and other methods of transportation, I find it very difficult to think we only create 3-4% of ghg's.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Of course not.

And I will not deny that global warming is occurring.
Where we'll disagree is about the causes and the solutions and the urgency of the issue.

I do agree that there has been considerable exaggeration to the point that destruction is imminant if Gore isn't elected.
I think that attitude is also self defeating for problem solving.

As far as cause......man is the cause for the acceleration of change, the sooner solutions are sought and implemented, the sooner the rate of change will decline. That does not mean global warming is solved. It just gives civilization a longer chance to adapt.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by vbneteng

Of all the coal burning from the last century, hundreds of millions of cars on the road, plants spewing out tons on noxious gases a year, and other methods of transportation, I find it very difficult to think we only create 3-4% of ghg's.

That is a correct statistic.
But it is all that is needed to put the system in a state of increasing change.
Lan's just playing with numbers, not the science of the situation.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by vbneteng

Of all the coal burning from the last century, hundreds of millions of cars on the road, plants spewing out tons on noxious gases a year, and other methods of transportation, I find it very difficult to think we only create 3-4% of ghg's.

Originally Posted by Stoner

That is a correct statistic.
But it is all that is needed to put the system in a state of increasing change.
Lan's just playing with numbers, not the science of the situation.

The numbers ARE the science of the situation.

We have a far better chance to stem this tide by looking at pro-active ways to cool the planet and/or prepare for the continuing increase then we do pretending it is a man-made problem or that ceasing all emission will do anything to stop or slow the tide.

Don't get me wrong. (as it seems many in this forum do)

I totally support clean air and water legislation. I fully support major funding increases into R & D of renewable fuels for electricity and transportation.

What I don't support is the bombardment of political rhetoric with a "sky is falling" mentality.

So ..... I have proposed treating the coral issue as if it were a patient under a doctor's care. The coral needs to be encouraged to adapt to the slightly warmer water.

Any ideas? Or just more rhetoric?

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

The numbers ARE the science of the situation.

Perhaps you have forgotten?
You are presenting those statistics from a scientific presentation I made you aware of, but you only use the stats without understandinding the scientific relevance of them.
Those stats are in addition to the natural fluctuations. They are what upsets a 'normal' variance and drives the rate of change faster than without the addition by man.
I don't understand why you have a problem with the concept.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

.................................

We have a far better chance to stem this tide by looking at pro-active ways to cool the planet and/or prepare for the continuing increase then we do pretending it is a man-made problem or that ceasing all emission will do anything to stop or slow the tide.

..................
...............?

Excuse me............. That made no sense.
A pro active solution is controling emissions as best as possible.
This seems something most emerging nations refuse and most industrialized nations ignore.

It's already a given that civilization will adapt as it will have to adapt to survive.

pretending it is a man-made problem

This is just more denial, Lan. Industrialization and man's activities are driving the increase in the rate of global warming.
You've already admitted to it when you repeat the stats that man contributes the 3 to 4 percent above the natural threshhold.
You are a main stumbling block to any correction by using this attitude.

that ceasing all emission will do anything to stop or slow the tide.

Not my argument.....write to Gore about it.
I think our civilization needs to develop replacement processes that are less damaging.
Actually, your position to responsible solutions have seemed contradictory. On one hand, you place the entire solution in the province of entreprenours, esentially corporate socialism, and on the other hand, anti capitalistic in that you don't support the search for technological solutions......just the same old, same old status quo.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

.................
........................

What I don't support is the bombardment of political rhetoric with a "sky is falling" mentality.
..................
...............
..............

I'll see if I can persuade xico not to post on Gore _

[LANMaster]

I have no problem with the concept.
3-4% is a literal drop in the bucket.

Though I will agree that humanity is making a contribution, it is minimal.

[Stoner]

So ..... I have proposed treating the coral issue as if it were a patient under a doctor's care. The coral needs to be encouraged to adapt to the slightly warmer water.

Any ideas? Or just more rhetoric?

Any ideas? Film it's death and invest the proceeds in airconditioning

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I'll see if I can persuade xico not to post on Gore _

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I have no problem with the concept.
3-4% is a literal drop in the bucket.

Though I will agree that humanity is making a contribution, it is minimal.

That 'drop in the bucket', as you call it, is what drives the increase in the rate change.
As with any chemical system that is in or near a phase of stability, adding more reactive agents speeds up the processes. Any chemical system reacting at a given rate will change that rate of reaction by adding additional reactive agents.


This 'drop in the bucket' idea couldn't be further from a scientific concept if you tried.
I take that back.......I've seen some in the evolution thread

[iltos]

what strikes me is that the pecentage of man's contribution stands as a new (and, if left alone, increasing) component to the natural cycle....this, imo, is stoner's contention, and i believe it carries weight....

we are talking about the balances in complex systems here....you'd be the first to admit, LAN, that a volcanic eruption...not even a st. helens or a krakatoa, could tip the balance in ways that we are only beginning to understand....

it would seem to me to be the responsible thing to do to pay attention to our contribution, rather than downplay it as insignificant....somewhere i remember reading (was it something religious?) that we are the caretaker here...

what makes it so difficult to act like one is the undeniable economic incentives that support progress...so, to me, this becomes an issue of definition....is it truely progress to ignore the situation, certain that we can adapt whatever nature throws at us?

it maybe true....but is it progress?

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by Stoner

That 'drop in the bucket', as you call it, is what drives the increase in the rate change.
As with any chemical system that is in or near a phase of stability, adding more reactive agents speeds up the processes. Any chemical system reacting at a given rate will change that rate of reaction by adding additional reactive agents.


This 'drop in the bucket' idea couldn't be further from a scientific concept if you tried.
I take that back.......I've seen some in the evolution thread

No doubt you've posted about the 'drop in the bucket' fallacy before, so have I. But maybe it's asking too much for some heads to absorb the facts about quasi-stable equilibrium, and how little it takes to disturb it (in terms of percentages), without using a funnel and a plunger

Having said that, here's another attempt at enlightement LINK ... though I think in some instances it may take a missile to the brain to spark a knowledge infusion, and thus facilitate actual understanding

[LANMaster]

I am reading nothing in the way of solutions from those most vocal in this thread except that all of mankind (except for them, of course) should stop using fuels that create GHG emissions.
Yet they hop on their motorcycles and for no other pupose than their own recreation they put put put all over the place.

I guess, because it's just a motorcycle, it's just a drop in the bucket, eh?

Have a nice day.