Reading mode: Light Dark

Are you an environmentalist?

Go to last post
Don_D said:
JoePhoto said:
WHAT IS TRUE ??? ....

How should I know ... all I know is that we have ALWAYS had CYCLES
... it warms, and then it cools for awhile. Then warms again.

PLEASE explain to me how MAN is responsible for CYCLES for the last
MILLION years ???
Click to expand...
Joe,
Of course MAN is NOT responsible for CYCLES for the last MILLION
years.
We ALL know that the earth cycles through ice ages and back again.
That is not the question....the QUESTION is: " is man PARTIALLY
responsible for global warming"? Are we NOW making the earth
warmer than these "natural cycles" would alone?
Scientists know for CERTAIN that human activities are increasing
the levels of greenhouse gases like CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and
SF6. It's well accepted that these greenhouse gases trap heat and
tend to warm the earth.
Exactly how much warming are we humans causing by these measurable
changes to the atmosphere?...scientists are less certain here, but
the scientific community agrees we are adding to the global warming
to SOME extent, especially in the last 50 years (yes there are
minor variations, but the trend is UP). That's all I was saying.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying. "Man" is indeed injecting gases into the atmosphere. The question is if we are injecting more than "nature" itself. How much is ejected naturally with each volcano ??? I mentioned the trees, (which I did recently read they have just leaned is ejecting something they didn't seem to know about before.

BUT .... that is not even the main point ...

IF you track the recent cycles, it does not correlate with mans activies.

It "warmed" from 1900 to 1940 ... which was indeed a time were industrialzing ....

BUT ... it then COOLED for the next 28 years ... BUT ... we did NOT stop "industrialziing" and POLUTING during that 28 year "Global Cooling" cycle.

In the 70's ... we did START to try to clean up the enviroment, and REDUCE POLLUTION ... but it started WARMING again ... while we were reducing pollution.

Now an argument could be made that it was too late, and it "warmed" after 1970 because of the prior pollution .... BUT ... BUT ..

How do they explain how/why it started warming (1900) before long term effects from the beginning of industrialization could have influenced the atmosphere. ... and most important ... WHY did it suddently reverse and start COOLING (1940) before any attempts at reducing pollution ???

In other words .... NONE of it CORRELATES if you honestly think about it !!!

I have another question ... but first a fact ... there is very little mixing between the atmospheres of the Northern and Southern hemispheres. (remember from your history books the crews of many early sailing ships died if they got too close to the Equator --- from the "calms" because there was no wind --- no wind means little interaction/mixing)

In the 80's, they were worried about an "Ozone-Hole" over the ANTARTIC .... but it was supposedly caused by PCP use in the Northern Hemisphere. I am simply confused why we did not have a hole over the US ... cause the US was by-far the biggest abuser of PCP's.

In other words ... they are saying that my wife, using hair-spray in my home state of Texas ... caused a humongous Ozone-Hole over the Antartic .... I am sorry ... I DON'T BUY IT !!!

Think about the credibility of the screamers ... they are the same ones that streamed Global Cooling in the 60's .... they KNEW they were RIGHT then .... but they WERN'T ... they were WRONG.

And they are LYING to you NOW ... but not being open about the FACT that the temperature rise has STOPPED for the last 8 years.

I mean, it "may" increase next year ... or it may not ... I don't know ... but at least they should ADMIT that the warming has stopped/slowed.
Don_D said:
-Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond
Click to expand...
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
 
are watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the inside. When communism failed some years ago, those believers lost their means to control people. (Wasn't communism the ultimate in societal controL?) So those communists became environmentalists. And now they again have a means to control people, because they know what is best for you.
regards - tom
 
That picture is meaningless. Each of those points of light is overexposed to the point that it covers an area vastly greater than what it really is. Even at that I see huge areas unpopulated. All you have to do is go to the central US and you will see that where all those lights are there are large distances between houses and larger distances between towns and cities. The vast majority of the Earth's population is concentrated in the Urban areas. Here's a few facts to ponder:

From About.com

"About 90% of the earth's people live on 10% of the land. Additionally, about 90% of the people live north of the equator.

Population density of the continents:
  • North America - 32 people per square mile
  • South America - 73 people per square mile
  • Europe - 134 people per square mile
  • Asia - 203 people per square mile
  • Africa - 65 people per square mile
  • Australia - 6.4 people per square mile
The population density of the planet (including all land area) is about 105 people per square mile. If Antarctica is eliminated (since it has zero population density), the world population density rises only to 115 people per square mile.

The population density of the United States is approximately 76 people per square mile."

Look at Asia with 203 people per sq mile the highest in the world. Put those 203 people on 1 square mile of land and you still would have mostly empty space.

1 square mile = 27,878,400 square feet

Now I'll be generous and give each person 6 square feet of space.

203 x 6 = 1218 sq feet

divide 1218 by 27878400 = .000047 or .0047% leaving 99.995% empty.

and that's for Asia the most densely populated Continent.

The fact is insects make up far more of the living population of the world that people and consume far more of it's resources.

I consider myself an environmentalist but the extremest don't do us any good when they distort the facts. I place environmental extremests right along side religious fanatics and all the other idealogs who try to jam their beliefs down my throat. Lets stick to the facts.
--
Tom

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
 
How does drinking Dutch beer show solidarity with Denmark? I do agree that Leftest policies are having a negative effect. Going politically too far left or right is not good. Both policies give way too much power to the government which is a dangerous thing.
--
Tom

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
 
tbcass said:
Now I'll be generous and give each person 6 square feet of space.
Click to expand...
Hey Tom,

How about we allocate your 6 square feet in the middle of Death Valley? How do you think you'd do? 8-)

Seriously, thanks for some good facts....to some extent I agree with you about people distorting and misrepresenting the facts, but aren't we finding some resources scarce even now?....besides square feet?

Of course there's gasoline and heating oil and I can think of some others. The world has limited resources and we're using them up at a unsustainable rate. I think that's what a lot of thoughful people are concerned about.
tbcass said:
I consider myself an environmentalist but the extremest don't do us
any good when they distort the facts. I place environmental
extremests right along side religious fanatics and all the other
idealogs who try to jam their beliefs down my throat. Lets stick to
the facts.
Click to expand...
....and common sense.

-Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond
 
tbcass said:
Now I'll be generous and give each person 6 square feet of space.
Click to expand...
You think you can live on the food and materials grown and extracted from 6 square feet of the Earth's surface?

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
That's not the point. The fact is people do not occupy much of the worlds surface. That's all I am saying. I recommend that all read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg with an open mind. With that I end my rant.
--
Tom

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
 
tbcass said:
That's not the point. The fact is people do not occupy much of the
worlds surface.
Click to expand...
Why is it not the point? The point is you occupy the space in which you fit, plus all the space necessary to support your existence, unless you simply plan to die where you stand.

Your argument is that everyone lives like they do at a standing-room-only concert and that that's all the room they take up. Heck, even my smallest one-person shower is 9 square feet and that's part of my home which is on a 0.18 acre plot. My place of work occupies 315 acres and supports 65 employees. I have to take 10 miles of road to get there. I live in a city with many shopping locations to distribute the things that I need - that which is grown or extracted in order to support my exisitance. I live near a reservoir that occupies 4000 acres. It, combined with three water processing facilities provide the water I need. It is fed by three canals covering a hundred miles by about 50 feet. The food I need is grown on a small number of hectares (somewhere between 1 and 10). Each hectare is about 2.5 acres. This is to say nothing of the forest that provides the wood I need or the mine space to provide the materials and energy (coal) I currently consume. Your estimate of how much space we actually take up (6 square feet) is off by about 5 orders of magnitude (600,000 square feet is closer to accurate).

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Look at all the evidence out there, we are not living in a sustainable way (consumption of minerals, oil reserves, forrest disappearing,...).

That's just the major disadvantage of the 'evolution' : while it brought us all the amazing diversity of plants and animals, it just drives the human animal, just like all other animals and plants, to do one thing : being as succesfull as possible in multiplying our genetic profile, conitnuing our genes...

sugar
tbcass said:
That's your opinion.
--
Tom

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
Click to expand...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I can crop at the long end myself if I want to
There's no substitute for mm²

some humble pictures : http://www.flickr.com/photos/67259727@N00/
 
There's a lot of disagreement on that. The newsmedia just doesn't tell you. Read the Skeptical Environmentalist for a mathematical analysis of the data which disputes those claims.
--
Tom

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
 
Read the skeptical environmentalist. He proves that the available data proves that we aren't close to using up our available resources. He also shows that the way the birth rate is reducing world wide we never will.
--
Tom

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
 
tbcass said:
Read the skeptical environmentalist. He proves that the available
data proves that we aren't close to using up our available
resources. He also shows that the way the birth rate is reducing
world wide we never will.
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything about the amount of available resources we have used as a species, did I? I just showed that individulals use more (much, much more) than 6 square feet each. You must admit that's true.

As to available resources, we are much closer to fully-utilizing some than we are to others. You also have to realize that total available resource isn't the right measure. It's total resources that can be economically utilized that matters and that is usually much less than the whole resource (less than half, in most cases). For example, we are much closer to using up the available Copper than we are to using up the available Aluminum. Same goes for Oil versus Natural Gas versus Coal. Plus, on many of these, the available resource, even that which can be economically extracted isn't entirely relevant. The rate at which they can be extracted matters more since we are using them as fast or faster than we can extract them (for example, Oil in the US - we extract 5.5MBD and use 21MBD).

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
shoot123 said:
Needless to say, population control in much of the world is
non-existent.
Unfortunately, even a lot of "educated" people in affluent
countries continue to have 3+ kids and pretend it's not a problem.
Click to expand...
The birth rate is declining. The growth rate peaked in the early 60's at 2% and is now at 1.26%. and is predicted to fall to 0.46% by 2050. It is estimated that it will stabilize at 11 billion in 2200.

--
Tom

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top