Tracking Earth's Future via Current Events, etc.

[aretood2]

But here's the good part. Ethanol contains less energy than Gasoline. You have to burn more of it to get the same energy content. I have real life proof of that; Thanks to prompting from a poster here, I found that ethanol free gas is available in my state. So I switched to it for my SUV, as well as power equipment and boat. When not towing, my SUV has always gotten about 17 MPG. Switching to ethanol free has bumped that to 19 MPG. I burn less gas and therefore emit less exhaust on straight gas than I do ethanol, which some would require that I use.

19MPG? Why do you even need an SUV? Let alone one that needs to stop at a gas station every five minutes...

But back to the topic, the issues you're discussing affect human health, not the health of the Earth. Those asphalt parking lots? Without man's constant maintenance, they will be overgrown and re-absorbed by the earth in 100 years. Heck, the pavement my parents laid down in the 1970's in the back yard is already gone, simply overgrown by the earth, despite having been maintained into the late 80's.

I firmly believe that if mankind was wiped from the face of the Earth tomorrow, within 500 years, aside from our more durable artifacts, buildings and structures, the Earth will have forgotten that we were here at all. Go 5000 years, and almost all if not all evidence of our ever having been here will be gone, detectable only via fossilized evidence to whomever is looking for us. 100 thousand years, and that will be gone as well. Even 100,000 years is a minuscule slice of time in the history of a planet.

That's sorta true. Smug will go away, the ever shrinking visibility range might even start growing again. But the loss of biodiversity will remain true. And once climate change brings its onslaught, many ecosystems will be unable to cope with it thanks to our impact. Now take into account that humanity wouldn't simply vanish but continue to exist and continue to eradicate species after species of plant and animal life and poison/destroy ecosystem after ecosystem.

Climate change would then have a much stronger impact on ecosystems. The reason the biosphere always replenished itself was because it had just enough juice to do so. Otherwise, it would need more than just a few thousand years. We have introduced things that are not "natural" and to think that somehow natural processes will efficiently clean it up so that we can live happy normal lives is ridiculous.

And we have the arrogance to think we are destroying the planet?

Why is it arrogant? Just look at what a simple oil spill can do? Or look at history, we have archeological evidence of Mayans overdoing slash and burn which lead to ecological disaster for them, thus their abandonment of cities. We have evidence of European deforestation long before Europeans set sail in the open sea (Vikings not withstanding). We saw/are seeing how Israelis were able to turn a barren wasteland into a nice countryside of trees and foliage. We can make dark clouds of poison descend from the heavens on a regular basis to the point that they block out the sun (China, Mexico City etc...). We know that visibility has gone down from our recent pass. The air used to be clearer even in suburban/rural areas than it is now. We have seen how entire populations develop lung issues as a result of pollution. We even have documented entire watersheds that used to be relatively safe to drink from turn into water you don't drink unless you want to experience anything from the range of spending an entire week in the bathroom to the ICU. We've hunted entire species that used to number in the millions into near extinction, and many more into extinction. Central America has surprisingly more open fields than you would expect an area to have that should be completely rain forest. The Earth is not infinite, it is very finite and it has a delicate balance.

[Womble]

19MPG? Why do you even need an SUV? Let alone one that needs to stop at a gas station every five minutes...

I used to think so as well. Problem is, urban people think of cars differently from countryside / suburban people.

For one, large families need large cars. Going for a picnic or a shopping trip - hell, going to get a week's worth of groceries - for a household of 5 + people plus a couple of dogs is much easier on a SUV or a pickup truck than a Prius.

Then there's the safety factor. In case of collision, you are safer in a larger, heavier vehicle.

Then consider the fact that for rural Americans, a car's off-road capability is quite important. When you live in a town with population of under 1500 people, where a couple dozen churches and a handful of bars are all available Sunday entertainment, road trips and nature trips become a major way of recreation. Going fishing with a bunch of buddies in a small car is a doubtful experience.

Also, consider the sheer distances that suburban and rural Americans commute to work, to shopping etc. My American friends who works as an RN consultant drives hundreds and hundreds of miles 5 days a week; one of her drives is so long that she has to stay overnight in a hotel because it's not realistic to make it back home on the same day. On long drives, comfort matters so this kind of lifestyle favors a larger car.

Basically, if you want them to drive smaller cars, give them better infrastructure.

[Womble]

I firmly believe that if mankind was wiped from the face of the Earth tomorrow, within 500 years, aside from our more durable artifacts, buildings and structures, the Earth will have forgotten that we were here at all. Go 5000 years, and almost all if not all evidence of our ever having been here will be gone, detectable only via fossilized evidence to whomever is looking for us. 100 thousand years, and that will be gone as well. Even 100,000 years is a minuscule slice of time in the history of a planet.

And we have the arrogance to think we are destroying the planet?

"The planet" is shorthand for the biosphere, not the rock it inhabits. And the life that inhabits this planet is a lot more fragile than the planet itself.

Sure, if humanity disappears, 100 000 years from that day scant evidence would remain. It is true even were humanity to disappear in a nuclear war that left Earth coated in radioactive poison. But would Earth still be the same as before humanity? Would the Dodo bird, the Iberian ibex or the Tasmanian tiger come back?

Passenger pigeons were once 40% of the total bird population of North America and they were exterminated in just over 200 years. And that happened well before humanity was as technologically advanced as today. Any species that is currently threatened is threatened because of human impact. Do you really think we can't render Earth unliveable for ourselves?

[Annoyed]

19MPG? Why do you even need an SUV? Let alone one that needs to stop at a gas station every five minutes...

1: Safety. If some moron does something I can't squirm out of, I want to be the one to walk away from it. Aside from very short-term temporary situations, and a few go-fast cars in my teens, I've always driven something in the 5000-6000 Lb range, body on frame construction. Most SUV's are basically fancy bodies on truck chassis. Basically, I like tanks. My hide is worth more than gasoline. And unless I'm towing (gas mileage goes into the under 10 range) I can run 4-5+ hours @ 65 mph between fuel stops. My bladder capacity is the limiting factor there. I can't get more than 3 hours on that anymore. =(

2: Towing / work capacity. I have a 25 year old boat for recreation. Boat & trailer combined weigh 4300 Lbs. You're not going to tow that with an econobox. Also, from time to time, the sheer mass and pulling power is useful. Pulling out small bushes, etc. It's a lot easier and faster to hook a nice, hefty chain around the base if a bush or such that needs to be removed, put the other end on the trailer hitch and drop it into 4lo. Pulls it out of the ground in under a minute, rather than hours of digging.

4WD. We get this thing called winter around here. I don't ever want to be stranded because the roads are too snotty to handle with a 2WD car. I've got tires with very aggressive, open tread designs that are excellent in snow. I've had that thing in snow up to my knees without even having to bother with the 4WD knob on the dashboard. Basically, I live where you might need that capability in any given snowstorm. Be prepared.

That's sorta true. Smug will go away, the ever shrinking visibility range might even start growing again. But the loss of biodiversity will remain true. And once climate change brings its onslaught, many ecosystems will be unable to cope with it thanks to our impact. Now take into account that humanity wouldn't simply vanish but continue to exist and continue to eradicate species after species of plant and animal life and poison/destroy ecosystem after ecosystem.

Climate change would then have a much stronger impact on ecosystems. The reason the biosphere always replenished itself was because it had just enough juice to do so. Otherwise, it would need more than just a few thousand years. We have introduced things that are not "natural" and to think that somehow natural processes will efficiently clean it up so that we can live happy normal lives is ridiculous.

IF you buy the argument that we are responsible for "climate change", whichever way it's going.. (why can't they make their mind up on that?) there is logic to that argument. But I don't buy that theory. It's changing or it isn't, and we don't have anything to say about it.

Why is it arrogant? Just look at what a simple oil spill can do? Or look at history, we have archeological evidence of Mayans overdoing slash and burn which lead to ecological disaster for them, thus their abandonment of cities. We have evidence of European deforestation long before Europeans set sail in the open sea (Vikings not withstanding). We saw/are seeing how Israelis were able to turn a barren wasteland into a nice countryside of trees and foliage. We can make dark clouds of poison descend from the heavens on a regular basis to the point that they block out the sun (China, Mexico City etc...). We know that visibility has gone down from our recent pass. The air used to be clearer even in suburban/rural areas than it is now. We have seen how entire populations develop lung issues as a result of pollution. We even have documented entire watersheds that used to be relatively safe to drink from turn into water you don't drink unless you want to experience anything from the range of spending an entire week in the bathroom to the ICU. We've hunted entire species that used to number in the millions into near extinction, and many more into extinction. Central America has surprisingly more open fields than you would expect an area to have that should be completely rain forest. The Earth is not infinite, it is very finite and it has a delicate balance.

It is arrogant because some folks seem to be greatly overestimating our importance in the overall scheme of things. Sure, we can cause temporary changes, and if we aren't careful, we can harm ourselves with them. But long scale changes like warming/cooling on a planetary scale? I don't buy that.

[aretood2]

I used to think so as well. Problem is, urban people think of cars differently from countryside / suburban people.

I'm Rural. If the falling trees don't get you, the slippery black ice will

For one, large families need large cars. Going for a picnic or a shopping trip - hell, going to get a week's worth of groceries - for a household of 5 + people plus a couple of dogs is much easier on a SUV or a pickup truck than a Prius.

Not an issue for Annoyed.

Then there's the safety factor. In case of collision, you are safer in a larger, heavier vehicle.

That's the only logical one, aside from weather. But even then, those huge SUV's carry more momentum to deal with. If I were as concerned with that as annoyed, I'd rather go with a pick up truck.

Honestly, I did fine in my old Sentra. And still doing well in my Cruze. Sure PA doesn't get the same snow as NY, but oh well.

1: Safety. If some moron does something I can't squirm out of, I want to be the one to walk away from it. Aside from very short-term temporary situations, and a few go-fast cars in my teens, I've always driven something in the 5000-6000 Lb range, body on frame construction. Most SUV's are basically fancy bodies on truck chassis. Basically, I like tanks. My hide is worth more than gasoline. And unless I'm towing (gas mileage goes into the under 10 range) I can run 4-5+ hours @ 65 mph between fuel stops. My bladder capacity is the limiting factor there. I can't get more than 3 hours on that anymore. =(

That depends....get it? See what I did there? No? Whatever >.>

[Annoyed]

That's the only logical one, aside from weather. But even then, those huge SUV's carry more momentum to deal with. If I were as concerned with that as annoyed, I'd rather go with a pick up truck.

I'm well aware of the added mass; takes longer to stop, the laws of inertia affect a large vehicle more than a small one.

Ever owned a pickup truck? There is no weight on the rear end at all, so unless you put sandbags or some other weight in the back, the rear end breaks loose if you look at it funny.

Oh, and I'll pass on the diapers.

[aretood2]

I'm well aware of the added mass; takes longer to stop, the laws of inertia affect a large vehicle more than a small one.

Ever owned a pickup truck? There is no weight on the rear end at all, so unless you put sandbags or some other weight in the back, the rear end breaks loose if you look at it funny.

You sure are one overly cautious dude. I'll head in your direction during the inevitable Zombie apocalypse.

Oh, and I'll pass on the diapers.

Good thing too. It's meant for those who can't hold it in, not those who have to go often. Speaking of, if anyone has any nieces or nephews, remember...potty trained is no guarantee that they won't leave behind a...gift.

[The Flyattractor]

Never stop for a Zombie Potty Party during the Apocalypse.

[jazzy72]

Yes dear I did read it... (please check the spelling Nazi tendencies-- they come across as condescending. ) the quotes from beleivers were because their wild predictions didn't come true. Do I believe in man-caused climate change? oh heck no. The explosion of Mt. St. Helens (1980) put more garbage into the air in one day than mankind has done in 200 years! Yet...we survive. I am amazed at this planet that has remarkable self-healing abilities. I remember back in the dark ages (1970's) hearing about the Chicago river being on fire for months... it's cleaner now - no I wouldn't drink from it but it is cleaner cleaner. Then of course there is the problem with the water in Flint Michigan ... caused by trying to use nasty water in old pipes-- gee somehow the EPA ignored that for years...wonder why? too worried about cow flatulence I suppose.

I am a conservationist- we should not pollute our lakes, rivers, land, etc... but I believe that being wise stewards of the land allows farms and other businesses to operate ethically and safely for all. I laugh at those who go nuts over the curly-fry light bulbs...they contain mercury as do florescent lights- much more harmful to the environment than regular incandescent bulbs. I refuse to have either in my home-- the 26 steps given by the EPA for cleanup of a broken one is enough to turn me off.

I love my SUV, especially because where I live there are hellish winters with ice...love my 4WD. Besides if a smart car hits me -- I'll be the one walking away.

[Annoyed]

Besides if a smart car hits me -- I'll be the one walking away.

If you even know you got hit. Might just think you hit a pothole.

I never bought into the CFL craze either. Not only are they worse for the environment than conv. bulbs, but they perform very poorly at lower temperatures. Almost as well thought-out as the forced switch from biodegradable paper bags to 1000 year bags made from oil 30-ish years ago.

I do like the LED's that are available today, however. Functionally equal or superior to incandescent, and use a small fraction of the energy.

[mad_gater]

If you even know you got hit. Might just think you hit a pothole.

I never bought into the CFL craze either. Not only are they worse for the environment than conv. bulbs, but they perform very poorly at lower temperatures. Almost as well thought-out as the forced switch from biodegradable paper bags to 1000 year bags made from oil 30-ish years ago.

I do like the LED's that are available today, however. Functionally equal or superior to incandescent, and use a small fraction of the energy.

yeah when the bulb in our walk-in freezer at the Subway I work at went out the manager replaced it with a CFL bulb...the new bulb is out already...probably because of that reason....that CFL's can't handle super cold temperatures like the single digit Fahrenheit temps we keep our walk-in freezer at

[Annoyed]

I've seen them operate poorly at low human range temps; 50 -55 range. Take forever to get warmed up, and lower light output level.

[mad_gater]

I've seen them operate poorly at low human range temps; 50 -55 range. Take forever to get warmed up, and lower light output level.

yeah I've seen that too...take forever to warm up to the appropriate color temperature at cooler (but not freezing) temps

[Falcon Horus]

Yes dear I did read it... (please check the spelling Nazi tendencies-- they come across as condescending. )

You spelled Galileo wrong, yet it was written correctly in the text.
Thus my doubts about having read the actual lines, or just skimmed it.

...the quotes from believers were because their wild predictions didn't come true.

Neither do the predictions of the believers in this thread.

Do I believe in man-caused climate change? oh heck no.

Why not?
Did you look at the links I posted?

The consensus is that the climate change and ecological disasters we see today, are man-made.
You too are a member of the 84% Americans who don't believe. Sadly, nothing to be proud of.

The explosion of Mt. St. Helens (1980) put more garbage into the air in one day than mankind has done in 200 years!

And where did you read that?

I can't find a single scientific report to support that claim.
And of course, Mount St. Helens isn't the only volcano to have erupted in the last 200 years.

You'll probably not going to read it, but I did find an article that completely counters your claims, in a very scientific way.

Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere?

Does one major volcanic eruption generate more climate-altering gas than that produced by humans in their entire history?

The answer:

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

Another indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured by sampling stations around the world set up by the federally funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years.

To make it even funnier...

Furthermore, some scientists believe that spectacular volcanic eruptions, like that of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, actually lead to short-term global cooling, not warming, as sulfur dioxide (SO2), ash and other particles in the air and stratosphere reflect some solar energy instead of letting it into Earth’s atmosphere. SO2, which converts to sulfuric acid aerosol when it hits the stratosphere, can linger there for as long as seven years and can exercise a cooling effect long after a volcanic eruption has taken place.

And this article is especially written for the likes of you:

Iceland volcano gives warming world chance to debunk climate sceptic myths
Climate sceptics' favourite theory that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity has exploded in their faces with Eyjafjallajokull eruption

...one opportunity the volcano has gifted us in particular is the chance to put to bed once and for all that barrel-aged climate sceptic canard which maintains that volcanoes emit far more carbon dioxide than anthropogenic sources. It's always been a favourite, but has been pushed even further up the charts of popularity in recent months by the repeated claims of Ian Plimer, the Australian mining geologist who wrote the climate sceptic bible Heaven and Earth last year.

Woops, theory debunked.

Next!

I am amazed at this planet that has remarkable self-healing abilities.

Are you talking about the ecological footprints? Or the way ecosystems can recover from disturbance?

The Ecological Footprint is an indicator of human pressure on nature.

The Ecological Footprint tracks humanity’s demands on the biosphere by comparing humanity’s consumption against the Earth’s regenerative capacity, or biocapacity.

During the 1970s, humanity as a whole passed the point at which the annual Ecological Footprint matched the Earth’s annual biocapacity. This situation is called “ecological overshoot”, and has continued since then.

An overshoot of 50% means it would take 1.5 years for the Earth to regenerate the renewable resources that people used in 2008 and absorb CO2 waste.
Put another way, people used the equivalent of 1.5 planets to support their activities.


CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are far more than ecosystems can absorb.

Human Disturbance

Not all disturbances are natural. Human actions have contributed to a lot of the disturbances we see in ecosystems today. While natural disturbances happen on occasion, human disturbances are putting constant pressure on ecosystems and dramatically impacting species.

Human disturbances, including clear-cutting, habitat fragmentation, and pollution, are continuously affecting ecosystems. The moment the ecosystem begins adjusting to one stress, another appears. Many ecosystems that we depend on are not given enough time to adapt to the new conditions. The natural cycle of disturbances – growth, dieback and growth – cannot properly function, because too many disturbances are putting pressure on the ecosystem at once.
Source: National Wildlife Federation

...I remember back in the dark ages (1970's) hearing about the Chicago river being on fire for months... it's cleaner now - no I wouldn't drink from it but it is cleaner cleaner.

I'm not an American so I looked up the incident. There's quite a bit of information avalable on this event which took place in 1969.

However, for someone who doesn't believe mankind is 85% (give or take) responsible for the climate change/global warming/destruction of ecosystems, you seem to overlook the part there that the reason the river burned was the pollution from Chicago industry -- man-made pollution as such.

When our rivers caught fire

“Burning Rivers – Revival of Four Urban-Industrial Rivers that Caught on Fire,” a new book by Michigan environmental hero John Hartig, chronicles the shameful and lasting damage done to the greatest rivers in the most spectacular freshwater ecosystem on our planet. More importantly, Hartig recounts the concerted and successful efforts to restore the rivers – not to their natural state, but at least within hailing distance of acceptable water quality.

For more on the Chicago river cleaning project, I refer you to the Environmental Law & Policy Center -- should you be interested in its continued restoration of what apparently was once a very beautiful river.

Then of course there is the problem with the water in Flint Michigan ... caused by trying to use nasty water in old pipes-- gee somehow the EPA ignored that for years...wonder why? too worried about cow flatulence I suppose.

And who's at fault for the "nasty water"?

Lead-Laced Water In Flint: A Step-By-Step Look At The Makings Of A Crisis
The Emergency Admin Order from EPA

I am a conservationist- we should not pollute our lakes, rivers, land, etc... but I believe that being wise stewards of the land allows farms and other businesses to operate ethically and safely for all.

Quite the contradiction -- a conservationist and yet you do not believe mankind is responsible for 3/4 of the junk polluting our ecosystem. Odd person, you are.

Are you sure you are a conservationist?

What Is a Conservationist?

A Conservationist works in the protection of things, places, biological life and ecosystems. They are employed in a wide range of disciplines but essentially have the same job - preservation for future generations or for the health of the ecology or the planet.

What Does a Conservationist Do?

A professional Conservationist (as opposed to somebody interested in conservation) is employed in the preservation of a thing. It is a generic term that may be used in a wide range of disciplines, mostly relating to environmental sciences and environmental related areas. These include archaeology and cultural heritage (preserving built heritage and / or artefacts), ecology, of individual plant and animal species and much more. They can also become soil and plant scientists in understanding how to preserve individual elements of an ecology.

NatureReserve.org
A Network Connecting Science with Conservation

I laugh at those who go nuts over the curly-fry light bulbs...they contain mercury as do florescent lights- much more harmful to the environment than regular incandescent bulbs. I refuse to have either in my home-- the 26 steps given by the EPA for cleanup of a broken one is enough to turn me off.

The what now?
Oh wait, light bulbs with wires.... No longer available in my country -- banned in the EU.

Besides if a smart car hits me -- I'll be the one walking away.

And when you hit the smart car, you'll have to carry the guilt of killing or badly injuring another human being.

[mad_gater]

I'd like to see a viable alternative to current fuel and electrical energy sources as much as the next guy but I believe there is a right way and a wrong way to accomplish that