Global Warming Watch

[cyberpi]

It is another issue for the world to find a solution to but can we, the so called 'civilised, educated' west really play "you are doing something wrong so we can too?"

I was just countering the mindless propaganda against the USA with the presentation of a problem that largely contributes to global warming in a country with less resources but with 50 million people and growing lined up along and polluting a single but very important river.

You see, while you fault the USA for global warming... I fault Egypt and the countries in North Africa and the Middle East. The wetlands destruction and the destruction of what use to be forests in the 'infertile crescent' is in my opinion the single greatest cause of global warming. In my uncivil, and thus educated mind: Northern Africa and the Middle East are the land masses of the planet that can best be used to reverse global warming... by returning the wet lands and the forests that were once destroyed there. I speak honestly... I find that the greatest impact to reduce global warming exists in Northern Africa and in the infertile crescent. Why?

I submit that CO2 is not the cause of global warming but it is a correlated byproduct of what causes it. H2O in the atmosphere is the real global warmer, the insulation, and it is a darn good thing because otherwise the planet would be sub-freezing. Yet the temperature does need to be sustained otherwise these melting glaciers and rapidly changing ecosystems may have a rapidly changing impact... which will cause massive destruction.

Of what I envision: one of the best ways the people of the USA can help to counter the environmental destruction caused by the Egyptians (in part) is to study and implement ways to improve the surface area and solar target area in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Atlantic Ocean off the Eastern Coast... all the way over to Northern Africa. The goal is to increase evaporation and to accelerate the water cycle. You see, basically energy is being wasted by NOT being used. Those hurricanes that are moving Westerly towards the USA are powered by enormous amounts of energy. That is... WASTED energy. That energy needs to be harnessed and put to more productive use. The exact opposite of what you claim, MW. The USA needs to use more energy... more solar energy to increase the water cycle and to help cool the planet. It is the water cycle that cools the planet. It is the plants and trees, with the energy of the sun, that drives the water cycle. It is the destruction of forests and wetlands that have greatly caused a shift towards global warming.

When water (or anything) evaporates, it increases the local air pressure. Once H2O is evaporated it will absorb the sun's energy and expand (do work). The daily local air pressure increase is ultimately what drives the winds around the planet faster than the spin of the planet itself... except at the equator where the radius of the planet is so large and the evaporation not able to keep up that the wind travels to the West. It takes this energy to pump the wasted heat off the planet. When the water vapor rises, condenses into clouds, and falls back to the planet, it does many good things. It cleans the air, waters the plants, fills the rivers, and cleans the surface of the planet... it ultimately sends entropy leaving the planet as long wave radiation. Whatever energy the planet absorbs from the sun daily must be equalized with degraded energy or entropy that leaves the planet. That degraded local heat and entropy is no longer of use to us and it must be pumped into outer space. Getting it past the insulation in the roof (the atmosphere) is done in large part via the water cycle. The goal of making the day cooler, the night warmer, the summer cooler, the winter warmer... is best done with water. Another way of cooling is at night when water vapor condenses, releasing its energy and it finds a good clean radiation path into the night sky. That cooling process is improved by improving the evaporative surface area of the planet with trees and plants. With a higher frequency of the water cycle the entropy is driven off the planet faster... there is a maximum frequency set by the day / night cycle, but the accelerator... the on/off switch to nature's air conditioner pump... is controlled by the nature of the surface area.

I find that the carbon dioxide in the air and in the Ocean is a resource that can be used to grow plants on the surface of the Ocean... research into making large gardens with the plants that already grow on the surface in the middle of the Atlantic should be furthered. Something ultimately needs to be above and floating on the surface of the Ocean to improve the surface evaporation, and I recommend using whatever God provides... trees and plants. That would have multiple good outcomes. One of the good outcomes would be to control and prevent hurricanes altogether. Another would be to increase precipitation in Northern Africa and the Middle East. Certainly things below the surface that absorb light and CO2 are good, but I want a solar target above the air / water interface that wicks water up and presents it on a leaf of low thermal mass for evaporation.

Another technique to accelerate things would be to pipe sea water over the land masses of Mexico, Northern Africa, and the Middle East... evaporate the water... and then pipe it back using water as the carrier but with a higher concentration of salt. The coastal areas are the places to do this, but the further inland the water is piped the better... at the expense and energy cost of the pipe and the pumping. What better place to evaporate water than over the hot desert land in the lowest humidity? This needs to be on a massive scale. The effort put into pumping hydrocarbons all over the world needs to be met by increasing the water cycle. Think of it as a massive desalination plant wherein you don't get the fresh water from it until it is taken up by the sun, dropped back as the rain and given in part to the plants and the lakes. Realize that the entire land mass of the USA fits within Northern Africa. There is no reason that Mexico, Northern Africa and the Middle East can not be made as green as the USA is. Once a forest or wetlands is grown... it is self protecting by the fresh water that it retains and evaporates.

Or... if you believe as the press tells you that carbon dioxide is a poison then please stop breathing because you are just polluting the environment. Life here requires cycles and I am not ashamed to exhale carbon dioxide and to burn hydrocarbons... for productive use. I am ashamed that most people do not use their minds to think beyond the mindless press... or to seek God for new answers.

 

[flowperson]

Hi wil...

I know we've had this interchange before. I agree with you that there is a cyclic nature to the rise and fall in Earth's temperature patterns. And that's a good thing because it lends a degree of predictability to the activities of our atmosphere. But this discussion has magically devolved into a discussion of specificities, and as we all know that's where the devil is. This must be , and can only be analyzed from a systemic set of viewpoints, and from all indications we are definitely seeing an overall system headed for major periods of gross imbalance, which translates into more extreme and unpredictable weather patterns.

In the present case we're witnessing something quite different from normal fluctuation patterns if I'm not mistaken. The latest studies predict that the Earth's weather extremes will even out for a while over the near term, but predict that even more extreme swings in the unpredictabilty of weather events and their consequences will then resume for an extended and open ended period after that interim period.

As I've mentioned before, all natural systems are chaotic systems, and the introduction of unknown or unusual inputs usually connotes unknown conditions over the long term until functioning patterns of regularity are re-established. The massive burning of fossil fuels is not comparable to logging burnoffs in the 1800's. This systemic change pattern is what is actually happening with all of this. The last fifty to one hundred years of environmental abuse by us is a new factor in the planet's balancing systems.

Furthermore, chaotic episodes in the prevailing conditions are likely to amplify themselves over time through feedback mechanisms if the aggrivating conditions are not curtailed or somehow otherwise compensated for. I believe that the point of Mr. Gore's film was to illuminate these scenarios and their likelihood.

In short we have a certain window of opportunity to do some real things in all of this to dampen some of the chaos inducing environmental harm that we are continuing to do to our home. But some experts observe that we may have already passed critical tipping points, and that whatever happens from now on will result in a far different set of environments than we have ever had to deal with over an extended period in the past 12,000 years.

That's a very serious set of problems to deal with.

flow....

 

[wil]

...whatever happens from now on will result in a far different set of environments than we have ever had to deal with over an extended period in the past 12,000 years.
that's a very serious set of problems to deal with.

flow....

I think you may be exactly right...man evolved on this planet when man could evolve... prior to our current climate this planet was not too conducive to man and our needs of buildings staying standing, pipes staying in the ground. We've only really put ourselves on edge the past couple hundred years... but now we rely on the earth not shifting volcanoes not popping up, continents not moving and weather not changing so dramatically...

It has been a lovely 12,000 years....pick a time in the past millions of years when you feel the temperature and environment would have been more suitable... 12,000 out of millions what miniscule percentage of time are we speaking of?

 

[flowperson]

I think you may be exactly right...man evolved on this planet when man could evolve... prior to our current climate this planet was not too conducive to man and our needs of buildings staying standing, pipes staying in the ground. We've only really put ourselves on edge the past couple hundred years... but now we rely on the earth not shifting volcanoes not popping up, continents not moving and weather not changing so dramatically...

It has been a lovely 12,000 years....pick a time in the past millions of years when you feel the temperature and environment would have been more suitable... 12,000 out of millions what miniscule percentage of time are we speaking of?

Right you are wil...to quote Pogo, an archaic comic strip for most people these days, we have met the enemy, and they is us !

I would rather live now than in any of the millions of past years, but the way that most of us are existing, and not really living these days, is not going to be sustainable unless some of us can go elsewhere and start it all anew somehow. Any suggestions mountain man ? Got any buds with some spare time/space equipment for rent and temporary usage?

flow....

 

[wil]

Right you are wil...to quote Pogo, an archaic comic strip for most people these days, we have met the enemy, and they is us !

I would rather live now than in any of the millions of past years, but the way that most of us are existing, and not really living these days, is not going to be sustainable unless some of us can go elsewhere and start it all anew somehow. Any suggestions mountain man ? Got any buds with some spare time/space equipment for rent and temporary usage?

flow....

I know this is the science section...but could it all be divine? We evolved at the opportune era with just enough time to technologically advance enough to save ourselves...too much more time we'd get complacent...so instead one issue after another....we'll solve the whole war, greed, love thing as we work together to survive...

I only know the USA....and I've got three rendezvous points to make it to currently should the whole shootin match fall apart. The families will survive...

 

[cyberpi]

Note they are talking the last 1-2,000 years at the most. As it proves their point most succinctly.

We are talking about warming and cooling trends that last 1-200,000 years any isolated timeframe of 1% or less can show whatever fluctuation one needs to prove their point.

1860 was an anomaly in the past 50,000 years....why start at that cold point if not to distort the analysis??

Imagine the graph were the speed and the location of my car. Where it was 10 years ago travelling at 120 MPH in the ... well that is another story. My point is does it really matter where my car was 10 years ago? What matters to me is the location and the velocity of the car today. I have no doubts that the car will eventually come to rest in a metal graveyard somewhere but right now I would prefer that it not slam into a wall... especially while I am in it.

I view the graph of global temperature in the same way because like the car I direct a portion... a very small portion... of the energy on this planet. I am responsible for the energy that I direct. I would prefer that the energy that I direct does not cause the car (or global temperature) to slam into a wall.

I see rapid changes in a period of time without other factors in the history that accounts for them. I study the physics and the history and I do see problems with predictable outcomes. Like the car, I agree fully that it will eventually come to rest all on its own if someone does not intervene. The question is whether or not I help to control the car or whether the wall or another car will help to control it for us.

So, yes it has been cooler and warmer on the planet and yes the dinosaurs were here but are now extinct. Should we really consider it a natural process to help humanity join them by looking the other way?

 

[Muslimwoman]

I was just countering the mindless propaganda against the USA with the presentation of a problem that largely contributes to global warming in a country with less resources but with 50 million people and growing lined up along and polluting a single but very important river.

Why whenever I refer to the west do you assume I am talking about the USA? This may surprise you but the west is much bigger than the USA. One of the issues other countries have with the USA is your governments unwillingness to accept our collective western influence on global issues, such as ozone depletion, global warming, tearing down rainforests, etc. We are all guilty in the west but the USA is a huge country and largely uses more resources per person than other western countries. Just look up how many enviromental policies every western country has tried to ratify but USA has refused to sign or has watered down (look up the Kyoto agreement). Environmental issues are global and the US needs to work with other countries to find solutions to these problems.

You see, while you fault the USA for global warming...

Where did I do that? I said the west is largely responsible for many current issues facing poorer nations on the other side of the world. People in the UK, Germany, France, Italy, etc are just as unwilling to give up their gas guzzling ways as the US.

I fault Egypt and the countries in North Africa and the Middle East. The wetlands destruction and the destruction of what use to be forests in the 'infertile crescent' is in my opinion the single greatest cause of global warming.

I do not disagree with you, the African continent was stripped bare and has caused many of the problems they now face. Egypt has been over 90% desert since the times of the Pharaohs, that is 5000 years plus. So I am not sure that you can blame the egyptian people for that one.

So why are we, the western countries, following their example and stripping acres and acres of forest land, throughout the world, per day? Look at South America, that isn't being done by Africans and Egyptians or indeed by South Americans but by Western nations.

National Geographic says "The U.S. State Department estimates that forests four times the size of Switzerland are lost each year because of clearing and degradation." And

"The burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline and coal is perhaps the most efficient way of polluting the atmosphere, say U.S. government scientist Guy Brasseur and Graciela Raga of Mexico."



From a professor of planning at Alexandria University "After ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Egypt could gain $20 million annually by trading its low emission certificates with countries like India whose emissions exceed the average."

The USA needs to use more energy... more solar energy to increase the water cycle and to help cool the planet.

But you are not using solar energy, you are using oil and fossil fuels. Check out the plight of orangutans in Indonisia, these companies responsible for the deforestation are not Indonisian owned but western owned:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Genes record orangutans' decline

I agree completely that the world needs more trees, lets get planting forests and piping water. But along with that we, the west, must stop deforestation throughout the world and find alternatives to fossil fuels.

There is no reason that Mexico, Northern Africa and the Middle East can not be made as green as the USA is. Once a forest or wetlands is grown... it is self protecting by the fresh water that it retains and evaporates.

Yes wetlands and forests are the answer to the problems in that region but it would seem pointless to be creating wetlands and forests in some areas while we are stripping them and creating dry lands in other areas, it is just moving the problem not dealing with our energy consumption.

These links will give you an idea of what Egypt is trying to do about the problem of irrigating up to 46% of the desert. It is not a perfect plan and financing is a problem but at least they are trying to do something. May I ask, the US has huge desert areas, do you have any plans for irrigating them and what do you believe created them in the first place?

Egypt Uses Water Resources to Make Deserts Bloom

The Egyptians also built the Aswan Dam for irrigation.

 

[wil]

Imagine the graph were the speed and the location of my car. Where it was 10 years ago travelling at 120 MPH in the ... well that is another story. My point is does it really matter where my car was 10 years ago?

I know you know better...I'm not following where you are going in the argument. If it was hotter than it is today 200,000 years ago...and 400,000 years ago, and 600,000 years ago....than the current increase means nothing...

 

[cyberpi]

Why whenever I refer to the west do you assume I am talking about the USA?

It didn't take a Western education to figure out what countries you were referring to in post #22, the post that I had responded to. The word 'West' was not in it. I believe you said, 'energy guzzling societies'. My point is not the country but in your correlation of using energy with natural disasters. I am countering both your belief that using energy is a sin, and the belief that using energy does not effect the environment, and I am saying that energy needs to be used on the environment to preserve it while the energy is being used.

Look at it this way... lets say that more sewers need to be built. You propose that 'energy guzzling societies' are people who eat a lot, do a lot, and correspondingly poop a lot. So, you propose that those 'energy guzzling societies' need to eat less and correspondingly do less, and thus be less productive. Fine. I propose you are wrong and instead those 'energy guzzling societies' need to build more sewers. The sewer I am referring to is called a heat pump. That heat pump is the water cycle. That water cycle is driven really well by the trees and the plants. Matter of fact those trees and plants love the poop too, and the CO2 which you called a poison.

One of the issues other countries have with the USA is your governments unwillingness to accept our collective western influence on global issues, such as ozone depletion, global warming, tearing down rainforests, etc. We are all guilty in the west but the USA is a huge country and largely uses more resources per person than other western countries. Just look up how many enviromental policies every western country has tried to ratify but USA has refused to sign or has watered down (look up the Kyoto agreement). Environmental issues are global and the US needs to work with other countries to find solutions to these problems.

I affirm, agree, and am thankful that the USA did NOT sign the Kyoto agreement. I not only object to the mindless pseudo-science behind it, but I also object to any terms that place either per country (government), or per capita (population), on equal footing with other countries.

Where did I do that? I said the west is largely responsible for many current issues facing poorer nations on the other side of the world. People in the UK, Germany, France, Italy, etc are just as unwilling to give up their gas guzzling ways as the US.

I don't care what country you finger... I find your belief that current issues facing poorer nations are caused by the richer nations is ludicrous. If the people of Egypt want to be more like the USA, then be more like the USA. If they want to be more like another country, then be more like them. If they want to be a poor country then carry on. If you want the USA to be more like Egypt... forget it. Its not happening.

I do not disagree with you, the African continent was stripped bare and has caused many of the problems they now face. Egypt has been over 90% desert since the times of the Pharaohs, that is 5000 years plus. So I am not sure that you can blame the egyptian people for that one.

Same desert with 60 million more people... is it any better now than it was 5,000 plus years ago? If the Middle East wants more rain today I think it needs to improve Northern Africa.

So why are we, the western countries, following their example and stripping acres and acres of forest land, throughout the world, per day? Look at South America, that isn't being done by Africans and Egyptians or indeed by South Americans but by Western nations.

National Geographic says "The U.S. State Department estimates that forests four times the size of Switzerland are lost each year because of clearing and degradation."

In the USA there are acres and acres of forest land stripped. There are also acres and acres of forest land replanted. Trees are a renewable resource but you have to replant. You also can not strip mine an entire forest and expect it to quickly recover. Trees depend on each other to retain their soil. The point is... you can not expect mother nature to do the work. I have been in Saudi Arabia and witnessed the aftermath of a day of rain... some type of grass quickly grew in the desert.

"The burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline and coal is perhaps the most efficient way of polluting the atmosphere, say U.S. government scientist Guy Brasseur and Graciela Raga of Mexico."

If that is true then people should stop eating hydrocarbons and breathing... because people do the exact same thing.

From a professor of planning at Alexandria University "After ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Egypt could gain $20 million annually by trading its low emission certificates with countries like India whose emissions exceed the average."

A whole $20 million dollars? Divided by 60 million people that would be what... 33 cents a year? If subsidizing Egypt is going to clean up the air then the USA is already a step ahead of the program. It's not. I've got a new protocol... lets divide the tree count of the country by the population and reward those countries with the highest tree count per capita. Afterall it is the tree that absorbs the CO2, captures the suns energy, and renews the hydrocarbons for future generations. Egypt is not looking so good in the Cyperpi protocol. Neither is China, India, Mexico, nor Japan. Canada is looking pretty good! The Middle East blows chunks. Why won't Egypt ratify my GREEN protocol?

But you are not using solar energy, you are using oil and fossil fuels.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but fossil fuels came from solar energy. Animals don't make hydrocarbons... they eat plants and trees that received the energy from the sun. The trees, the plants, the whole crops that must be planted and cut down every year to feed Egypt... the very food that you eat... all came from solar energy. Those trees and plants absorb the CO2 that you call poison from the atmosphere and converts the sunlight into hydrocarbons. So then plant more crops. In Egypt the population growth needs to be curbed... the river is being heavily taxed by the local population.

I agree completely that the world needs more trees, lets get planting forests and piping water. But along with that we, the west, must stop deforestation throughout the world and find alternatives to fossil fuels.

The USA imports many things, but it exports trees. I don't know where the trees throughout the world go but contrary to the 'use less energy' rhetoric I see the need to use more energy. It will require using energy to replant the trees and it will require using energy to drive and control the water cycle.

Yes wetlands and forests are the answer to the problems in that region but it would seem pointless to be creating wetlands and forests in some areas while we are stripping them and creating dry lands in other areas, it is just moving the problem not dealing with our energy consumption.

Is it truly pointless to grow a garden and then harvest it, rotating the crops?

These links will give you an idea of what Egypt is trying to do about the problem of irrigating up to 46% of the desert. It is not a perfect plan and financing is a problem but at least they are trying to do something. May I ask, the US has huge desert areas, do you have any plans for irrigating them and what do you believe created them in the first place?

Egypt Uses Water Resources to Make Deserts Bloom

The Egyptians also built the Aswan Dam for irrigation.

That looks good. I suggest that the Egyptian people need to focus also on curbing the unsustainable population growth and focus on improving the welfare and education of fewer children within a family. Those social norms are easily accomplished through education and conversation. Otherwise I think the people of the country will be poorer than they are today into the future. There is definitely a limit to the number of people that the land will support and I could be wrong in my assertions about the Nile, but I don't think so. Rivers all around the world are being taxed. That said, if the precipitation in Northern Africa and the Middle East were improved then the situation would be different.

 

[cyberpi]

I know you know better...I'm not following where you are going in the argument. If it was hotter than it is today 200,000 years ago...and 400,000 years ago, and 600,000 years ago....than the current increase means nothing...

Well... if someone can do everything that you can do and more, does that make everything that you can do mean nothing? If WWII was bigger than any conflict since then, does that make every conflict since then mean nothing? If there is a forest bigger than my little garden... does that make my little garden mean nothing? I submit that the Earth was once a place that was uninhabitable... and that we should properly use energy to avoid returning it to that state. I submit that anyone who tries... it will mean something.

 

[Muslimwoman]

It didn't take a Western education to figure out what countries you were referring to in post #22, the post that I had responded to. The word 'West' was not in it. I believe you said, 'energy guzzling societies'.

So it was an assumption on your part and an incorrect one at that. You do know I am British don't you? I was talking about all the gas guzzling societies, including my own - that would be the United Kingdom/UK/Britain/England. As well as all the other rich countries of Europe and yes the USA.

I am countering both your belief that using energy is a sin, and the belief that using energy does not effect the environment

What? I do not believe using energy is a sin, I just believe that we have to use the resources we have sparingly and responsibly. I have said quite the reverse, using energy DOES affect the environment.

That water cycle is driven really well by the trees and the plants. Matter of fact those trees and plants love the poop too, and the CO2 which you called a poison.

Would that be the trees and plants we are destroying more quickly than we can replant them, when we choose to replant? And how long does it take a tree to grow?

I also object to any terms that place either per country (government), or per capita (population), on equal footing with other countries.

So do you believe that the US is the only country in the world or that it is every man (country) for himself? When looking at global issues how else would you decide such matters if not per capita? So because we were lucky enough to be born in the west - we've got lots of trees and water and the money to tear down your trees as well, so bugger you lot!!!

I don't care what country you finger... I find your belief that current issues facing poorer nations are caused by the richer nations is ludicrous. If the people of Egypt want to be more like the USA, then be more like the USA. If they want to be more like another country, then be more like them. If they want to be a poor country then carry on. If you want the USA to be more like Egypt... forget it. Its not happening.

What are you ranting about? Why would I want your country to be like Egypt? What the hell does Egypt have to do with anything, I said in my last post I was talking about INDIA - here is a hint, it is a different country than Egypt, honestly, look at a map.

Trees are a renewable resource but you have to replant.

Would you be so kind as to provide links for the US owned companies that are destroying the rainforests and their replanting schemes. So in what year can we expect these rainforests to have regrown to the condition they were in when we ripped them out of the ground?

If that is true then people should stop eating hydrocarbons and breathing... because people do the exact same thing.

What a grown up educated answer. So because we produce gases through the process of breathing we should all buy a second car.

A whole $20 million dollars? Divided by 60 million people that would be what... 33 cents a year?

Now there is a good capitalist answer, talk about the money and completely miss the issue of the already low emissions in Egypt. Good one, nicely demonstrated.

If subsidizing Egypt is going to clean up the air then the USA is already a step ahead of the program. It's not.

What's not? Are we even having the same conversation? Who said anything about subsidising Egypt? Egypt already has very low emissions, unlike the US. You really have a problem with Egypt for some reason, have you ever been there?


We cannot remove the gases that are released into the atmosphere naturally but we can stop adding to the problem and cut back on the gases we release through our industrial methods.

 

[cyberpi]

So it was an assumption on your part and an incorrect one at that.

Truthfully? Is the UK on the other side of the world of the countries you claim are effected by it? India? You have already fingered the USA directly....

One of the issues other countries have with the USA is your governments unwillingness to accept our collective western influence on global issues, such as ozone depletion, global warming, tearing down rainforests, etc. We are all guilty in the west but the USA is a huge country and largely uses more resources per person than other western countries.

You do know I am British don't you?

That is your identity crisis. German and moved to Egypt? I have not changed my story... still an honest American.

I was talking about all the gas guzzling societies, including my own - that would be the United Kingdom/UK/Britain/England. As well as all the other rich countries of Europe and yes the USA.

The UK is resource poor. It has to import the oil and natural gas. It suffered direct carpet bombings in WWII. Tell me... why is it that the UK is a rich nation while others remain poor? I'll bet my answer differs from yours. If the UK were in Africa... would Africa then have a rich, energy guzzling country? If the UK were in the ME where gas is dirt cheap... would the UK be poorer or richer?

What? I do not believe using energy is a sin, I just believe that we have to use the resources we have sparingly and responsibly.

So what country do you claim uses energy responsibly... since you have fingered the USA as being irresponsible? Egypt? India? UK?

Would that be the trees and plants we are destroying more quickly than we can replant them, when we choose to replant? And how long does it take a tree to grow?

How many plants do you eat per day?

So do you believe that the US is the only country in the world or that it is every man (country) for himself?

Within the USA... within any State... within any county... within any city... within any neighborhood... NEVER would I sign any agreement that says every family, neighborhood, city, county, or state must burn an equal amount of energy or exchange credits for CO2 so that those who use more energy must institutionally give money to those who don't use energy. NEVER would I personally do that among any group of people in the world. I don't want that institutional Socialist BS regardless of what country I live in.

When looking at global issues how else would you decide such matters if not per capita?

I don't decide how my neighbor uses energy, by any method... especially not per capita. Many of my neighbors have more energy than I do. Some have less. Some use energy productively. Some waste energy. It is not my decision to make how those individuals use energy. The individuals who waste energy end up poor and the individuals who use energy productively end up rich. The individuals who put energy under their mattress end up poor... and rightfully so.

So because we were lucky enough to be born in the west - we've got lots of trees and water and the money to tear down your trees as well, so bugger you lot!!!

I'm lucky I was born among neighbors who did not ratify a Socialist agreement.

I was just thinking about the Kyoto agreement again... if I work hard and consequenctly use more energy, I have to give money as credit to someone who uses less energy... so that they can buy more work from me. That is the most ingenious evil that I have ever heard. When I give to charity it is of my own free will. I submit that agreements between countries would have to be truly ratified by its citizens in order for them to be legal by God. NEVER would I sign that Kyoto evil, regardless of where I lived.

What the hell does Egypt have to do with anything, I said in my last post I was talking about INDIA - here is a hint, it is a different country than Egypt, honestly, look at a map.

So did you want the UK or the USA to be like India? Is India your model of a country using energy more responsibly?

Would you be so kind as to provide links for the US owned companies that are destroying the rainforests and their replanting schemes.

I don't know who logs the rainforests. Where I grew up and normally reside (Washington State), I am familiar with Weyerhaeuser, Plum Creek Timber Co., and ITT Rayonier, and what they have done with forests locally to harvest and re-grow them. I think each of them own foreign land too... I'm not sure about Plumb Creek. Tree logging in this region of the USA dramatically declined from the 70's and 80's due to environmental concerns with a species found here: the Spotted Owl. As a result of the pressure I would say that these timber companies were forced to find better ways or to simply close. Several paper and pulp mills in the region are gone due to the environmental pressure, extra taxes, and foreign competition. You can see areas that have been logged in Washington state and I wish that I had pictures of a section over time to show you the re-growth. Depending on the type of tree it is better to plant small trees, seedlings, to plant seeds, or to leave some older trees behind that will re-seed and shelter the new trees. The goal in my opinion should be to keep the land green... I don't care how old the tree is as long as it is obtaining sunlight and water.

An organization like Greenpeace will show you a logged section and carry on about how cutting a tree kills the planet. You would be a good candidate for Greenpeace. I am opposed to them only in that they tend to be radical in not seeking ways to coexist with nature... I don't think a greenpeace member could grow a garden and pick the fruit or to raise an animal and kill it for food; however, they are instrumental in educating the public to illegal practices and for being a guard dog against industry.

While it is not an example of a rainforest... here is a US company that you can salivate over:
Kimberly-Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kleercut.Net | Kimberly-Clark and Kleenex are wiping away ancient forests
Kleenex destroys ancient forests | Greenpeace International
Kleenex and Kimberly-Clark | Greenpeace International

I don't think KC does the logging, but they are in trouble with Greenpeace for using virgin wood from Canada in the Canadian Pulp / Paper mills for their fiber based products. Greenpeace is opposed to using toilet paper altogether, but it is preferred that pulp products be made from recycled paper or wood chips. In the USA another big change since the 70's has been the implementation of recycling. In my area two separate trucks from WM (Waste Management) come by and pick up, one for recycled glass, aluminum, paper... and one for trash. I'll save the debate on whether the use of toilet paper or other paper products is wrong for another thread.

In the region where I reside, I know that KC was involved in a water conservation project with the cities of Everett and Marysville: Google: Port Gardner Outfall I consider that to be the kind of activity between government, public, and industry that is productive and necessary for conservation.

So in what year can we expect these rainforests to have regrown to the condition they were in when we ripped them out of the ground?

What year can you expect the population in Egypt to return to the point it was when the trees in the rainforest were planted?

What a grown up educated answer. So because we produce gases through the process of breathing we should all buy a second car.

Tell me... can a person drive two cars simultaneously? If I own 10 vehicles do I burn fuel 10 times as fast? Twice as fast? Or at the same rate. I submit that it is environmentally responsible to own a truck and a small little car... drive the truck only when needed.

Now there is a good capitalist answer, talk about the money and completely miss the issue of the already low emissions in Egypt. Good one, nicely demonstrated.

Low emissions? As I told you... emissions are not the problem. I submit that Egypt should be taxed heavily for not having enough trees and animals to sustain their population.

We cannot remove the gases that are released into the atmosphere naturally but we can stop adding to the problem and cut back on the gases we release through our industrial methods.

False... go plant a tree and water it. You will be reducing the CO2 gases from the atmosphere naturally. Plant a garden or plant a crop... you get healthy food from it and you will be reducing the CO2 at the same time. As I said it is not the carbon dioxide that directly causes global warming. The method to stop global warming is via the water cycle. That requires increasing evaporation, and that requires increasing the evaporative surface area of the planet. Over the ocean would be good. Over the desert might be temporarily better. I would place the goal of turning Egypt, northern Africa, and the Middle East into tropical rain forests by controlled evaporation over the Atlantic.

 

[Muslimwoman]

That is your identity crisis. German and moved to Egypt? I have not changed my story... still an honest American.

Cyberpi I am not going to start trading personal insults with you simply because we do not agree on the issue of global warming.

I am half German and half English. I was born in Germany but hold British citizenship. I was registered as British at birth, yet was educated largely in Germany. I moved to Egypt in my late 30's and now live in a town called Sheben el kom in the Nile Delta - look it up on a map, the nearest large town is Tanta.

Oh I have also lived in the Far East and the Med, just in case you ever want to throw that one in.

You remembered my German ancestry but not my English. That does not make me a liar.

 

[wil]

Researchers in Norway claim a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of methane a year, equivalent to the amount of CO2 caused by an 8,077-mile car trip, der Spiegel reported.

Norway’s national animal releases methane through burping and flatulence, as do cows, considered more harmful to the environment than carbon dioxide.
There are estimated to be more than 100,000 moose in Norway.

If all quit eating meat, and the Australians, Brazilians, and Americans would quit raising cattle, we could plant more veggies and help...cool the planet eat more fruit!

 

[cyberpi]

Cyberpi I am not going to start trading personal insults with you simply because we do not agree on the issue of global warming.

I am half German and half English. I was born in Germany but hold British citizenship. I was registered as British at birth, yet was educated largely in Germany. I moved to Egypt in my late 30's and now live in a town called Sheben el kom in the Nile Delta - look it up on a map, the nearest large town is Tanta.

Oh I have also lived in the Far East and the Med, just in case you ever want to throw that one in.

You remembered my German ancestry but not my English. That does not make me a liar.

I am thankful that you are an honest Euro-Egyptian. Should it be a personal insult to you that I state I have no identity crisis and am still an honest American?

The discussion of global warming is a passion of mine. I had some insight two or three years ago and it is such a massive issue that I am not really sure what to do with them. They are counter to mainstream beliefs. The beliefs you have stated on global warming and energy guzzling societies are prevalent and common. Global warming and claimed causes are a recurring mantra in the media. There is no reason for you to be taking that personally and I do not expect you to personally understand or agree with my viewpoint.

I would however expect that you learn that trees and plants naturally absorb CO2. The trees and plants are the powerful catalyst for transfering and storing solar energy into hydrocarbons.

However the trees and plants serve another important purpose with the water cycle and they can be used to control the average environmental temperature. I would expect a weather scientist to argue with me over the assertion that evaporating more water on the ground is going to cool the planet... especially since water is a better greenhouse gas than CO2 is. However, the water molecule being an electromagnetic dipole has some special properties that CO2 doesn't. I assert that the frequency of the water cycle needs to be increased, and that a productive fruit-bearing environmental goal would be to transform Northern Africa and the Middle East into wetter climates, correspondingly reducing hurricanes into the USA... by increasing the wettable, evaporative, solar target surface area above the surface of the Atlantic and those regions.

 

[Muslimwoman]

I am thankful that you are an honest Euro-Egyptian. Should it be a personal insult to you that I state I have no identity crisis and am still an honest American?

Your suggestion was that I am not honest, which I find rather offensive.

The discussion of global warming is a passion of mine.

It is also one of mine. After my time in the army I went to work in the evirnmental science field, part of my work was doing lectures to schools about global issues. So my thoughts are not off the top of my head or media led.

They are counter to mainstream beliefs.

I accept that we have different views on the subject, I have been intersted to read your thoughts but also find them a little worrying. The scientific community differs in opinions on solutions, so why shouldn't we.

I would however expect that you learn that trees and plants naturally absorb CO2. The trees and plants are the powerful catalyst for transfering and storing solar energy into hydrocarbons.

And I would expect you to learn that the process you have been discussing is a naturally occurring one. The planet cannot simply absorb as much as we can throw at it. The process you are talking about dos occur, so I go back to my issue of our countries tearing down trees at an unsustainable rate. One hand of your argument says use more fuel, the trees will absorb it and naturally create more rainfall which is needed, while the other hand is ignoring the rate at which we are destroying the very thing that your argument relies upon.

The argument of 'we will just plant some more trees' simply doesn't wash. We are not planting trees at the rate we are tearing them down. Those that we plant cannot grow quickly enough to sustain our current outputs of polutants. And natural forests act quite differently to man made ones.

Up to 30% of greenhouse gases are caused by deforestation, how do you propose we plant enough trees and grow them quickly enough to absorb these emitions? Trees release their carbon when felled and burned, so we are killing the very thing that protects us.

I am sorry but I do not accept that the answer is to burn more fuel and rip down more forests. Our governments and corporations are driven by greed, that is the issue we need to deal with.

 

[flowperson]

HI

Here's an analysis from three years ago that makes a lot of sense to me.

Asteroids and Near-Earth Objects

flow....

 

[Muslimwoman]

Here's an analysis from three years ago that makes a lot of sense to me.

flow....

Hypoxia here we come. Excellent article Flow, thank you.

Salaam
Sally

 

[Snoopy]

Hey the sun just came out.

s.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I was just countering the mindless propaganda against the USA with the presentation of a problem that largely contributes to global warming in a country with less resources but with 50 million people and growing lined up along and polluting a single but very important river.

You see, while you fault the USA for global warming... I fault Egypt and the countries in North Africa and the Middle East. The wetlands destruction and the destruction of what use to be forests in the 'infertile crescent' is in my opinion the single greatest cause of global warming. In my uncivil, and thus educated mind: Northern Africa and the Middle East are the land masses of the planet that can best be used to reverse global warming... by returning the wet lands and the forests that were once destroyed there. I speak honestly... I find that the greatest impact to reduce global warming exists in Northern Africa and in the infertile crescent. Why?

I submit that CO2 is not the cause of global warming but it is a correlated byproduct of what causes it. H2O in the atmosphere is the real global warmer, the insulation, and it is a darn good thing because otherwise the planet would be sub-freezing. Yet the temperature does need to be sustained otherwise these melting glaciers and rapidly changing ecosystems may have a rapidly changing impact... which will cause massive destruction.

Of what I envision: one of the best ways the people of the USA can help to counter the environmental destruction caused by the Egyptians (in part) is to study and implement ways to improve the surface area and solar target area in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Atlantic Ocean off the Eastern Coast... all the way over to Northern Africa. The goal is to increase evaporation and to accelerate the water cycle. You see, basically energy is being wasted by NOT being used. Those hurricanes that are moving Westerly towards the USA are powered by enormous amounts of energy. That is... WASTED energy. That energy needs to be harnessed and put to more productive use. The exact opposite of what you claim, MW. The USA needs to use more energy... more solar energy to increase the water cycle and to help cool the planet. It is the water cycle that cools the planet. It is the plants and trees, with the energy of the sun, that drives the water cycle. It is the destruction of forests and wetlands that have greatly caused a shift towards global warming.

When water (or anything) evaporates, it increases the local air pressure. Once H2O is evaporated it will absorb the sun's energy and expand (do work). The daily local air pressure increase is ultimately what drives the winds around the planet faster than the spin of the planet itself... except at the equator where the radius of the planet is so large and the evaporation not able to keep up that the wind travels to the West. It takes this energy to pump the wasted heat off the planet. When the water vapor rises, condenses into clouds, and falls back to the planet, it does many good things. It cleans the air, waters the plants, fills the rivers, and cleans the surface of the planet... it ultimately sends entropy leaving the planet as long wave radiation. Whatever energy the planet absorbs from the sun daily must be equalized with degraded energy or entropy that leaves the planet. That degraded local heat and entropy is no longer of use to us and it must be pumped into outer space. Getting it past the insulation in the roof (the atmosphere) is done in large part via the water cycle. The goal of making the day cooler, the night warmer, the summer cooler, the winter warmer... is best done with water. Another way of cooling is at night when water vapor condenses, releasing its energy and it finds a good clean radiation path into the night sky. That cooling process is improved by improving the evaporative surface area of the planet with trees and plants. With a higher frequency of the water cycle the entropy is driven off the planet faster... there is a maximum frequency set by the day / night cycle, but the accelerator... the on/off switch to nature's air conditioner pump... is controlled by the nature of the surface area.

I find that the carbon dioxide in the air and in the Ocean is a resource that can be used to grow plants on the surface of the Ocean... research into making large gardens with the plants that already grow on the surface in the middle of the Atlantic should be furthered. Something ultimately needs to be above and floating on the surface of the Ocean to improve the surface evaporation, and I recommend using whatever God provides... trees and plants. That would have multiple good outcomes. One of the good outcomes would be to control and prevent hurricanes altogether. Another would be to increase precipitation in Northern Africa and the Middle East. Certainly things below the surface that absorb light and CO2 are good, but I want a solar target above the air / water interface that wicks water up and presents it on a leaf of low thermal mass for evaporation.

Another technique to accelerate things would be to pipe sea water over the land masses of Mexico, Northern Africa, and the Middle East... evaporate the water... and then pipe it back using water as the carrier but with a higher concentration of salt. The coastal areas are the places to do this, but the further inland the water is piped the better... at the expense and energy cost of the pipe and the pumping. What better place to evaporate water than over the hot desert land in the lowest humidity? This needs to be on a massive scale. The effort put into pumping hydrocarbons all over the world needs to be met by increasing the water cycle. Think of it as a massive desalination plant wherein you don't get the fresh water from it until it is taken up by the sun, dropped back as the rain and given in part to the plants and the lakes. Realize that the entire land mass of the USA fits within Northern Africa. There is no reason that Mexico, Northern Africa and the Middle East can not be made as green as the USA is. Once a forest or wetlands is grown... it is self protecting by the fresh water that it retains and evaporates.

Or... if you believe as the press tells you that carbon dioxide is a poison then please stop breathing because you are just polluting the environment. Life here requires cycles and I am not ashamed to exhale carbon dioxide and to burn hydrocarbons... for productive use. I am ashamed that most people do not use their minds to think beyond the mindless press... or to seek God for new answers.

Nice half-science you talk there Cyberpi. True, water vapour is the most voluminous greenhouse gas. That's where you assertion of facts end. Given your posts only concern appears to be what affects America I think I will take the liberty of saying your type of selfish thought processes are those typical of American head in the sand and screw the world ideology espoused by your current murderous leaders. Hey but you've got God on on your side right Crap.

I know it is difficult for some Americans to conceive the possibility that "bigger" is not always "better". So it is with water vapour. Try and understand that. CO2, Methane and Ozone concentrations are glibly dismissed by you as being a lie!! That is not burying your head in the sand that's getting buried in way up over you're ass. To dismiss the made made emissions of 7000million tons of "unsinkable" new carbon into the atmosphere each year as irrelevant is the saddest kind of folly. This causes over 2 W/m2 Radiative forcing which in turn causes a rise in humidity equilibrium and thus more water vapour in the atmosphere. The rise in atmospheric carbon dictates water vapour levels and to believe anything else you are refuting every climate study group on the planet, maybe with the exception of some American Bush/God backed bullshitters.

As for your basic understanding of the climate of the middle east it is as sorely flawed as your disregard of atmospheric carbon. Millennia ago the middle east was a bountiful garden but as the mean temperature of the region rose it's humidity fell. This was not man made temperature changes but caused by fluctuations arising naturally at the end of the last period of glaciation. Apart from the mean temperature rise the main cause for this fall in humidity is the Himalayas. This metaphorical brick wall causes moisture laden air from the Pacific to dump all its water on its eastern flanks and only dessicated dry air ever reaches west of the range. The energy produced to power the storms that travel west over the Atlantic finds its strength in the humidity produced by the vast region of rainforest in Africa that transpires huge quantities of water vapour into the atmosphere. If, as you were naively/grandiosely suggesting, we were to find some way to increase this transpiration it would have to completely cover the Atlantic, (lest it actually increase the power of the storms hitting the Americas from that direction).

I note you do not suggest piping seawater over the great plains of the USA. I smell nationalistic fascist disregard for all but your own. At least I now know unequivocally where you stand.

Tao