christopher::: wrote:It's good to be skeptical... Still, seems to me like a switch to alternative energy technologies has a lot of potential for being largely a positive change, even omiting the global warming debate. Less reliance on fossil fuels 1) reduces pollution in our atmosphere, as well as 2) taking away the incentive for Western nations to meddle (violently) in Middle Eastern politics....
Add to that 3) potential economic benefits, if the price of alternative energy falls dramatically...
The sun and wind's energy, if harnested skillfully, could eventually (not counting technology costs) be free...
catmoon wrote:More reports in today's paper, this time from some guys travelling on foot in the Arctic. Their measurements show an average ice thickness of 1.8 meters and the article had photos of them crossing some open water in survival type suits. Again, predictions of seasonal open water within ten years and year-round navigability within 30.
catmoon wrote:Well well well. Isn't that interesting... hmmm. The previous stuff I'd been reading gave the impression that the norm was solid ice eighty meters thick. I'm starting to question that.
Patterns of average winter ice thickness from February to March show thicker ice in 1988 (above), compared to thinner ice averaged from 2003-2008 (below).
BlackBird wrote: I still wonder who writes it though.
poto wrote:Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:In Praise of Scepticism
A fine article by Clive James on the BBC Website.
+1 for skeptics!
The whole 350ppm CO2 limit thing strikes me as nonsensical. One of my hobbies is horticulture. I know from experience with CO2 supplementation that plant growth doubles to triples with CO2 concentrations at around 800-1200ppm. Higher CO2 means crop yields will increase and we can feed more people with less land...
In the past our planet has had CO2 concentrations well above 4,500ppm without disaster.
Some interesting points on this issues I've seen mentioned elsewhere:Again, let me point this out, because somehow it completely gets lost
in the message. Every time someone says “CO2 has increased 100ppm since
the start of the industrial revolution”, they always try to portray that
the entire 100ppm CO2 rise is from human emissions. Even if they don’t
think it, they leave out any notion that would reveal that only 3% (3ppm)
of that CO2 is from human emissions.When I was in high school we were taught the composition of air.
CO2 concentration was reckoned to be so small that it was,
for all practical purposes, zero. Nowadays even a smidgen of
CO2 will heat us up and two smidgens will boil our livers.
Can’t someone design a simple experiment with a constant long
wave radition source and air with different concentrations of
CO2 in a closed atmosphere to see if adding CO2 actually does
warm the air due to a greenhouse effect? Has this already been done?
We’ve already done this experiment. Take 2 greenhouses [top vents open],
leave 1 at ambient CO2, @390 ppm, and pump CO2 into the other to 1000 ppm
[common commercial greenhouse CO2 levels]. Take temperature measurements
at different times during the day. You will find that there is virtually
NO difference in temperature between the two greenhouses, but the plants
in the 1000 ppm greenhouse will grow much better and faster.
Also, if we humans somehow manage to start containing and reducing vast quantities of atmospheric CO2 and we overshoot that 350ppm target by a large margin or somebody gets overzealous, we risk killing most all life on earth. As all plant life pretty much stops at CO2 concentrations below 150ppm. That concerns me a bit, but as we humans don't seem technologically advanced enough to start capturing vast amounts of CO2 form the atmosphere, I'm not too worried yet.
adamposey wrote:The flip side of this coin is that the people who have the most interest in stopping this bill have investments in coal, oil, and other similar products. I can get numbers if you like, but I'd look to see which lobbies are buying whom before we start suggesting that only one side is corrupt.
poto wrote:adamposey wrote:The flip side of this coin is that the people who have the most interest in stopping this bill have investments in coal, oil, and other similar products. I can get numbers if you like, but I'd look to see which lobbies are buying whom before we start suggesting that only one side is corrupt.
I apologize if you interpreted any of my comments to infer that some group of politicians or lobbies were not corrupt. I was not trying to suggest than any politician was above corruption or without an agenda. In fact, I dislike both major political parties partly because of the rampant corruption. I was just attempting to address the science and disinformation that has been spread on this issue.
With all the charts and graphs I posted, and all that I wrote... all of it is insignificant to us as Buddhists compared to what Venerable Gavesako posted.
Thank you Venerable Gavesako, I very much enjoyed reading that.
Whether or not mankind is helping is irrelevant
I guess some people can believe in anything strongly enough to be considered a religion. I don't mean to insult anyone's religious beliefs, I just found it surprising.
With all the charts and graphs I posted, and all that I wrote... all of it is insignificant to us as Buddhists compared to what Venerable Gavesako posted
We are happy to announce the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) will present the Declaration and signatories to world leaders at the Copenhagen Climate Conference, December 7-18th. You may be interested to look at the analysis of signatories by country and affiliation. Others can still sign the Declaration.
www.ecobuddhism.org continues to attract visitors from across the world—over 1.25 million in the last 12 months. You will find informed new articles and updates in the lead-up to COP-15…and beyond. We will continue to examine the challenge and opportunity of the climate crisis, in the light of integral, contemplative activism.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], sattva and 7 guests