Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 . . . 54 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1655132 - Posted: 20 Mar 2015, 21:22:37 UTC - in response to Message 1655125.  
Last modified: 20 Mar 2015, 21:25:38 UTC

Oops That was a very long answer to my three "statements":)
I will answer you as soon as I can but are SETI members interested?
Can we do this by PM instead and publish our concensus later?

But I start with this...
ExxonMobil is a US Multinational Corporation incorporated in New Jersey.
Are you a US Citizen?
Are you a Russian Citizen?
Are you a shareholder in ExxonMobil?
If the answer to these 3 questions is no, then you don't have any say on the matter.

NO I am not. I'm a Swedish Citizen very concerned to Russias expansion!!!
I have the right to speak in the very way as the US and all other countries in the World.
Remember US Constitution and the Second Ammendent?
I got a surprise for you. Your Constitution is not an American invention.
Check Benjamin Franklin for instance.

btw Tacitus is the first roman to describe the Scandinavian peoples:)
ID: 1655132 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1655191 - Posted: 21 Mar 2015, 0:20:11 UTC - in response to Message 1655176.  
Last modified: 21 Mar 2015, 0:20:44 UTC

You do understand, the Universe is different for you.
One living in an essentially Western Europe universe.
And the other in an American Universe.
Neither really understands, nor accepts the other.
Personally lived with this. When Stationed in Western Europe, many decades ago.

LOL It's funny how a big ocean, The Atlantic Ocean, can still seperate cultures in this way. :):):):)
ID: 1655191 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1655375 - Posted: 21 Mar 2015, 13:32:04 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2015, 13:46:11 UTC

Botanically speaking, bamboo is a grass and requires no irrigation, fertilizers or herbicides to grow.
Giant bamboo (Moso Bamboo) is the earth's fastest growing plant - over 50 cm / day.
If the planet itself could decide, all would go dressed in bamboo. Compared to cotton, which requires lots of fertilizer, spraying and irrigation (17 000 liters of water per kilograms of cotton!), the bamboo is a sheer environmental hero.

Bamboo fabrics last longer since they are stronger than cotton fiber.
Bamboo is 100% biodegradable
Bamboo plantations helps to reduce greenhouse gases. It binds 5 times more carbon dioxide and produces 35% more oxygen than other plants or trees.

Bamboo Forest in Kyoto, Japan
ID: 1655375 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1655424 - Posted: 21 Mar 2015, 16:20:56 UTC - in response to Message 1655375.  
Last modified: 21 Mar 2015, 16:22:32 UTC

... Bamboo fabrics last longer since they are stronger than cotton fiber.
Bamboo is 100% biodegradable
Bamboo plantations helps to reduce greenhouse gases. It binds 5 times more carbon dioxide and produces 35% more oxygen than other plants or trees.

Thanks for that, good one.

We also get a further win if we can also avoid the environmental costs and destruction and 'corruption' of the "Big Agri-business" Marketed farming practices foisting industrially produced fertilizers polluting our farming and farmland...

Whatever happened the the natural ways of crop rotation and locally suited local varieties?...


All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1655424 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1655428 - Posted: 21 Mar 2015, 16:24:52 UTC

A positive way to go:


Fossil fuels: Scientists draw up investment principles

Climate scientists at leading universities are joining forces to discuss the basis of a set of principles governing investment in fossil fuels.

They include academics at Oxford, Imperial College London and Harvard.

Prof Myles Allen, of Oxford University, said the move was similar to principles governing investment in South Africa under apartheid in the 1980s...





All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1655428 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1655438 - Posted: 21 Mar 2015, 16:47:47 UTC - in response to Message 1655424.  
Last modified: 21 Mar 2015, 16:54:30 UTC

We also get a further win if we can also avoid the environmental costs and destruction and 'corruption' of the "Big Agri-business" Marketed farming practices foisting industrially produced fertilizers polluting our farming and farmland...

Whatever happened the the natural ways of crop rotation and locally suited local varieties?...

Big Agri-business!
One example is Fish fingers.
The fish is caught in the Atlantic.
It's then deep frozen on the ship (lot of CO2 emission).
Then they go to China for packaging because it cheaper there.
The back home for retail.
Fish are Globetrotters:)

Secondly about the natural ways of crop rotation and locally produced.
It's very difficult to make a living out of it today.
There are many but the Big Agri-business are those who set the prize of the products.
ID: 1655438 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1655488 - Posted: 21 Mar 2015, 18:46:18 UTC - in response to Message 1655424.  

We also get a further win if we can also avoid the environmental costs and destruction and 'corruption' of the "Big Agri-business" Marketed farming practices foisting industrially produced fertilizers polluting our farming and farmland...

We get half of the human population starved to death.
ID: 1655488 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1655492 - Posted: 21 Mar 2015, 19:00:16 UTC - in response to Message 1655488.  
Last modified: 21 Mar 2015, 19:01:47 UTC

We get half of the human population starved to death.

That was very pessimistic.

Africa will increase their the population by 1 billion in 2030.
Asia will do the same. 1 billion.
The other continents will stay the same.
Can we handle mass migration?
I Think so. It has already started.
Do we have any options?
Dont Think so.
Mumin Trollet says Shukran ya rabi:)
ID: 1655492 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1655547 - Posted: 21 Mar 2015, 21:30:47 UTC - in response to Message 1655492.  

We get half of the human population starved to death.

That was very pessimistic.

Small agribusiness can't feed the population of today. If we get rid of the industrial agribusiness there isn't anything thing to fill its shoes. Therefore, we don't get rid of it, or people starve.

Less people on the planet means less CO2, so it is a good thing, and yet another way Darwin can act on humans.
ID: 1655547 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1655550 - Posted: 21 Mar 2015, 21:45:03 UTC - in response to Message 1655547.  

We get half of the human population starved to death.

That was very pessimistic.

Small agribusiness can't feed the population of today. If we get rid of the industrial agribusiness there isn't anything thing to fill its shoes. Therefore, we don't get rid of it, or people starve.
Less people on the planet means less CO2, so it is a good thing, and yet another way Darwin can act on humans.

"Small agribusiness can't feed the population of today" Yes
"If we get rid of the industrial agribusiness there isn't anything thing to fill its shoes." Yes
"Less people on the planet means less CO2" Definitly true.

Darwin however. Humans today doesn't follow the evolution...
ID: 1655550 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1655553 - Posted: 21 Mar 2015, 21:47:56 UTC - in response to Message 1655550.  

Darwin however. Humans today doesn't follow the evolution...

Did humans cease being flesh and blood?
ID: 1655553 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1655564 - Posted: 21 Mar 2015, 22:20:47 UTC - in response to Message 1655553.  

Darwin however. Humans today doesn't follow the evolution...

Did humans cease being flesh and blood?

No:)
But we have a smart brain and instead of adjusting to the environment we change the environment to our liking...
ID: 1655564 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1655641 - Posted: 22 Mar 2015, 2:37:59 UTC - in response to Message 1655564.  
Last modified: 22 Mar 2015, 2:39:01 UTC

Darwin however. Humans today doesn't follow the evolution...

Did humans cease being flesh and blood?

No:)
But we have a smart brain and instead of adjusting to the environment we change the environment to our liking...


You can think and adjust and change all you want to...

But if there is not any food for you to eat... Well, you get the idea.

Survival of the fittest is one of Evolution's most important principles.

Humanity's refusal to grow enough food to feed it's population doesn't sound very 'fit' to me.

Score one for 'Darwin'.
ID: 1655641 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1655659 - Posted: 22 Mar 2015, 4:50:39 UTC - in response to Message 1655641.  

Darwin however. Humans today doesn't follow the evolution...

Did humans cease being flesh and blood?

No:)
But we have a smart brain and instead of adjusting to the environment we change the environment to our liking...


You can think and adjust and change all you want to...

But if there is not any food for you to eat... Well, you get the idea.

Survival of the fittest is one of Evolution's most important principles.

Humanity's refusal to grow enough food to feed it's population doesn't sound very 'fit' to me.

Score one for 'Darwin'.

At least one other person on the boards gets it.
ID: 1655659 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1655869 - Posted: 22 Mar 2015, 23:34:55 UTC

Darwin is missuderstood .

The only thing survival has to do with human evolution is that our ancestors where able to survive the dino's and other epoch's .

Darwin theory however did not make us who we are . The climate made us who we are . If the O2 did not get to 21% we would still be monkeys in the trees. We also now have thinking brains so Darwin's theory does not really play into much of what we do other than if we don't realize that we need to keep to Co2 under 600 ppm ,then Darwin's theory tells us what will happen , we go back to the trees and become monkeys again and then a meteorite will wipe us out like the dino's .

And if the climate had not changed because of the O2 getting so high we would be in a dead end track for evolution . Why do we still have Chimps and the such.

They are still here we are still here they did not change but we did . They also have been through the same climate and atmosphere as us but some how we changed can any of you tell me what happened to change us .

You mite wish to look at what Professor Alice Roberts says about how man changed and what she says caused us to be what we are

So what i'm saying here that American attitude that we need things to be hard for us to evolve is total b/s and more about the capitalist system and greed than survival of the fittest.

Some creatures can't evolve even if they had to there is dead ends in the devolpement of many creatures
ID: 1655869 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1656003 - Posted: 23 Mar 2015, 11:58:50 UTC - in response to Message 1655869.  
Last modified: 23 Mar 2015, 12:02:25 UTC

You mite wish to look at what Professor Alice Roberts says about how man changed and what she says caused us to be what we are
So what i'm saying here that American attitude that we need things to be hard for us to evolve is total b/s and more about the capitalist system and greed than survival of the fittest.
Some creatures can't evolve even if they had to there is dead ends in the devolpement of many creatures

Glenn. This is funny. I saw her BBC TV show "Origin Of Us", Human Anatomy and Evolution, here in Sweden some times ago:)
https://www.google.se/#tbm=vid&q=alice+roberts+origins+of+us

The dinosouries where very strong and able but look what happened to them in the aftermath of the meteor crash and the climate changed rapidly...
ID: 1656003 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1656016 - Posted: 23 Mar 2015, 13:21:30 UTC - in response to Message 1656003.  

Yes Jan that is the One I'm thinking of , very interesting what she says .
ID: 1656016 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1656027 - Posted: 23 Mar 2015, 14:17:33 UTC - in response to Message 1656020.  

The dinosouries where very strong and able but look what happened to them in the aftermath of the meteor crash and the climate changed rapidly...

Anyone really believe Humans are forever.


I'd like to think so . We do think we are better than all the other animals , WE Can Think . so we should be able to last as long as the universe is here .

Unlike the Dino's
ID: 1656027 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1656051 - Posted: 23 Mar 2015, 15:56:07 UTC - in response to Message 1656020.  
Last modified: 23 Mar 2015, 16:01:14 UTC

The dinosouries where very strong and able but look what happened to them in the aftermath of the meteor crash and the climate changed rapidly...

Anyone really believe Humans are forever.

Yes. Some religous people:)
And there some research going on how we can live longer perhaps 200 years.
What pension plans can cover that?
Will the Earth survive?
Right now I Think we already need 2 and a half Earths to support the population.
ID: 1656051 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1656110 - Posted: 23 Mar 2015, 19:01:29 UTC - in response to Message 1655869.  

Darwin is missuderstood .

The only thing survival has to do with human evolution is that our ancestors where able to survive the dino's and other epoch's .

Darwin theory however did not make us who we are . The climate made us who we are . If the O2 did not get to 21% we would still be monkeys in the trees. We also now have thinking brains so Darwin's theory does not really play into much of what we do other than if we don't realize that we need to keep to Co2 under 600 ppm ,then Darwin's theory tells us what will happen , we go back to the trees and become monkeys again and then a meteorite will wipe us out like the dino's .

And if the climate had not changed because of the O2 getting so high we would be in a dead end track for evolution . Why do we still have Chimps and the such.

They are still here we are still here they did not change but we did . They also have been through the same climate and atmosphere as us but some how we changed can any of you tell me what happened to change us .

You mite wish to look at what Professor Alice Roberts says about how man changed and what she says caused us to be what we are

So what i'm saying here that American attitude that we need things to be hard for us to evolve is total b/s and more about the capitalist system and greed than survival of the fittest.

Some creatures can't evolve even if they had to there is dead ends in the devolpement of many creatures


Random Genetic Mutations happening over a time frame of 13 to 5 million years ago.

Now, as to your Oxygen comments...

Exactly why, do you think, are oxygen levels in the atmosphere decreasing?

Well, it *isn't* due to any increases in CO2 thus far seen. Correlation, sure. but a direct cause, nope.

What are the sources of almost ALL atmospheric molecular oxygen (O2)?

Prime source: photosynthesis by phytoplankton in the ocean.
Secondary source: photosynthesis by land plants.

Extra CO2 running around actually *supports* these two activities.

What is causing the decline?

Well, in the oceans, there has been an about 30% decline in phytoplankton in recent times (last 100 years or so). Why? Pollution (and no, not CO2 pollution, but ACTUAL pollution) from human industrial and agricultural activity.

On the land? Well, increasing urbanization of the human population (made possible, again, by human industrial and agricultural activity), as well as climatic shifts due to the urbanization *itself*, added to conversion of pristine forests to agricultural fields (which are not anywhere near as efficient at oxygen generation).

Yes, that is right... people are doing it. Directly through ever increasing population and indirectly through urbanization and its twin enablers, industrialization and agriculture.

How do we fix it? Well, there is only one sure solution. To stop doing it. Just as in GHG-ACC, the only solution to the O2 decline is to dramaticly reduce the human population down to the point that the damage to the environment due to human activity is less than the environment's capacity to deal with it naturally.

Will humanity do this? Not bloody likely.

You say that evolution does not apply to Homo sapiens because of Homo sapiens' ability to think. A very good case can be made that it still most CERTAINLY does apply to us *because* of our ability to think combined with our lack of wisdom to be able to exist without crapping all over our 'nest'.

One of these days, humanity will do one 'crap' too many, and extinct we will go. This is a near certainty. Once again, score one for Darwin's theory of Evolution.
ID: 1656110 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 . . . 54 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.