I thought I had agreed with you that humans are a part of nature, and therefore, what they do is "natural". But just being natural isn't in itself always good. Termites are natural too, and if they infest your house, it will eventually collapse as they eat--and weaken--the structure. — Bitter Crank

Re-read that post again, Bitter - the part where I mention value statements. Does that give you the right to eradicate all termites on Earth? Who has the right to exist, termites or humans?
Your house collapsing from a termite infestation isn't much different from your house collapsing as the result of an earthquake or tornado, all of which have been happening and shaping the landscape ever since Earth existed.

You have to realize that value statements are always subjective, while what I'm saying is from a far more objective viewpoint - one that you just barely seem to be able to reach while the others in this thread seem hopeless.

My sublime thought is available to the Chinese via the Internet. I am sure there hang on every word. — Bitter Crank

Uh.. You do realize that the Chinese govt. filters and controls what it's population sees on the internet, don't you? You need to go there to spread your message, but something tells me that you only care enough about the environment to preach to those that need to hear it the least, and only if the environment (termites) doesn't affect your life.

You seem to be saying that climate change is natural because human beings are, well, natural and that all this fuss about man-made climate change is barking up the wrong tree.

However vehicles, factories, nuclear powerplants, etc. are not in any form of biological relationship with the ecosystem. There is not even a hint of it. The relationship (if you can call it that) between man-made artefacts and nature is a one-way street and it's jammed with garbage trucks loading tons of toxic pollutants.

Therefore, there's a significant difference between man-made artefacts and natural things. This difference has major consequences for the enviroment. — TheMadFool

Volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, wildfires, etc. aren't biological in nature either, but they are still natural. You are making a distinction that isn't really there. New non-biological elements are made naturally inside stars. How is that different from the things that humans make? As I said before, we put CO2 in the environment just by breathing.

Actually it makes a lot of difference. A Dutch invention could be exported and used by other countries, for instance. A county can inspire others for demonstrating that co2 reduction and growth are possible (oh wait, the USA and China did exactly that).

And the amount of pollution China creates is largely driven by market demand in the West. So "blaming" them as solely responsible in a global economy is a bit silly. It is global warming after all. — Benkei

No. It's driven by China driving down the costs of labor and allowing it's people get paid next to nothing for the work they do all in an effort to steal manufacturing power from the US.

And if it is a shared responsibility, that implies that not only should we help the Chinese but they should be helping us. Good luck with that. When are you going to China, Benkei?

As I said before, we put CO2 in the environment just by breathing. — Harry Hindu

Our exhaling CO2 through breathing is part of a carbon neutral cycle and didn't have any direct incidence on the recent increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration. That's because the CO2 that animals (including us) exhale all comes from plant food and the pants that are eaten already had extracted this CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. So, through this whole nutrition/metabolism cycle, as much CO2 is taken out from the atmosphere and continuously incorporated into the biomass as is continuously emitted by it (including through fermentation of dead biomass). By contrast, the CO2 that we release through burning fossil fuels had previously been stored underground over hundred million years and now is released back by us into the atmosphere in a time frame of mere decades. This is why current atmospheric CO2 concentration is higher now than it has been over the last million years (and likely much longer) and still is climbing at breathless speed (pun intended).

Right, it's rhythmic. CO2 drops during southern hemisphere summer, if I recall correctly, and goes up in the winter. All the CO2 humans are putting out will eventually be absorbed by the oceans. Pop quiz: what is the time frame for that absorption?

Right, it's rhythmic. CO2 drops during southern hemisphere summer, if I recall correctly, and goes up in the winter. — Mongrel

Yes, this seasonal cycle occurs because of the annual death and regrowth of land vegetation over mostly northern hemispheric land masses.

Northern? I could have sworn it was S America and the Congo.

I think it does matter. — TheMadFool

So does he (that was implicit in what he said), but not as much as what needs to be done. He might not have worded it in the best possible way, but it gets the point across effectively. If his point was something along the lines that a practical solution is more important than assigning blame, then I agree.

You also make some good points which I agree with. There should indeed be incentives and deterrents.

Does that give you the right to eradicate all termites on Earth? — Harry Hindu

Did I suggest that I had the right or intention to eradicate all termites on earth? No. Am I not the founder of "Termite Lives Matter" after all?

Who has the right to exist, termites or humans? — Harry Hindu

Both, of course. Just not in each other's houses. I believe in segregation.

You have to realize that value statements are always subjective, while what I'm saying is from a far more objective viewpoint — Harry Hindu

Your replies are sometimes loaded with a lot more subjective value statements than they are objective viewpoints. Your sense of humor is a pit pinched as well. My comment on the Chinese was clearly self-deprecating.

No. It's driven by China driving down the costs of labor and allowing it's people get paid next to nothing for the work they do all in an effort to steal manufacturing power from the US. — Harry Hindu

Steal? Seriously. I think we're done here. >:O

Volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, wildfires, etc. aren't biological in nature either, but they are still natural. You are making a distinction that isn't really there. New non-biological elements are made naturally inside stars. How is that different from the things that humans make? As I said before, we put CO2 in the environment just by breathing. — Harry Hindu

Yes, volcanoes, quakes, tornadoes, etc. are natural. So, what? That doesn't imply we shouldn't classify dangers to the environment into the categories man-made and natural.

Knowing that human activity damages the environment is owning up to one's mistakes. It's the first step in problem solving. It reveals our role in the preservation/destruction of the planet's biosphere.

It's like psychopathy. It is ultimately human nature BUT it needs to be given a category of its own to distinguish it in the vast and complex world of human nature.

http://thesolutionsproject.org/

I'm curious what everyone thinks about this

Right. So maybe it's not so much the CO2, but the massive deforestation that is happening.

Your replies are sometimes loaded with a lot more subjective value statements than they are objective viewpoints. — Bitter Crank

Like...?

Your sense of humor is a pit pinched as well. My comment on the Chinese was clearly self-deprecating. — Bitter Crank

Well, it is kind of hard to pick up on humor without being in person. There are those that resort to character assassination when they don't have an argument to make, You must be one of those that veers off topic and tries to make light of things when they don't have an argument to make.

Yes, volcanoes, quakes, tornadoes, etc. are natural. So, what? That doesn't imply we shouldn't classify dangers to the environment into the categories man-made and natural. — TheMadFool

Of course it does, that is if you want to remain consistent.

Of course it does, that is if you want to remain consistent. — Harry Hindu

Can you specify where I'm inconsistent.

http://thesolutionsproject.org/

I'm curious what everyone thinks about this — MonfortS26

There are 2 parts to their site -- the information map obtained from Stanford and then their own organization page. Their organization looks like a conventional well-meaning non-profit that is promoting some nice idea, but nothing substantial.

Many assumptions and estimations went into the information map projections which would need to be assessed to determine how "real" the projections are. My guess is that the projections and estimations were quite optimistic. Not that a little optimism about solar/wind would be a bad thing.

Around 10-12 years ago, someone in Worthington, MN claimed that the 6 wind generators outside town provided most of the town's energy--though the diesel generating plant was still needed (the wind doesn't always blow). True or not? Don't know. It seemed plausible. Worthington is a town of 10,000 with a couple of ag plants -- an alfalfa dehydrating plant (uses natural gas for heat) and a meat-packing plant. Otherwise, it's just down at the heels retail and residential.

If the short-term storage problem is solved, if residential and commercial demand is reduced, and if transportation is shifted from 1 person per car to 80 people per trolley, freight shifted to electric trains, we might be able to make it work. Whether large-scale agricultural field operations can be conducted by electric motors, I very much doubt -- not with existing batteries. Very long extension cords, maybe?

In the long run, we don't have any choice but to rely on wind and solar (and/or nuclear), so we had better figure out how to do it.

In my opinion we don't know exactly what's causing it, but what we should worry about is how we could counter it if it starts getting too out of control.

Right. So maybe it's not so much the CO2, but the massive deforestation that is happening. — Harry Hindu

Not sure what you mean with "not so much..." It's not either one or the other; it's both. According to an IPCC AR4 figure (fourth assessment report) the "CO2 equivalent" net emissions from deforestation and biomass decay represents 17.3% of the total anthropogenic contribution to the enhanced greenhouse effect, while the fossil fuel burning contribution is 56.6%. (The rest is from N2O, CH4, other greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic sources of CO2 such a cement production.)

Today's news:

Scott Pruitt, Donald Trump’s head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, has dismissed a basic scientific understanding of climate change by denying that carbon dioxide emissions are a primary cause of global warming.

Pruitt said on Thursday that he did not believe that the release of CO2, a heat-trapping gas, was pushing global temperatures upwards.

“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” he told CNBC.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/09/epa-scott-pruitt-carbon-dioxide-global-warming-climate-change

This statement is factually incorrect, and again demonstrates total disregard for truth from the Trump administration.

I think one reason for the shift in terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" is that the latter is less controversial; — aletheist

I think the term "Global heating' is more appropriate.

It is like heating a mixture of water and ice. The mixture doesn't get any warmer, but the ice melts. Once all the ice is melted, then it will get warmer; significantly warmer.