Can this be a Global Warming Solution?

[Kenneth Mann]

Can this be a "Global Warming" Solution?

This has been referred to before, at least once in the article "Would You Buy an American Car?" Still, it would be interesting if we could get some opinions. It's along the lines of the T-Zero, but they make their own components. Here are a few sites on the car.


"[MEDIA=youtube[/URL]

[PLAIN]http://www.teslamotors.com/"

http://news.com.com/2300-11386_3-6096355-1.html"

http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71414-0.html"

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/07/20/tesla-roadster-unveiling-in-santa-monica/"

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/08/16/018881.html"

http://sustainable.rain-barrel.net/tesla-electric-roadster/"

http://blogs.edmunds.com/Straightline/1366"

http://news.com.com/Electric+sports+car+packs+a+punch,+but+will+it+sell/2100-11389_3-6096377.html"

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=1069"


KM

 

[chroot]

I don't see how this is a solution to global warming at all.

As I said in another https://www.physicsforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1051582 :

It's not like the infrastructure to support electric cars is actually ready for the market en masse, either.

A gallon of gasoline contains approximately 130 megajoules of chemical potential energy. Americans drove 2,923 billion miles in 2004 [1]. If the average car gets about 30 miles per gallon (which is heavily on the optomistic side), American motorists expended a total of about 3.5 x 10¹² kWh of energy in 2004.

By contrast, American consumption of electricity was only 1.4 x 10¹² kWh in 2001 [2].

In other words, Americans consumed roughly three times as much energy in their automobiles in the form of gasoline and diesel as they did energy from electricity.

Now, we're all quite aware that our electrical grid is already pushed to the limits of its capacity. We already have rolling blackouts, Flex Your Power alerts, and other signs of impending overconsumption.

What do you think would happen to the electricity infrastructure if Americans bought electric cars en masse and started to demand four times as much electric power every day? There's no way at all that our infrastructure could support the electric vehicle right now. We'd have to spend trillions of dollars building new plants and upgrading transmissions systems.

Even if electric cars were fabulously efficient -- 100 miles per gallon equivalent -- it would still necessitate a doubling of the electricity infrastructure capacity, which won't come cheap.

...

Of course -- I hope everyone realizes this by now -- the solution is not to make better cars. The only solution, as I see it, is fewer cars. We need much, much more capable public transportation. We need much, much better designed cities and suburbs that don't require people to drive dozens of miles to work. We need people to accept alternative transportation like bicycles (which are rougly 1,000 times more efficient than cars).

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

It also won't be a solution until more of the electric production is available from non-fossil fuel sources. Simply advocating electric cars without considering how that electricity is generated is really just burying one's head in the sand by pretending that somehow the energy coming out of that wall socket is cleaner than what you got out of the gas pump. It might be, but that all depends on where and how your electricity is generated. Around these parts, it still comes from burning coal.

 

[Mk]

Simply advocating electric cars without considering how that electricity is generated is really just burying one's head in the sand by pretending that somehow the energy coming out of that wall socket is cleaner than what you got out of the gas pump.

Agreed. Where do these people think the energy comes from??

It seems a lot of time many parts of 'the environmentalist movement' are based on ignorance, and lack of education subject combined with a want to do good.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

More Nuclear power plants! :D

 

[Andre]

But then again the global warming link with Carbon Dioxide, the main crulprit by consensus of the slippery slope of alarmism, is simply non-existent in reality when scrutinizing the evidence.

There could be a very good reason to quadruple electricity generation using economical feasible renewals and nuclear power and convert to driving electric.

It would relax the economic, political and strategical pressure on fossil fuels, reducing our dependency on it, which would be a noble objective.

What it does not do, is changing climate, that's just hype.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

As I said more Nuclear power!

Especially in Australia, we -only- have the most uranium out of all the countries, and we're just giving it away at the moment. Fund nuclear waste disposal projects like Synroc and make a few plants here and there.

 

[Chi Meson]

But then again the global warming link with Carbon Dioxide, the main crulprit by consensus of the slippery slope of alarmism, is simply non-existent in reality when scrutinizing the evidence.

There could be a very good reason to quadruple electricity generation using economical feasible renewals and nuclear power and convert to driving electric.

It would relax the economic, political and strategical pressure on fossil fuels, reducing our dependency on it, which would be a noble objective.

What it does not do, is changing climate, that's just hype.

Hmmm, yes and no. I agree that CO2 emissions as "greenhous gas" is overhyped. The more distasrous effects of our fuel dependancy is the "good old fashioned pollution" and environmental devastation it creates. The greehous gas emissions are indeed like spitting into a pool when it comes to the natural trend in climate change. But it is a lot of spit, and the pool is not as large as some might think.

But again, I wish the environmental groups would focus on reducing the more noxious emissions.

Oh and "Know Nukes"!

 

[LURCH]

It also won't be a solution until more of the electric production is available from non-fossil fuel sources. Simply advocating electric cars without considering how that electricity is generated is really just burying one's head in the sand by pretending that somehow the energy coming out of that wall socket is cleaner than what you got out of the gas pump. It might be, but that all depends on where and how your electricity is generated. Around these parts, it still comes from burning coal.

Not entirely accurate. Due to the superior efficiency of the ellectric motor (as compared to the ICE), an immediate switch to all-ellectric vehicles, with a beefed-up power grid able to handle the increased demand, would cut polution released by driving to about half (according to the D.O.E.). It ain't zero, but it sure ain't nuthin'.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

I think the point was it isn't a feasible solution within one's budget.

 

[Mk]

Nothing environmentally friendly seems to be economically feasible or within one's budget.

I suppose somebody could come up with a list, but I sure can't think of one.

 

[Andre]

Not entirely accurate. Due to the superior efficiency of the ellectric motor (as compared to the ICE), an immediate switch to all-ellectric vehicles, with a beefed-up power grid able to handle the increased demand, would cut polution released by driving to about half (according to the D.O.E.). It ain't zero, but it sure ain't nuthin'.

Nice try but a few centuries ago I learned that the total effiency is the product of the efficiencys of all elements in the chain hence something like:

Ef(total)=E(power generation) * Ef(electricty transport) * Ef(charging batteries) * Ef (electric engine)

You may find that even with nuclear power generation, the transport from power plant to consumer has an low efficiency. A simple gaz powered car will probably always beat the electric car for emissions when the powerplant is non nuclear.

 

[Andre]

Nothing environmentally friendly seems to be economically feasible or within one's budget.

I suppose somebody could come up with a list, but I sure can't think of one.

Very simple, go nuclear 20 years ago. But then a certain group of people effectively opposed that. They appear to have a lot in common with the current group that let the world warm catastrophically.

 

[Moonbear]

Not entirely accurate. Due to the superior efficiency of the ellectric motor (as compared to the ICE), an immediate switch to all-ellectric vehicles, with a beefed-up power grid able to handle the increased demand, would cut polution released by driving to about half (according to the D.O.E.). It ain't zero, but it sure ain't nuthin'.

Again, that would cut pollution released by driving, but would it cut pollution released overall, or add to what's being released by the electric plants?

Long-term, with a switch to more electric generation from non-fossil fuel sources, sure, it ought to help (though, there are other environmental impacts of alternative energy sources that largely get ignored by the environmentalists because is isn't in the form of lots of obvious smoke belching out into the air, but the idea of so many humans living on the planet without making any environmental impact is just plain silly), and I certainly agree that we need to explore those options and become less reliant on fossil fuels that are finite in their availability. And, there are also political reasons to move away from energy sources that make much of the world dependent on just a few countries as suppliers for their fuel needs. So, I'm not objecting to a long-term plan to find cleaner energy sources that have less finite supplies, what I'm objecting to is the pie-in-the-sky view by some environmentalists that everybody needs to switch to all electric now as a solution to all the pollution problems, because given the current means to supply that electricity, it's just not realistic.

I also don't understand the view that we shouldn't have an impact on the environment and ecosystem...as if we're somehow not part of it. But, I think I'm quite in the minority with my views in that regard. I have no expectation that humans are meant to exist as a species forever, or that the Earth is meant to have a static environment and ecosystem, or that our feeble attempts to prevent the environment from changing will have any long-term impact. We might change the way we impact the environment, but as part of the ecosystem, we will always have an impact on the environment in one way or another. Species evolve, the environment of the planet changes, mass extinctions have occurred in the past and will very likely occur in the future, the atmosphere has changed dramatically in the past, and likely will in the future, and I see that as more of a natural and inevitable progression of events than something unnatural we need to stop. If anything, trying to stop the environment from changing is unnatural in my opinion.

 

[Yonoz]

I also don't understand the view that we shouldn't have an impact on the environment and ecosystem...as if we're somehow not part of it. But, I think I'm quite in the minority with my views in that regard. I have no expectation that humans are meant to exist as a species forever, or that the Earth is meant to have a static environment and ecosystem, or that our feeble attempts to prevent the environment from changing will have any long-term impact. We might change the way we impact the environment, but as part of the ecosystem, we will always have an impact on the environment in one way or another. Species evolve, the environment of the planet changes, mass extinctions have occurred in the past and will very likely occur in the future, the atmosphere has changed dramatically in the past, and likely will in the future, and I see that as more of a natural and inevitable progression of events than something unnatural we need to stop. If anything, trying to stop the environment from changing is unnatural in my opinion.

Do you agree with the studies that do find relation between fossil fuel usage and global warming?
IMHO your indifference to our environment is rather tempocentric. Had you been born into an already decimated world, you would likely have a different approach to a hypothetical past generation that allowed your environment to become less hospitable, don't you think? This isn't just about "the environment" - it's about future generations' rights (even if they're not mentioned in that sacred constitution of yours :tongue: ).

 

[chroot]

Do you agree with the studies that do find relation between fossil fuel usage and global warming?

Such studies demonstrate correlation, not causation. How about this one?

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

Did you ever suspect that pirates have such a strong impact on our climate? Amazing, isn't it, what a few pirates can do!

IMHO your indifference to our environment is rather tempocentric. Had you been born into an already decimated world, you would likely have a different approach to a hypothetical past generation that allowed your environment to become less hospitable, don't you think? This isn't just about "the environment" - it's about future generations' rights (even if they're not mentioned in that sacred constitution of yours :tongue: ).

And how is this anything but guilt-driven fear mongering? Sorry, we prefer to deal with facts, not baseless fear.

- Warren

 

[Andre]

More conclusive proof for global warming:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/evidence.GIF

Credit http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/

 

[Yonoz]

Such studies demonstrate correlation, not causation. How about this one?

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

Did you ever suspect that pirates have such a strong impact on our climate? Amazing, isn't it, what a few pirates can do!

Kill them, kill them all!
But seriously, you think it is untrue we're making our environment less hospitable to future generations, and that it could be that much more hospitable if we put some effort into it? I know it may sound ridiculous at first, but let's look at this proportionately. This isn't some harmless bet - the rights of every generation to the planet that we inhabit only temporarily are at stake. Basic rights are not limited to past and present generations. I agree that there is much hype, disinformation and foreign agendas in modern environmentalism, but surely we can agree they "have a case". Now considering what is at stake, I believe it's safe to say we need pay more attention to the effects our luxurious lifestyles have on the environment. I don't believe people are aware enough - otherwise, why are so many city slickers buying big heavy cars? Why is public transport a dirty phrase? Why are the fish in the oceans running out, while those in the estuaries are being polluted with fertilizers?
Somehow it seems what should be the most important issue - the preservation of our home - is being pushed back behind the scenes.

 

[chroot]

Kill them, kill them all!
But seriously, you think it is untrue we're making our environment less hospitable to future generations, and that it could be that much more hospitable if we put some effort into it?

I think we should attempt to reduce pollution even for the sake our own health, much less that of our children's children. However, this is not what this topic is about -- it's about global warming, which even the alarmists admit won't really cause much of an effect within a single lifespan.

I know it may sound ridiculous at first, but let's look at this proportionately. This isn't some harmless bet - the rights of every generation to the planet that we inhabit only temporarily are at stake. Basic rights are not limited to past and present generations.

People have a right to inhabit a planet? Is there some kind of legislative body for inhabitable planets that confers such rights?

I agree that there is much hype, disinformation and foreign agendas in modern environmentalism, but surely we can agree they "have a case".

Rather than putting words into my mouth, why don't you simply ask me? My answer would be no, I don't think anthropogenic global warming is real. I, for one, don't think there's a "case" at all.

Now considering what is at stake, I believe it's safe to say we need pay more attention to the effects our luxurious lifestyles have on the environment.

I agree, we should reduce pollution. We already know the kind of devastation pollution can cause. However, your argument does not extend to global warming, which, again, is the topic of this thread.

I don't believe people are aware enough - otherwise, why are so many city slickers buying big heavy cars? Why is public transport a dirty phrase? Why are the fish in the oceans running out, while those in the estuaries are being polluted with fertilizers?

This thread is not about pollution. Please stop trying to change the subject.

- Warren

 

[Andre]

Yonoz,

Of course there is a lot going wrong on this world and we should do something about that but we are also in a fighting arena of conflicting interests, ideas and bias in a subjective world with agenda's.

In that world somehow global warming settled firmly as next potential disaster after Y2K, the clash of the civilisations, the nuclear winter, Mutual Self Destruction, Race Eugenics, etc etc. There is always an imaginary fatal threat which needs to be fought to forfill the needs of the scaremongers and the need to be scared by the public.

Catastrophical Anthropogenic Global Warming is physically impossible. It would be so nice if we could beat this ghost and focus on real problems in the objectively put correct priority.

 

[Yonoz]

Sorry if I'm off-topic, but I was replying to Moonbear's passage that was quoted in my post:

I also don't understand the view that we shouldn't have an impact on the environment and ecosystem...as if we're somehow not part of it. But, I think I'm quite in the minority with my views in that regard. I have no expectation that humans are meant to exist as a species forever, or that the Earth is meant to have a static environment and ecosystem, or that our feeble attempts to prevent the environment from changing will have any long-term impact. We might change the way we impact the environment, but as part of the ecosystem, we will always have an impact on the environment in one way or another. Species evolve, the environment of the planet changes, mass extinctions have occurred in the past and will very likely occur in the future, the atmosphere has changed dramatically in the past, and likely will in the future, and I see that as more of a natural and inevitable progression of events than something unnatural we need to stop. If anything, trying to stop the environment from changing is unnatural in my opinion.

 

[Yonoz]

Catastrophical Anthropogenic Global Warming is physically impossible. It would be so nice if we could beat this ghost and focus on real problems in the objectively put correct priority.

I'm not talking about anything catastrophical. Again, I'm sorry I've gone off-topic, I was replying to what Moonbear wrote.

 

[Moonbear]

IMHO your indifference to our environment is rather tempocentric. Had you been born into an already decimated world, you would likely have a different approach to a hypothetical past generation that allowed your environment to become less hospitable, don't you think? This isn't just about "the environment" - it's about future generations' rights (even if they're not mentioned in that sacred constitution of yours :tongue: ).

What "rights" of future generations? You seem to have missed my entire point. If you look at the evolution of species and the changes in the environment on this planet over a much larger time scale than just the past few hundred or even few thousand years, you'll note that Earth existed in a very different form...humans aren't necessary for the planet and life on the planet to exist, neither is the current chemical mixture of the atmosphere. The current species populating the planet and the current chemical composition of the atmosphere are nothing at all like what existed in the past, and I have no expectation they should remain constant all that far into the future either. There is no "right" that humans, or any species, should be protected from extinction and continue to hold a niche in the ecosystem at the expense of some future species taking its place in a newly formed niche. I think it's a pretty arrogant, and selfish view that people think we can stop evolution on this planet, and that just because our species, and others currently existing with us will become extinct that the planet will suddenly be destroyed as a result.

And, if the environment changes dramatically, and there are still humans around to experience it and being born into it, then that means our species HAS survived the changes and has adapted to it. Human society is already very different than it was in my grandparents' generation; we have no obligation to require future generations to live exactly as we do either. I'm rather glad that my grandparents' generation DIDN'T expect the world to remain unchanged for our generation, and I certainly don't believe I have a proper crystal ball for determining what will be needed or important many generations into the future.

 

[Andre]

But of course, in our build in instincts or whatever, appears to be the urge to survive as an individual, as a social group, and as a species. Therefore it seems quite natural to talk about "rights" of future generations.

 

[Yonoz]

What "rights" of future generations? You seem to have missed my entire point. If you look at the evolution of species and the changes in the environment on this planet over a much larger time scale than just the past few hundred or even few thousand years, you'll note that Earth existed in a very different form...humans aren't necessary for the planet and life on the planet to exist, neither is the current chemical mixture of the atmosphere.

I was referring to our human descendents, perhaps I should have made that clearer.

The current species populating the planet and the current chemical composition of the atmosphere are nothing at all like what existed in the past, and I have no expectation they should remain constant all that far into the future either. There is no "right" that humans, or any species, should be protected from extinction and continue to hold a niche in the ecosystem at the expense of some future species taking its place in a newly formed niche. I think it's a pretty arrogant, and selfish view that people think we can stop evolution on this planet, and that just because our species, and others currently existing with us will become extinct that the planet will suddenly be destroyed as a result.

You're right about that, but you need to take two things into consideration:
1) Species coevolve with each other and their environment. Like the insects and the flower-bearing plants, like us and our intestinal residents. We are all interdependent. What affects our environment affects us indirectly, and we usually discover it only when it's really bad.
EDIT: The more species differentiate to suit themselves to a specific environment, the more fragile they are to changes. That is why cockroaches are said to survive the next ecological disaster while humans will not. So for example, animals that require a very narrow temperature range to produce a certain sex of offspring, may become extinct if the temperature in their ecosystem goes outside that range over a relatively short amount of time. So while the mean global temperature may change by one degree, a certain ecosystem may be worse affected, and a one-degree change in the mean global temperature will have caused one ecosystem's foodchain to be one piece short.
2) The returning motif in man-induced environmental tragedies is the lack of ecological foresight. For example, DDT was only banned after it was found in high amounts in human foods. It was not realized that it breaks down so slowly it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomagnification" . It is only one of a family of common persistent organic pollutants still used today in poorer economies. Lead was chosen over less dangerous compounds as the standard additive to fuel because it could be patented and was cheap. Asbestos. Dioxins. We are careless today as the British sailors that brought rabbits to Australia were in their day.

And, if the environment changes dramatically, and there are still humans around to experience it and being born into it, then that means our species HAS survived the changes and has adapted to it.

That will come at a great price. Isn't it preferable to keep the environment as stable as possible for as long as possible?

Human society is already very different than it was in my grandparents' generation; we have no obligation to require future generations to live exactly as we do either. I'm rather glad that my grandparents' generation DIDN'T expect the world to remain unchanged for our generation, and I certainly don't believe I have a proper crystal ball for determining what will be needed or important many generations into the future.

We can still grow, explore and industrialise. All I'm saying is we should grow, explore and industrialise environmentalism a little more than we are now.

 

[Mk]

The returning motif in man-induced environmental tragedies is the lack of ecological foresight. For example, DDT was only banned after it was found in high amounts in human foods. It was not realized that it breaks down so slowly it biomagnifies. It is only one of a family of common persistent organic pollutants still used today in poorer economies.

Hee hee hee. Boy are you wrong.

 

[Moonbear]

1) Species coevolve with each other and their environment. Like the insects and the flower-bearing plants, like us and our intestinal residents. We are all interdependent. What affects our environment affects us indirectly, and we usually discover it only when it's really bad.

Yes, and that has happened as long as life has existed on the planet. But, how do you define "bad?" If by "bad" you mean that survival of humans is reduced, then that's an anthropocentric view. Why would it be bad for the planet to change otherwise? Would it be bad for new species that can survive a changing climate to appear and take over the niches opened up by those that couldn't survive?

EDIT: The more species differentiate to suit themselves to a specific environment, the more fragile they are to changes. That is why cockroaches are said to survive the next ecological disaster while humans will not. So for example, animals that require a very narrow temperature range to produce a certain sex of offspring, may become extinct if the temperature in their ecosystem goes outside that range over a relatively short amount of time. So while the mean global temperature may change by one degree, a certain ecosystem may be worse affected, and a one-degree change in the mean global temperature will have caused one ecosystem's foodchain to be one piece short.

Species adapted to a very narrow niche have always been doomed by very small changes. And, if other species are equally narrow in their needs that the loss of that species leads to their loss as well, yes, that's all very natural and expected. The generalists survive far better in the long run and adapt to those changes. Others that have been competed out of those niches by species currently in them, but that can survive in those niches can also move in once their competitors become extinct. That is all part of evolutionary processes.

That will come at a great price. Isn't it preferable to keep the environment as stable as possible for as long as possible?

Why? Again, the planet has survived mass extinctions in the past, so even if that were to be the outcome, it doesn't mean all species will be killed off and that the gaps won't be filled in over time. Even the most seemingly inhospitable parts of our planet (from a human perpsective) have organisms living in them. Just look at the myriad species that CAN survive the temperature extremes and dry climate of the deserts. If the deserts expanded, they'd have more territory to expand into as well. If there weren't other species at the edges of their territory waiting to gobble them up, perhaps some would expand further outward into more temperate climates.

The fear-mongers would have you believe that if we allow global warming to continue, the planet will be a completely lifeless wasteland (though, even if that were to happen, we won't be around to know or care either), but there's really no reason to believe that will be true. There are numerous species that can already survive extreme environments, and already have complete ecosystems isolated within those environments that can take advantage of the changes to expand their ranges.

Was there something wrong with the planet before humans existed? Was there something wrong with the planet when the atmosphere was mostly carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia? Life came to exist in that environment, and the presence of living organisms is what is hypothesized to have changed the atmosphere into the oxidizing one we have now so that the life forms we currently have were able to come into existence and survive. So, why is it bad if the planet reverts back to that state? In the grand scheme of the universe, why does life need to exist on this planet at all? Was the planet a bad place when cavemen only existed in a few places, and didn't have the ability to modify the environment to expand the range of humans globally? Would it be a bad planet if we were no longer able to control our environment and instead, humans once again had their ranges limited by environmental conditions? Would it really be a bad thing if humans could no longer live in equatorial regions, or in deserts, and had to move closer toward the poles because that was the more temperate climate? Is there much difference in being excluded from an environment due to extreme cold vs extreme heat?

As with all species, we have a selfish interest for survival in the present. We want nutrients, and we want to reproduce. But, we only delude ourselves if we think we can keep the environment from changing hundreds, thousands or millions of years into the future.

How do we even know what's best for preserving the environment if we want to do so? For decades, people tried to prevent forest fires, we still do. But, then comes up evidence that forest fires are actually important for the survival of species in the forest, and not destructive as we thought. Seeds wouldn't sprout on forest floors covered with thick layers of decomposing leaf litter, and seedlings can't get enough sunlight to thrive under a thick forest canopy, and the animals that feed off those seedlings, or nest in the underbrush were running out of habitat. Again, it just shows our arrogance at thinking we can keep things from changing without those acts themselves harming the environment. Change is always occurring, and trying to resist change is often more harmful in the bigger picture than allowing it to happen.

Since it's really all "what if" scenarios, I'll pose one that I doubt many environmentalists think about. What if we can't stop global warming...maybe we can slow it, maybe we have no impact at all because it's just too late, whether it was our fault or not, but regardless of who or what is to blame, it's happening and is irreversible. Now, in our efforts to stop it, we cover the desert in solar panels to provide our energy instead of using atmosphere polluting fossil fuels. All the desert species that lived there are now killed off because their environment is completely shaded out by these solar panels, and they aren't adapted to living in shade, they're adapted to living in unrelenting sunlight. When the global temperatures continue to rise, and all the species adapted to more temperate climates inevitably die off, and the global climate becomes more and more desert-like, what have we done to all the desert-dwellers that would have thrived in that new climate? Have we really helped the planet in the long-run, or just seen to our own comfort in the present?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the entire point is to preserve human life and to the greatest extent possible, our way of life.

This ain't about spotted owls.

 

[Yonoz]

Yes, and that has happened as long as life has existed on the planet. But, how do you define "bad?" If by "bad" you mean that survival of humans is reduced, then that's an anthropocentric view.

I agree, my view is anthropocentric. Isn't everyone's? I mean, we'd rather kill an innocent animal than a human, even if they're not innocent. We set up our own "human rights", and we can't even agree on basic animal rights. It's only natural.
By "bad" I mean our quality of life is reduced.

Why would it be bad for the planet to change otherwise? Would it be bad for new species that can survive a changing climate to appear and take over the niches opened up by those that couldn't survive?

I, for one, welcome our new overlords.

Species adapted to a very narrow niche have always been doomed by very small changes. And, if other species are equally narrow in their needs that the loss of that species leads to their loss as well, yes, that's all very natural and expected. The generalists survive far better in the long run and adapt to those changes. Others that have been competed out of those niches by species currently in them, but that can survive in those niches can also move in once their competitors become extinct. That is all part of evolutionary processes.

It's not natural if it's man-made. As I said, we have coevolved with our surroundings. We are very, very similar to some of the most basic forms of life. Our waste is another species' food, and so forth. We have introduced, in massive quantities, compounds that exist in nature in minute amounts or do not exist at all. We have excavated heavy metals from deep inside the Earth and spread it around in ecosystems that have never known such amounts. Man-made changes are sudden and drastic.

Why? Again, the planet has survived mass extinctions in the past, so even if that were to be the outcome, it doesn't mean all species will be killed off and that the gaps won't be filled in over time. Even the most seemingly inhospitable parts of our planet (from a human perpsective) have organisms living in them. Just look at the myriad species that CAN survive the temperature extremes and dry climate of the deserts. If the deserts expanded, they'd have more territory to expand into as well. If there weren't other species at the edges of their territory waiting to gobble them up, perhaps some would expand further outward into more temperate climates.

Again, my view is rather anthropocentric.

The fear-mongers would have you believe that if we allow global warming to continue, the planet will be a completely lifeless wasteland (though, even if that were to happen, we won't be around to know or care either), but there's really no reason to believe that will be true. There are numerous species that can already survive extreme environments, and already have complete ecosystems isolated within those environments that can take advantage of the changes to expand their ranges.

I think there's plenty of down to Earth people who don't make such ridiculous claims and still think there's more we should do to protect our environment.

Was there something wrong with the planet before humans existed? Was there something wrong with the planet when the atmosphere was mostly carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia? Life came to exist in that environment, and the presence of living organisms is what is hypothesized to have changed the atmosphere into the oxidizing one we have now so that the life forms we currently have were able to come into existence and survive. So, why is it bad if the planet reverts back to that state? In the grand scheme of the universe, why does life need to exist on this planet at all? Was the planet a bad place when cavemen only existed in a few places, and didn't have the ability to modify the environment to expand the range of humans globally? Would it be a bad planet if we were no longer able to control our environment and instead, humans once again had their ranges limited by environmental conditions? Would it really be a bad thing if humans could no longer live in equatorial regions, or in deserts, and had to move closer toward the poles because that was the more temperate climate? Is there much difference in being excluded from an environment due to extreme cold vs extreme heat?

I find the demise of the human race undesirable. I think that any population movement caused by man-made environmental changes will involve man-made strife.

As with all species, we have a selfish interest for survival in the present. We want nutrients, and we want to reproduce. But, we only delude ourselves if we think we can keep the environment from changing hundreds, thousands or millions of years into the future.

I don't think species have a selfish interests for survival in the present. Rather, we are carriers of genes, and by the nature of our reproduction, the genes leading to more successful offspring - successful in the sense that they themselves give more successful offspring, and so forth - these genes will become more abundant inside the population, and would vanish if they somehow brought on the collapse of the entire population (EDITED for clarification). This is also why there are many diseases and parasites that do not kill us. It is actually necessary for them to ensure their hosts are not wiped out.

How do we even know what's best for preserving the environment if we want to do so? For decades, people tried to prevent forest fires, we still do. But, then comes up evidence that forest fires are actually important for the survival of species in the forest, and not destructive as we thought. Seeds wouldn't sprout on forest floors covered with thick layers of decomposing leaf litter, and seedlings can't get enough sunlight to thrive under a thick forest canopy, and the animals that feed off those seedlings, or nest in the underbrush were running out of habitat. Again, it just shows our arrogance at thinking we can keep things from changing without those acts themselves harming the environment. Change is always occurring, and trying to resist change is often more harmful in the bigger picture than allowing it to happen.

Put more effort into the field of environmentalism. It's rather poorly developed IMHO.

Since it's really all "what if" scenarios, I'll pose one that I doubt many environmentalists think about. What if we can't stop global warming...maybe we can slow it, maybe we have no impact at all because it's just too late, whether it was our fault or not, but regardless of who or what is to blame, it's happening and is irreversible. Now, in our efforts to stop it, we cover the desert in solar panels to provide our energy instead of using atmosphere polluting fossil fuels. All the desert species that lived there are now killed off because their environment is completely shaded out by these solar panels, and they aren't adapted to living in shade, they're adapted to living in unrelenting sunlight. When the global temperatures continue to rise, and all the species adapted to more temperate climates inevitably die off, and the global climate becomes more and more desert-like, what have we done to all the desert-dwellers that would have thrived in that new climate? Have we really helped the planet in the long-run, or just seen to our own comfort in the present?

That is a true dilemma and that is why this field needs to be explored with more vigour.

 

[Mk]

I think we do need to assume an antropocentric view. Just remember it isn't the only way to go about doing things.

Extinction is a natural phenomenon; it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Through the laws of evolution, new species are created by speciation — where new organisms arise and thrive when they are able to find and exploit an ecological niche. Species become extinct when are no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition. Conditions on the Earth are always changing, and dramatically is not rare. It is not something new, caused by humans. Termite mounds, beaver dams, and coral reefs all change their environment dramatically, affecting many other creatures. Are they interferring with nature?

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html
Totally my favorite presentation ever. For a discussion of this specific topic, you can scroll down until you get to the picture of Yellowstone National Park's sign.

 

[rcgldr]

From an article I read:

Richard S Lindzen, of MIT, states that water vaper is responsible for 98% of the greenhouse effect, specifically that "greenhouse gases" contribute less than 2% of the greenhouse effect (compared to water vapor).

Human activity contributes about 3.2% of carbon dioxide. Nitrous Oxide, and methane have less greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide because of low concentrations, and most of the Nitrous Oxide is produced by nature.

So global warming isn't really the issue, but pollution of the air in general is. I've lived in LA since 1966, and in the 1960's the smog, on it's worst days, could get bad enough to cause your eyes to water. It's been a long time since a high smog alert in the LA area, mostly because cars and factories are running much cleaner, even though the population is much larger now. Smog is still a problem when there are fires, the geography of Los Angeles contributes to an inversion layer that traps the smog and smoke. China is facing a serious pollution problem.

 

[Yonoz]

Totally my favorite presentation ever. For a discussion of this specific topic, you can scroll down until you get to the picture of Yellowstone National Park's sign.

:rofl: I understand why it's your favourite presentation, it's quite funny. Take this for example:

According to Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller Institute, industrialized nations have been decarbonizing their energy sources for 150 years, meaning we are moving away from carbon toward hydrogen. In other words, the ratio of carbon to hydrogen decreases as you go from wood and hay (1:1) to coal to oil to gas (1:4).
Ausubel expects the trend to continue through this century as we move toward pure hydrogen—without the assistance of lawyers and activists. Obviously if a trend has been continuously operating since the days of Lincoln and Queen Victoria, it probably does not need the assistance of organizations like the Sierra Club and the NRDC, which are showing up about a hundred years too late.

I hope you recognise how ludicrous this statement actually is. You can mine coal, pump oil and natural gas - but unfortunately there's no natural reservoir of hydrogen fuel.
The Yellowstone anecdote only goes to demonstrate how little we know of this field.

 

[Mk]

You can mine coal, pump oil and natural gas - but unfortunately there's no natural reservoir of hydrogen fuel.

He was kind of making fun of the people that are obsessed with carbon footprints and the like, by using their "hydrogen economy" point against them.

 

[Mk]

So global warming isn't really the issue, but pollution of the air in general is. I've lived in LA since 1966, and in the 1960's the smog, on it's worst days, could get bad enough to cause your eyes to water. It's been a long time since a high smog alert in the LA area, mostly because cars and factories are running much cleaner, even though the population is much larger now. Smog is still a problem when there are fires, the geography of Los Angeles contributes to an inversion layer that traps the smog and smoke. China is facing a serious pollution problem.

Although it may be uncomfortable, what serious research (no statistical shenanigans!) has gone into quantifying the deleterious and/or positve effects?

The fear-mongers would have you believe that if we allow global warming to continue, the planet will be a completely lifeless wasteland (though, even if that were to happen, we won't be around to know or care either), but there's really no reason to believe that will be true. There are numerous species that can already survive extreme environments, and already have complete ecosystems isolated within those environments that can take advantage of the changes to expand their ranges.

I think there's plenty of down to Earth people who don't make such ridiculous claims and still think there's more we should do to protect our environment.

She meant that "evolution goes on." There has never been an end to life, no matter what the conditions.

 

[Yonoz]

Although it may be uncomfortable, what serious research (no statistical shenanigans!) has gone into quantifying the deleterious and/or positve effects?

Indulge yourself: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/allabout.html" .

She meant that "evolution goes on." There has never been an end to life, no matter what the conditions.

That's kind of difficult to tell, don't you think?