Time Running Out? Curb Global Resource Use?

[Andre]

Those two problems are from the same source, rain forest eradication is a form of Anthropogenic Global Warming instigation.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you suggest here. I think there is lots of difference. The way I see it is that anthropogenic global warming is only hypothetical, actually the increase of greenhouse gasses is not causing a dramatical global warming and there are ample, more than ample substantiations. (Yes I am provoking discussion more than happy to cross swords about that) We do not need to throw away money in an attempt to control emission of innocent CO2 (not talking about other more aggressive gasses). A normal investment in alternative energy sources like hydrogen cells, clathrate exploration and ultimately perhaps, controlled nucleair fusion should be fine, before the natural sources are drying out in a couple of eons.

But we do not have time to save the rain forests. At this destruction pace, disaster is imminent, within a decade. But I'm afraid the world community has the financial priorities totally wrong, due to the Anthropogenic Global Warming hype, and I'm serious.

Very few species have degradatinal problems that are NOT somehow human related or attached

Generally agreed, however there are probably many more species extinct due to natural causes than there are living today. It's not a disaster when an odd species goes extinct due to over specialisation followed by a slight change in habitat. The message is not to overreact.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Andre
(SNIP)[/color] I'm sorry, I don't understand what you suggest here. (SNoP)[/color]

Suggest nothing!

Take away trees and you remove the "Lungs of the Planet" (Ever heard the expression??) added/Compound(ing)ed by the resultant effects upon the Hydrological cycles that the environment, and the WEATHER depend upon...Hummm, a connection between the two? hUmmmm plus we add in the 'unknowns' of Radient heat cycles, the then absence of 'cooking fuel' for probably 2^3rds of the planet, (which, I suppose, would benefit, since less fires would be generating less heat) so (again) alternate sources need be found, and epxloited.

The trees are known to generate environment, there own, remove that and you are bound to cause changes, that is obvious.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems that the more immediate threat from global climate change is being ignored: The socio-economic impact of events possible in the immediate future - less than 100 years. More powerful tidal surge along coastal and island areas, floods, fires, failed crops, more disease, more parasites, water shortages and general drought, these and many more problems threaten to impact economies long before they threaten survival on the planet.

How can we better understand the potential for these events and the impact they will have on affected areas. How will these events affect the world, national, and local economies? How can we best manage these crises? It seems that in addition to debating the 300 year solution, we should focus on the 50 and 100 year solutions. The immediate socio-economic impact of these events could be more dangerous than the events themselves.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Pesonally the most immediate threat to the planet is space, as in there is only so much space on the face of the planet.

70% covered with water (Ya approximate!) so what's left has a calculable value at a rate of one person per Sq ft. (I did this once) and the is the unachievable Ideal that at least tells us very clearly there is a need for a limit, as a limit, very clearly, is imposed.

It gets really complex, in a way...neat.

 

[sage]

andre since you are trying to provoke a discussion on global warming it is advisable that you give the link to that HUGE global warming debate we had had on sciforums with edufer for others to see so that we don't have to reinvent the entire wheel from scratch once again.(i could have given the link but i do not know how).

 

[Andre]

Hi Sage,

Well I could link to that place you mention but I'm done there, the climate got too cold. Instead, we have a lot of fun at this friendly place with real sophisticated climate discussions with experts:

http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forum-view.asp?forumid=11

To link a site, simply open it in another browser window, click in the address box to highlight the text of the address, then copy (control + c) Go back to the reply box and paste (control + v).

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by sage
andre since you are trying to provoke a discussion on global warming it is advisable that you give the link to that HUGE global warming debate we had had on sciforums with edufer for others to see so that we don't have to reinvent the entire wheel from scratch once again.(i could have given the link but i do not know how).

Go to the site, copypaste the address onto a page here...it is that simple, the system will do the rest.

If you want a nicer looking link you can use the explanations of the vB codes to do that,
[ url="Insert your url address here[/color]"]type you links text here[/color][/ url]

And note that to stop the system from using that particular code, I have spaced the first bracket, one space away, from the 'url' as to fool the machine, so it doesn't hide that writing.