Global warming.

[Belthazor]

As of 2015, there were over 18,000 desalinization plants active in the world, so we are already using the technology. Unfortunately, desalinization is not very cost effective, and can be harmful to the environment.

Like any technology, desalination will progress if it is a priority.

---------- Post added at 06:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 PM ----------

Yes, I knew that about New York. It's fascinating, isn't it? To look at a place and know that it was drastically different at one time?

Yes it is fascinating, but my point was the coastlines of the world have changed by hundreds of miles as glaciers expand and retreat (prior to any possible human intervention).

---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 PM ----------

Climate models can only be accurate to a point.

They haven't been accurate at all to date. Virtually all of them have had to reduce their predictions to match current observations.

---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

firstly, we as a species, haven't been monitoring earth's climate long enough to make accurate determinations. Secondly, our climate is so complex, and there are elements at work that we just don't know or understand. Thirdly, much of the data is subject to interpretation, even scientifically. We think we know so much about the climate, but we really know so little.

absolutely

---------- Post added at 06:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------

Here's another issue. We always wait until after something is a problem. We can see that something is already different, and that it is possible that we are contributing. That really should be enough to start taking precautions. We should treat everything on this planet like it is a finite resource, stop pumping garbage into our atmosphere, create modest stockpiles for emergencies, and treat nature with respect. We need to stop being so arrogant.

While fixing a problem when you are sure of it, is more the human way, this isn't always bad.

Take the Exxon Valdez. "We" worried about oil on the coast line so huge hot water pressure washers were set up to disperse oil of the beaches. Problem is, the beaches that were "cleaned" in this way became sterile. Beaches that were inaccessible and therefore left alone, showed more resilience.

The point is, our good intentions sometimes do more harm than good.

In the case of carbon, the gov't solution is to make a carbon tax. These will be big $$'s and a lot of power with little to show for it if history prevails.
(by the way that "garbage we are pumping into the atmosphere" plants call FOOD!)

Certainly humans are doing a terrible job of using earth's resources and many countries look a lot like a "pig pen" but that is a separate issue form climate change and the politics behind "cap and trade schemes".

[ladykrimson]

Yes it is fascinating, but my point was the coastlines of the world have changed by hundreds of miles as glaciers expand and retreat (prior to any possible human intervention).[COLOR="Silver"]

Yes, but the changes are much more gradual in the past then they are currently. The changes that are happening right now are happening much faster than they should be.

While fixing a problem when you are sure of it, is more the human way, this isn't always bad.

Take the Exxon Valdez. "We" worried about oil on the coast line so huge hot water pressure washers were set up to disperse oil of the beaches. Problem is, the beaches that were "cleaned" in this way became sterile. Beaches that were inaccessible and therefore left alone, showed more resilience.

The point is, our good intentions sometimes do more harm than good.

In the case of carbon, the gov't solution is to make a carbon tax. These will be big $$'s and a lot of power with little to show for it if history prevails.
(by the way that "garbage we are pumping into the atmosphere" plants call FOOD!)

Certainly humans are doing a terrible job of using earth's resources and many countries look a lot like a "pig pen" but that is a separate issue form climate change and the politics behind "cap and trade schemes".

My point was to prevent problems before they become problems. We are so careless with resources.

We pump too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If we continue to do so recklessly, it will keep negatively affecting our environment. The evidence is there, but people don't want to accept it because it will require a change in the way we live. It's all about the almighty dollar.

There is more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere today then there has been in centuries. I don't understand how anyone can ignore that. It is clear that the rise is unnatural because the level has spiked suddenly and rapidly.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Yea, plants require carbon dioxide...but not as much as we release into our atmosphere.

[Belthazor]

Yes, but the changes are much more gradual in the past then they are currently. The changes that are happening right now are happening much faster than they should be.

I will need some support before I can accept this contention.

---------- Post added at 05:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 PM ----------

My point was to prevent problems before they become problems. We are so careless with resources.

My point was we often make problems worse (or create new even larger problems) when we try to "help" without understanding the issues prior to "helping".

---------- Post added at 05:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------

We pump too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If we continue to do so recklessly, it will keep negatively affecting our environment.

How much isn't "too" much?
IOW, how much can we safely "pump into the atmosphere"?

---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

We pump too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If we continue to do so recklessly, it will keep negatively affecting our environment. The evidence is there, but people don't want to accept it because it will require a change in the way we live. It's all about the almighty dollar.

It's all about the "dollar"???. Could you explain that please?

I think it's actually about generating electricity, people flying on airplanes, traveling to work/vacation or kids soccer practice. Everything we do uses energy. Using your phone uses electricity. Good chance that electricity came from fossil fuel.
(do you have any idea what environmental damage is caused by making electric cars-see what China is doing to their environment)

---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

There is more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere today then there has been in centuries. I don't understand how anyone can ignore that. It is clear that the rise is unnatural because the level has spiked suddenly and rapidly.

Then clearly "centuries" ago levels were this high also (or higher?) and the earth seems fine. People have been around a whole bunch longer than "centuries" and seem to have done fine as well??
(by the way, "people are of nature, so what we do IS natural", if you were an alien observing for instance)

---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------

Yea, plants require carbon dioxide...but not as much as we release into our atmosphere.

They may not "require" higher levels of carbon dioxide, but they will grow faster/better/stronger than at lower levels.

Again, how much is enough?

I don't know if you read the whole thread, but a lot of this has been covered:

95% of green house gasses are water vapor. This really isn't a disputed number. And of that 95%, humans contribute .01%. Please see below for the reprint of a post a couple pages ago


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

"Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."


99.999% seems pretty conclusive... "

On a possibly related note:
Have you heard "weather" is changing on Jupiter? The Great Red Spot that has been around for centuries may disappear relatively soon, and Neptune has had a storm for over two hundred yrs that also seem to be disappearing?
You don't suppose the sun could be affecting this?