Something to ponder perhaps?
by DamirB
To fellow colleague chemist Hans Schreuder: I think it was Berzelius who discovered the "greenhouse effect" with carbon dioxide, right? I think this is scientifically proven. But never mind greenhouse effect, or global warming & cooling. To Hans, to Ed and all the like: the question here is as John points out, again - do we care to destroy the earth or not? The hard facts are: 1) human population on the planet is closing to 7 billion 2) at the same time average (and thus the absolute) resource spending per capita grows because of total increase of population and additionally because of global consumption increase 3) tropical forests are rapidly disappearing 4) oceans are overfished 5) climate is unstable 6) resources are finite Now, how much time do the "denying" fellows think we have left before the baloon bursts? We live in a thermodynamic system in dynamic equilibrium; whenever something disrupts an equilibrium, the system adjusts to minimize the change, and as long as the influence is weak enough no drastic changes are visible. But when the influence becomes too big for the system to compensate, a drastic change of variables occur (is that right, Hans?) and the system establishes a new equilibrium. This happened many times in Earth's history - and every time resulted in mass extinctions. Do we want our children, or even us, to wake up in a world with 99% species extinct, with tropical climate all over (or ice all over)? There is not enough oil, or wood, or tuna for us all on this planet. We must change our way of life. Sorry, Ed.
Are you sure you want to report this comment as offensive?
by DamirB
To fellow colleague chemist Hans Schreuder: I think it was Berzelius who discovered the "greenhouse effect" with carbon dioxide, right? I think this is scientifically proven. But never mind greenhouse effect, or global warming & cooling. To Hans, to Ed and all the like: the question here is as John points out, again - do we care to destroy the earth or not? The hard facts are: 1) human population on the planet is closing to 7 billion 2) at the same time average (and thus the absolute) resource spending per capita grows because of total increase of population and additionally because of global consumption increase 3) tropical forests are rapidly disappearing 4) oceans are overfished 5) climate is unstable 6) resources are finite Now, how much time do the "denying" fellows think we have left before the baloon bursts? We live in a thermodynamic system in dynamic equilibrium; whenever something disrupts an equilibrium, the system adjusts to minimize the change, and as long as the influence is weak enough no drastic changes are visible. But when the influence becomes too big for the system to compensate, a drastic change of variables occur (is that right, Hans?) and the system establishes a new equilibrium. This happened many times in Earth's history - and every time resulted in mass extinctions. Do we want our children, or even us, to wake up in a world with 99% species extinct, with tropical climate all over (or ice all over)? There is not enough oil, or wood, or tuna for us all on this planet. We must change our way of life. Sorry, Ed.
Are you sure you want to report this comment as offensive?
