What can we do about Climate Change?

[MarquisBlack]

does any of the water used, then become unusable and leave the water cycle? of course not... water use is not the problem, water contamination is... runoff from farms and ranches both is a part of that problem..

I was going to mention this, but ya beat me to it.

One interesting facet of this topic that I've been studying is the use of so-called "Gray-water" as irrigation. Pretty much eliminating the need for sewer systems outside of dense population centers.

If one were to build a semi-subterranean home into the side of say, a hill, it would be no difficult task to divert gray water downhill to your garden/farm. Of course, we would have to take into consideration what is allowed to get into our waste water to begin with, but there are health benefits involved with eliminating the use of things that might contaminate said water, making it unsuitable for agriculture anyways. Win win sort of situation, ya know?

 

[phildea]

Hi ,checkout biochar, sounds unbelievable

 

[alaskan]

Dihydrogen monoxide:

* is called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain.
* contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
* may cause severe burns.
* is fatal if inhaled.
* contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

* as an industrial solvent and coolant.
* in nuclear power plants.
* in the production of Styrofoam.
* as a fire retardant.
* in many forms of cruel animal research.
* in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
* as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

Water.


Education defeats propaganda.

"We must stop water's evil cousin CO2! We have to drastically change our ways of lives for the cause. THEY TOLD US SO!"
I don't understand how ANYONE (nor'easter) on a growing forum can fall for the anti-co2 propaganda.
I was taught since second grade that it's as essential to life as water, and all the real studies show that temperature fluctuations usually precede that of co2 levels...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

"We must stop water's evil cousin CO2! We have to drastically change our ways of lives for the cause. THEY TOLD US SO!"
I don't understand how ANYONE (nor'easter) on a growing forum can fall for the anti-co2 propaganda.
I was taught since second grade that it's as essential to life as water, and all the real studies show that temperature fluctuations usually precede that of co2 levels...

lol... no comparison... you're making a leap of illogic.
"all the real studies... lol
once again education defeats propaganda.

your posts belong in the "Global Warming??" thread, not this one.

Skeptics are rightly challenged to assess claims made by all parties when an issue of major public importance arises. This is especially true when any action taken may have unpredictable economic consequences for the entire country. Questions related to global warming, climate change, and national energy policy represent such an issue today.

Both proponents and opponents of action are now arming themselves for a major political fight. Proponents have collected a large body of scientific evidence predicting that maintaining the status quo will consign the world to climate disaster. Opponents are arguing that an economic collapse could result from expensive, dramatic action. Some opponents also argue that we need more research. In light of this, a continuing effort for objective assessment is needed.

This year, the current administration in Washington is preparing legislation that would, if fully implemented, mandate significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and also collect several hundred billion dollars in carbon taxes over a ten-year period. These taxes would be collected through a mechanism known as cap-and-trade by selling carbon credits—allowances to produce carbon dioxide—to industries that generate this known greenhouse gas. President Obama has endorsed this approach, which has been in place for several years in the European Union. Not surprisingly, there are opposing views on how well cap-and-trade has worked in Europe.

In response to this legislation, proponents and opponents have embarked on a major effort in Washington to pass, modify, or defeat it. Nearly every environmental organization, the majority of scientific organizations, and most Democrats support the legislation; most spokespersons for the energy industry, some scientists, and the more conservative Republicans tend either to oppose it or at least to seek major modifications. For example, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Physical Science Report-2007 summarizes the work of approximately 2,000 scientists worldwide and supports major initiatives to curb carbon emissions. Representing the opposition according to Environment Maryland, a citizen-based environmental advocacy organization, are approximately 2,000 lobbyists who have been engaged by American energy industries to identify flaws in the IPCC-2007 arguments and in the administration’s legislation.

Both sides have made significant efforts to establish scientific credibility with the public. Those favoring action rely heavily on the IPCC-2007 science report and note some alarming recent research that suggests the Greenland icecap may be melting at a faster rate than even IPCC-2007 reported. In contrast, a well-known opponent of human-induced global warming, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, has sought to persuade people that the current scientific majority view is misguided. (Inhofe is the ranking Republican member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.) In consequence, his office has issued a Senate Minority report titled United States Senate Minority Report on Global Warming. It can be found at epw.senate.gov.

The minority report lists a number of individuals identified as scientists who allegedly dissent over man-made global-warming claims. As of January 2009, the number of such persons listed was 687. Noting that there were indeed some quite well-known scientists on the list, and in view of the importance of the issue, the Center for Inquiry/Office of Public Policy decided to vet the list carefully to establish how credible it is overall.

This research produced the following information on the 687 people listed in the Senate minority report. Categories included name, education, summary of publications in the refereed literature based on the better-known climate science and solar physics journals, current institutional affiliations, and professional identifications.

The proportion of them who have published articles on climate science proved to be slightly less than 10 percent. Rounding off, a total of 15 percent exhibited a significant publication record in subjects at least related to climate science. We found no evidence that 551 (~80 percent) had any peer-reviewed publications bearing on climate science. At least fifty-five had no science credentials at all, and many others identified as meteorologists proved to be weather reporters. Almost 4 percent expressed support for the general consensus supporting anthropogenic causes of global warming, the near-consensus expressed by the IPCC-2007 science report, and therefore should not have appeared on the list in the first place.

How should a skeptic deal with this information? All trained scientists admit that scientific truth is ultimately probabilistic, even when the probabilities appear to be approaching certainty. It is also true that the climate scientists I know grant that there are still a few “dark corners” in the realm of cloud theory that need to be explored in more detail using new data obtained on a smaller grid. Finally, it cannot be ruled out that some as-yet undiscovered natural process may be playing a larger than anticipated role in global warming. Opponents of human causation often propose the sun as the likely driver of contemporary global warming. While no one can say with certainty that the sun plays only a small role in climate change today, as a solar physicist I can say that the various solar mechanisms proposed to date have either been discredited by current research or have been presented in highly speculative arguments not now supported by observations.

Where does this leave us? As concerned citizens we need to recognize that we are dealing with a two-step decision process. The first step is getting the science right. There is no doubt that a large majority of the scientific research community thinks global-warming-driven climate change is due primarily to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. That there remains a much smaller number of research scientists who disagree and that no one can claim certainty about this complex problem is equally true. This makes it relatively easy for those who wish to delay or prevent action to claim to the public that there is a big controversy over the science, implying that action, and especially expensive action, would be unwise. However, the evidence suggests otherwise. That there is a big and growing scientific controversy over anthropogenic sources of global warming is almost certainly untrue.

The second step in the decision process is the political one, which necessarily brings in the economic issues. This brief piece cannot address those issues except to acknowledge their critical importance. Nevertheless, we can ask the skeptic who is not acquainted with the relevant science where he or she thinks the most credible scientific assessment lies—with the scientists whose published research is reported in the IPCC-2007 science report or with the much smaller group of scientists collected for the Senate minority report.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I was going to mention this, but ya beat me to it.

One interesting facet of this topic that I've been studying is the use of so-called "Gray-water" as irrigation. Pretty much eliminating the need for sewer systems outside of dense population centers.

If one were to build a semi-subterranean home into the side of say, a hill, it would be no difficult task to divert gray water downhill to your garden/farm. Of course, we would have to take into consideration what is allowed to get into our waste water to begin with, but there are health benefits involved with eliminating the use of things that might contaminate said water, making it unsuitable for agriculture anyways. Win win sort of situation, ya know?

indeed

 

[stink.whistler]

I was going to mention this, but ya beat me to it.

One interesting facet of this topic that I've been studying is the use of so-called "Gray-water" as irrigation. Pretty much eliminating the need for sewer systems outside of dense population centers.

...

Definitely an area where regulation has gotten in the way. I know a couple people w/ illegal grey water systems. Even in jurisdictions that allow them, it is almost impossible to navigate all the red tape to legally put one in.

 

[bombadil.360]

A Hobbit-Hole...
I have always wanted to live in one, they are supposed to be quite cosy...Hobbits have a way with comfort, and let's not forget second breakfast!

exactly my thoughts


Marquis, maybe part of the resistance people have to check these subjects again is in the chosen titles... climate change is too easily associated with global warming... maybe 'how r u polluting less?" would have placed more distance from the other thread.

 

[headband 707]

Changing the world starts with you. We are fucking this world right up and we all know what we are doing wrong here and oil is the biggest problem. Cuba has the right idea. They may have been forced into their situation but if the shit hits the fan they will be the only ones standing..The Bush boys all laughed at Gore's global warming and no ones laughing now. Here everyone is now making there own gardens and buying scooter's or hybrids lol peace out Headband707

 

[greenhead]

The Bush boys all laughed at Gore's global warming and no ones laughing now.

I'm still laughing at Al Gore, and so are plenty of other people.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I'm still laughing at Al Gore, and so are plenty of other people.

what goes around comes around... plenty of people are laughing at your posts as well.

Nothing wrong with being a skeptic, but be reasonable in your skepticism. Anyhow I thought this thread was for solutions not to discuss the science demonstrating AGW. You thought you were in the 'Global Warming??' thread??

 

[greenhead]

what goes around comes around... plenty of people are laughing at your posts as well.

Nothing wrong with being a skeptic, but be reasonable in your skepticism. Anyhow I thought this thread was for solutions not to discuss the science demonstrating AGW. You thought you were in the 'Global Warming??' thread??

I'm aware of what thread this is. It was my duty to correct a factually incorrect statement, where somebody made the claim that nobody was laughing at Al Gore anymore.

As for solutions, sure I'll offer one. One solution is for everybody who believes in global warming/climate change to drastically cut their usage of all things that might contribute to the problem.

 

[MarquisBlack]

Seein' some new faces. That's awesome.

As long as we choose to try to understand one another, rather than falling for the same old divisive BS, out future is going to be brighter than my basement.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

As for solutions, sure I'll offer one. One solution is for everybody who believes in global warming/climate change to drastically cut their usage of all things that might contribute to the problem.

a lot of us have.... the more people's eyes are opened to the reality of the situation, the more that will...

reduce, reuse, recycle

good advice, greenhead, even if it is a bit trite.



I like the way your phraseology excuses you from having to do anything , too... I guess if you don't look at it it will go away.

 

[SpasticGramps]

I was going to mention this, but ya beat me to it.

One interesting facet of this topic that I've been studying is the use of so-called "Gray-water" as irrigation. Pretty much eliminating the need for sewer systems outside of dense population centers.

I live out in BFE and there is no sewer system. The city comes out and buries three huge septic tanks in your yard. You dump a gallon of bleach in it once a month or so. The waste water sprays back onto your yard.

I dug a ditch and directed my output to a nearby creek because I was flooding my yard.

 

[MarquisBlack]

exactly my thoughts


Marquis, maybe part of the resistance people have to check these subjects again is in the chosen titles... climate change is too easily associated with global warming... maybe 'how r u polluting less?" would have placed more distance from the other thread.

Perhaps. Hopefully, though, enough people will check in despite the stigma. The first post is rather lengthy, but it does a good job of encapsulating my goals here...

What we are trying, in all these discussions and talks here... Is to see if we cannot radically bring about a transformation of the mind. Not accept things as they are. But to understand it, to go into it, to examine it. Give your heart and your mind with everything that you have to find out, a way of living differently.

But that depends on you and not somebody else. Because in this there is no teacher. No pupil. There is no leader. There is no guru. There is no master, no savior. You yourself are the teacher, the pupil, the master, the guru, the leader. You are everything.

And to understand, is to transform bodies..

-Jiddu Krishnamurti

 

[hazeydayz]

watch a few documentaries, very informative... i would suggest 11th hour with leonardo dicaprio...its a very informative and capturing documentary

 

[1G12]

Science program on PBS recently interviewed the owner of a solar start up company. This company was installing solar cell systems on the roof of big box stores…those with a huge surface area. They were leasing the space from the store & in return getting a long term contract to sell them their electricity for all their daytime needs. Any excess power was then sold to the grid. The guy was all smiles as he knew what his set up costs were going to be, what the income was going to be due to the fixed rate of the contract and what his profit was on the deal into the future. And the store gets clean electricity for most of its daytime operations.
At times, innovative thinking can really pay off & create jobs as well.

 

[MarquisBlack]

That is a helluva business idea.

 

[ZoeFresssh666]

lmao we cant do anything about climate change

agreed :-/

 

[RetroGrow]

BULLSHIT!!!

Personal hygiene uses more water than that. Do the mafths. Your shower takes X amount of time, your shower head uses Y amounts of GPH, you shower Z times per day/week. That is why I rarely shower (or is it 'cause I'm lazy and waiting for Maria to clean my house).

If ranching uses so much more water than agriculture, then why does it remain as a viable use for land in the plains of the Eastern Seirras (near NV), where all of their natural water has been diverted for SoCal??? Or why is ranching used anywhere, where there is insufficient rainfall for agriculture??? Hell, your Hydro system uses more water than that piece of red meat. Washing your foining car uses more water.

Fink people! If you keep blindly dancing to the fools piper, then you're no better than Al 'Da Truuff' Gore.

Which brings me to my original point. If humans are the cause of global warming, doesn't it make sense to control (or reduce) the population..."oh no, you can't say that, you're advocating Genocide!!!"

It is only Genocide if I kill off only one group of people, if I treat all groups as equally expendable, then I'm a humanitarian.

You hollier than thou vegans needs to shut the fuck up and look at your life. Cause whatever you are eating is making you think you are saving the planet, one vegetable at a time, has probably fermented a long time ago.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
Did you ever think of reading before spouting off?
Can you even read?
If so, read this:

"Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
Did you ever think of doing any reading before spouting off?
"Water is a less often considered issue when it comes to grazing. Cattle consume 10-15 gallons of water a day, and it takes 360 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. That means that on average, 1 million head of cattle will consume 12.5 million gallons of water a day. One must question whether this is a good allocation of resources in an arid environment.

The entire West (which includes everything west of the Mississippi) exists in what is called 'water deficit'. What this means is that the potential water loss due to evaporation is greater than the amount of average annual rainfall. This is not a problem in the East, where a water surplus exists. But in the West, any water removed from the system is essentially "mined," meaning that it will not get replaced (or will get replaced very slowly).

In the Ogalala aquifer in the Midwest, for example, the water table of the aquifer has declined severely in the last hundred or so years. When the farmers in that area take the last drop of water out of the Ogalala (which should happen within the next 50-75 years if memory serves) there will be no more groundwater for any activity there. Unless water is diverted over land from the East or Canada, all of that farm land will be useless. The same holds true for all of the West. So when large amounts of cattle were/are added to the West, the cattle takes away water from streams, lakes, and human consumption".
http://www.thebeckoning.com/environment/cattle/resource.html

Keep reading, if you can:

Livestock production, which includes the irrigation of livestock feed crops, accounts for the greatest consumption of water in the West. Such a water-intensive industry is poorly suited to the arid West. Dewatering of rivers and groundwater pumping for irrigation is a major cause of species decline throughout the region, and water development for agriculture is costly to taxpayers.

When people think of California and water, they often imagine sprawling cities dotted liberally with swimming pools and watered lawns; legions of vain auto owners washing their SUVs, sports cars, and minivans; and endless acres of verdant golf courses - all sucking down rivers both near and far. This image is partly correct - rivers are going dry. But the major reason is not direct consumption by humans - urbanites running sprinklers on their front yards and the like. In California, the major user of water is agriculture, and within agriculture, the thirstiest commodity is the cow.

Overall, agriculture accounts for 83 percent of all water used in California. It's true that California grows the majority of America's fruits and vegetables, so liberal use of water by its agricultural sector would not be unexpected. However, few people would suspect that growing feed for cattle is the predominant agricultural use of water in California. In 1997, 1.7 million acres of the state were planted to alfalfa alone. Irrigated pasture and hayfields consume more water than any other single crop in California - more than a third of all irrigation water. 1 Together, alfalfa and hay and pasturage account for approximately half of all water used in the state.
Cows are poorly adapted to arid environments. They are profligate consumers of water. Beef production demands an estimated 3,430 gallons of water just to produce one steak! 7 Most western rangelands simply don't provide enough forage alone - because the climate is too dry - to run livestock economically. Supplemental feed and irrigated pasture are also needed. Many of the ecological and health impacts of livestock production in the West are associated with the use and abuse of water: the livestock industry alters water quantity and quality and water flow regimes."




http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_guzzling_water.htm

Unlike the crap you just posted, I am providing links and proof, not that it would matter to someone as thoughtless as yourself.