The Earth’s air is getting measurably cleaner and has been for the past ten years or more. This has to do with the West cleaning up its industry and the collapse of Communist economies.
I know this sounds good, but the end result is the decrease of air pollution causes more sunlight to reach the surface, thus contributing to global warming.
Man’s pollution causes global warming. Decreasing pollution causes global warming. We are all doomed.
At least that is the consensus.
Art, here is a primer on what the greenhouse effect is, feel free to point out where the error is.
Certain molecule absorb long wave radiation preferentially over short wave. CO2 and H2O are among these. Radiation from the sun is short wave, it passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the Earth, the earth re-radiates this energy back out as long wave radiation. The long wave is absorbed by the gases in the atmosphere, meaning this energy is effective trapped. There is no cutting edge science here, these are the simple physical properties of these molecules. Increasing the atmospheric concentration of the these gases increases the energy captured by the system.
Dont worry Art buddy, I am here for ya man…give me your address and I will fedex you some AquaNet and Marlboros for Saturday delivery.
I have no problem with the elementary physics you quote here. The problem is with the leap from this simple fact to sweeping conclusions of the future of the world.
By your analysis, not only do we need to reduce CO2, but also water vapor. Now that is going to be a trick.
You could have at least included the implied all other things being equal. All other things are not equal of course. It doesn’t take a lot of thought to conclude that more water vapor means more clouds, thus providing an obvious negative feedback effect.
We are definitely doomed.
Putting your sarcasm and views on global warming to the side for a moment, I must admit, I prefer to breathe cleaner air. Call me a flaming liberal, I guess.
I guess what I don’t understand is the apparent distain for the environment by the right. It’s almost as if they are anti-tree. You would think the hunters (usually republicans) would be pro-environment and you would also think that the religious folks (percieved to be mostly republican) would want to keep God’s creations in tact. But it seems to be the opposite. I have a friend who said after the election, “I can’t wait until they drill Anwar.” I just don’t understand this attitude. I get it when a logger or oil company wants to cut down a forest and drill for natural gas or oil, but I don’t get it when people just want to see natural lands developed for the sake of development. As stated above, why wouldn’t you want cleaner air and water, why wouldn’t you want natural landscapes left in their natural state? I realize there has to be certain amount of development but it would be nice if we could set aside places that were kept off limits forever. I guess now a certain amount of the National Forests are being opened up for developement and I just think it’s sad, it’s wilderness that will be lost forever.
You would think the hunters (usually republicans) would be pro-environment
We are. Hunters, and to a large degree, fishers, are the most successful environmentalists around, because they have tangible, real-world, here-and-now goals. They acheive those goals, over and over. Hunting organizations can claim countless successes in species and habitat restoration, far more successes than most environmental groups. If the larger environmental movement had any sense, or was more concerned with real results than its liberal, hug-a-bunny ideology, it would pull out all the stops to build a real coalition with hunters and fishers. That coalition would be a force to be reckoned with.
you would also think that the religious folks (percieved to be mostly republican) would want to keep God’s creations in tact.
We do, though I think the religious environmental push has been harmed by the same thing that hinders the general environmental movement.** **Contrast the approach taken by the NCCB towards the environment in recent decades, for example, with the approach taken by distributionist, back-to-the-land writers like Chesterton, Belloc, McNabb, and even Tolkein.
I am actually very proud to be a liberal hug-a-bunny type. The liberal hug-a-bunny are simply nicer, more compasionate people.
But I’m sure you’ll call me some limp-wristed wimp for or something else insulting. That seems to be the general theme here.
I am actually very proud to be a liberal hug-a-bunny type. The liberal hug-a-bunny are simply nicer, more compasionate people.
But I’m sure you’ll call me some limp-wristed wimp for or something else insulting.
OK, relax. I usually manage to avoid personal insults, except when I’m dealing with smelly frogs or stupid Canucks. (kidding! just kidding! Still remorseful about the cheap shot at Francois, actually. Sorry again.)
Still, you’re proving my point. You’re proud to be liberal bunny-hugger, cause liberal bunny-huggers are just morally better than those mean, evil, destructive hunters. No way would you lower yourself to work towards a goal with that despicable lot. Nevermind that they actually do care about the environment, and never mind that their goals coincide with your stated goals in a very real way, and never mind that they’ve proven themselves incredibly effective at realizing those goals . . . No, if the hunters are for something, your agin it, on principle.
It’s a damn shame, is what it is.
Nah, I don’t think I’m morally superior to hunters or many other people for that matter. I hope there’s a few out there I’m morally superior to but that’s another discussion. I understand how hunters help the environment. Living in PA it’s the hunters who are a benefit to the deer by keeping their populations at sustainable levels. I just happen to be proud to be an environment and animal lover (and yes, I eat them also). I simply like being in the woods and I like seeing wildlife. I would like to see the wilderness that we have remain intact. I was just pointing out that the conservatives I know appear to have an anti-environment stance. But as usual, as I’ve seen from lurking, as soon as you open yourself up on the site the insults start.
**But as usual, as I’ve seen from lurking, as soon as you open yourself up on the site the insults start. **
OK, what insults? I thought it was a pretty civil discussion.
I assume when you call someone a liberal bunny hugger, that 's not a term for someone you admire.
Maybe I read you wrong but you seem to be a tad sarcastic and condesending. If you’re asking for examples of when the insults start in past conversations on this site, I’ll also assume you’re just joking.
I assume when you call someone a liberal bunny hugger, that 's not a term for someone you admire.
OK, sorry if you took offense. It honestly was not meant as an insult, just shorthand. My point with it was, that all too often mainstream environmental groups disdain to work with hunters not because the hunters don’t share the same legitimate environmental concerns, and not because hunters haven’t proved effective at environmental work, but because the mainstream environmental groups have a simple bias against hunting, and that has been to the detriment of their own stated goals.
I read that article as well. Made perfect sense to me.
Over the last 10 years teh earth has gotten brighter. I.E. is recieveing more light energy thru it’s atomsphere. We “Apparently” did this by cleaning up our atmosphere of “particles” that helped block light. This was illistrated by more polluted countries, India for example, remain dark.
However we have apparently already damaged the ozone and have collected a bit more green house gases than in prior decades.
The expected rise in temp due to green house gases apparently did not happen due to light being blocked by pollutants. Again apparently as we “cleaned up” we got hit with a double wammy because now we have the green house effect coupled with clean air and, again apparently temperatures have risen precipitiously during this “clean up” phase.
As with all “Science” the results are left open to interpretation.
One thing it certainly does point out that I think most miss, is that we can indeed effect global environment…well assuming we had anything to do with it at all.
Point is if we can cool it off by putting crap in the air, and heat it up by taking it out, mostly without trying, seems we are not doomed at all but certainly in charge of our destiny.
~Matt
It just seems like there is not a lot of discussion on how to move this country forward as a benefit to everyone. I think everyone wants clean air, clean water, at least some forest land. But as usual, the discussion becomes a fight. I don’t know why that is. It doesn’t take someone to be a scientist to understand if you introduce a large amount of carbon dioxide to a system (ie. the atmosphere) that the system has to respond in some fashion. But as soon as you mention global warming you’re a liberal tree-hugger. It is unclear how the Earth will react to the added gases over time but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the problem until the problem becomes obvious. It also seems like everyone should see that humans are part of the entire ecosystem along with trees, plants, and other animals and if you remove large portions of the ecosystem the system has to respond or suffer to some degree. If we stay on the path that we’re on eventually the system will suffer; to what degree is debatable and in how much time is also debatable. But to adopt the attitude that we should do nothing and stay on the path of removing wild areas is wrong. An to antagonize environmentalists like the original poster does absolutely no good but diveiding the country further. Sometimes I think people just like to piss in each others Wheaties anf then fight about it.
My comment about the hunters was simply that the hunters I personally know are mostly republican and look at us environmental types like wussies when to me it would seem like we would have the same interest at heart. I don’t know what to say about the religious folks I know. They just seem to have this attitude about the environment that isn’t very friendly to wilderness.
But as usual, the discussion becomes a fight. I don’t know why that is.
My comment about the hunters was simply that the hunters I personally know are mostly republican and look at us environmental types like wussies when to me it would seem like we would have the same interest at heart.
OK, how can we get on the same page?
It seems indicative of the problem, to me, that you started from the assumption that hunters don’t care about the environment. In fact, hunters care a great deal about the environment, and conserving it, and they’ve gone to great lengths to do so. The perception among many hunters, I think it’s safe to say, is that the mainstream environmentalists sneer at us as knuckledraggers, and not only that, but environmentalists would like to see the end of hunting altogether. This despite all the good work that’s been done for the environment by hunters. So after conserving, collectively, millions of acres of habitat, and saving who knows how many species, here you come, and accuse us of being anti-environment because we’re not sufficiently concerned about global warming, and we don’t drive a hybrid. (I don’t mean you personally, I mean you as the environmental movement in general.) Is it any wonder there’s more than a little antipathy going on?
You know that truism, “Think globally, act locally”? The environmentalists say that over and over, but they don’t really seem to act on it. They only work for the Big Solution, the macro-policy, the global answer, the universal fix, and at the same time, put themselves in opposition to those who actually do act locally. They shouldn’t. I submit that if environmentalists really worked at building a partnership with with people like hunters, they’d have far more success on both the local level, and eventually at convincing people that the global fix is something to work for, as well. It’s one thing to say that our dependence on fossil fuel causes global warming, which the environmentalists do over and over again. It’s quite another to say that unrestricted development, and more roads, and more trucks is going to impact the lifestyle of someone who hunts directly, even if not immediately. It’s the difference between telling someone they shouldn’t overeat because it cuts down on their life expectency, and saying to someone that if they gain 10 pounds because of those two bowls of ice cream every night, their race time is going to suffer.
I don’t understand how you could construe anything I said as being anti environment. Additionally, I don’t know who these anti environment people you refer to might be. I don’t think I know anyone that meets that definition.
I just think it is pretty funny that patently good environmental news comes out, and it is spun into bad environmental news. The green lobby can not tolerate the heresy that things are getting better. If people think that, fund raising heads south.
You really need to check your sensitivities, if you can’t find the humor in this whole line of reasoning.
Maybe, and finally, this is starting to happen. If you get the chance/have the inclination, check out an article in a recent issue of Outside Magazine about the economics of non- (or, alternative) development. It’s a good read. I’m sure it’s on the magazine’s website.
I come from a family of hunters/fisherman, and received my first shotgun as gift on my 10th birthday. The divide is cultural, with strong biases on both sides. If this gap can be bridged, and the Sierra Club can work with Ducks Unlimited (or whichever sportsmans’ association), think of the actual progress that could be made.
When I lived in Kansas several years ago, I tried, to a small degree to accomplish this. I was a member of the local chapter of the Sierra Club as well as a local sportsman’s club. Neither was interested in the slightest in working with the other. Each couldn’t get over the others political baggage.
The question should be why is the air getting cleaner?
Is it because of the Clean Air Act, and pressure applied by the EPA and the public? Or is it because of the beneficence of the coal, oil, and power industries and how they just love to spend money on investing in cleaner technologies?
The air is getting cleaner because in a capitalist democracy, the wealth created by society is great so the people, acting both individually and through their elected officials, spend part of that wealth to clean up after themselves.
In China, where you have the opposite form of government, pollution is terrible.