Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Natural Environment
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Natural Environment How Human History has been impacted by the environment, science, nature, geography, weather, and natural phenomena


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 26th, 2015, 06:44 AM   #11

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 8,419

I request interested Historumites to a very thorough survey of the Energy scene in Vaclav Smil's book ' Energy ' subtitled ' A beginner's guide' and published by Oneworld Publications, Oxford , UK. ISBN is 1-85168-452-2 for the Indian edition.
Smil advocates the use of Nuclear Energy in addition to the use of Solar Energy and Wind Energy. He concedes that the consumption of fossil fuels is not altogether avoided in the nuclear energy option because coke is needed to be consumed to make many steel plates required in the construction of the nuclear power plant as also in production of cement for use in the concrete of the construction of containment structures. And cement plants burn coal. Yet he says nuclear plants produce 95 % less CO2 per unit of electricity than the fossil fuel plants.
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 26th, 2015, 07:26 AM   #12

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 8,419

Smil contends that the relative contribution of CO2 to possible global warming has steadily declined and that of the other greenhouse gases generated by human activities increased. He names Methane ( CH 4 ) , Nitrous Oxide ( N2O ), Ozone ( O3 ), and Chlorofluorocarbons ( CFCs ) as the main causes. He says that their relative ability to absorb the outgoing infra-red radiation is much higher.
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Old May 26th, 2015, 07:41 AM   #13

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 8,419

Methane is emitted from landfills ( a common occurence in India, if the landfill is because of the dumping of urban solid / liquid wastes, in fact only a few days ago there was a methane fire in the dumping grounds of the city of Kalyan near Mumbai ), it also leaks from natural gas wells, pipelines, coal mines, and is emitted from paddy fields. also the product of the animals who are ruminating their feeds.
Nitrous Oxide comes from industries, bacteria action on nitrogen fertilisers, from fossil fuel consumption and from industries. CFCs are there because of old style refrigerators, air conditioners. Ozone is present in photo-chemical smog.
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Old May 26th, 2015, 08:13 PM   #14

dkatbena's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: Pilipinas
Posts: 231
climate change- direct effects of increasing human population


The end result of growing human population will be extreme heat and cold in various parts of the planet.Ecology was created to produce life giving effects to all humans and creatures but its destruction caused the implementation of destructive ability of nature in order to control the growing destructive population of humans. In order to bring balance for approaching futures.take care the environment and the environment will be good to you.
dkatbena is offline  
Old May 27th, 2015, 12:19 AM   #15

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 8,419

Quote:
Originally Posted by dkatbena View Post
The end result of growing human population will be extreme heat and cold in various parts of the planet.Ecology was created to produce life giving effects to all humans and creatures but its destruction caused the implementation of destructive ability of nature in order to control the growing destructive population of humans. In order to bring balance for approaching futures.take care the environment and the environment will be good to you.
You have beaten me in respect of this point. You are very right, of course. A reduction in the human population is highly necessary. One child per couple should be our voluntary commitment towards the well being of humanity.

Last edited by rvsakhadeo; May 27th, 2015 at 01:56 AM.
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Old May 27th, 2015, 05:31 AM   #16

Lowell2's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: California
Posts: 6,521

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvsakhadeo View Post
You have beaten me in respect of this point. You are very right, of course. A reduction in the human population is highly necessary. One child per couple should be our voluntary commitment towards the well being of humanity.
or just quit using vaccinations and other modern medicine and let Nature reassert itself. It's always interesting that those demanding that humans should be more natural decline to accept the absolute consequences of applying that in toto to humans. I doubt many people (including myself) who would last that long if they were required to return to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle of humans 30,000 BCE.

And of course, during that time, climate has changed back and forth. An interesting example: The Archaeology News Network: Roadworks on Greek island of Lesvos reveal new remains of fossilised forest
Excavations alongside roadworks for the construction of a new road from Kalloni to Sigrio have yielded new traces of fossilised tree trunks and the remains of an antediluvian forest on the Aegean island of Lesvos.

Among the finds are unprecedented numbers of fossilised tree trunks, both of coniferous and flowering trees (angiosperms) such as oaks, laurels, palms, cypresses and pines. There were also volcanic layers with a large variety of species such as cinammon, coconut palms, palm trees and others that confirm the presence of an extensive sub-tropical forest that was covered by successive and violent volcanic eruptions.
So the climate, as evidenced at Lesvos has switched to a sub tropical and back to a colder (pines) climate. Which is the "correct" one for the planet?

Even those animals threatened by "global warming" (which hasn't been happening for the last 12-18 years) are animals that arose only as adaptions to the preceding ice age -- back when New York, USA was under a glacier. Is that the "correct" climate?

Given that so far not one of the "global warming"/"climate change" models arguing for human caused climate change has shown accuracy if run against historical reality nor has it accounted for the 12-18 year hiatus currently being exhibited, I'm inclined to think that it's another example of human arrogance regarding human importance. The climate will change with or without us. Insisting that it remain static is an arrogance in and of itself.

Having less impact on the planet in terms of numbers and pollution is a worthy goal just as a human philosophy, but a horse is a completely biologically sound transport item (it's 100% biodegradable, has all natural fuel requirements and exhaust. And it's self-replicating). Yet the push is for a "leaf" or a Prius, not some equine as the transportation. The Prius doesn't actually pollute less -- it just pollutes less obviously while stabled in one's garage..
Lowell2 is offline  
Old May 27th, 2015, 06:02 AM   #17

David K's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: California
Posts: 1,150

I keep hearing about "rising sea levels"... well, I can remember back 50 years, and the level of the sea is unchanged (that can be noticed). I lived on the ocean or within a few miles all my life. I go camping on the beach every year to the same beach the past 37 years... the high tide is no higher this year than it was in 1978.

Has the ocean risen? Perhaps, but...

When a high tide is 5-25 feet above low tide, twice a day, is a sea level rise the length of a cigarette really worth the panic? At this "accelerated" rate we are told is happening, we still have hundreds of years before any city streets are flooded daily by the high tide.

What is the goal of climate alarmist? To spread fear? More funding? Hurt capitalism? Punish America? Need for drama? ALL OF THESE???

I think the idea of clean energy is great, and will happen, but not at the expense of destroying people's livelihoods. I see no efforts to stop burning coal or 'dirty coal' in Asia. Here in America we have ghost towns were cities once thrived because of environmentalists getting coal mines shut down.

Since climate changes naturally, and has always... how is it that man is now the blame for change? If you look at the world from space or travel much, you know that cities are just tiny parts of a huge planet. The world is mostly ocean, much of the land is mountains or uninhabited desert... the prairies are grasslands or wheat fields... urban areas are a TINY part of the planet. We have a TINY affect on what Nature is able to do to change climate. Learn to live with the climate, but forget thinking you can change it. That's my opinion!

Last edited by David K; May 27th, 2015 at 06:54 AM.
David K is offline  
Old May 27th, 2015, 06:03 AM   #18

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 8,419

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell2 View Post
or just quit using vaccinations and other modern medicine and let Nature reassert itself. It's always interesting that those demanding that humans should be more natural decline to accept the absolute consequences of applying that in toto to humans. I doubt many people (including myself) who would last that long if they were required to return to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle of humans 30,000 BCE.

And of course, during that time, climate has changed back and forth. An interesting example: The Archaeology News Network: Roadworks on Greek island of Lesvos reveal new remains of fossilised forest
Excavations alongside roadworks for the construction of a new road from Kalloni to Sigrio have yielded new traces of fossilised tree trunks and the remains of an antediluvian forest on the Aegean island of Lesvos.

Among the finds are unprecedented numbers of fossilised tree trunks, both of coniferous and flowering trees (angiosperms) such as oaks, laurels, palms, cypresses and pines. There were also volcanic layers with a large variety of species such as cinammon, coconut palms, palm trees and others that confirm the presence of an extensive sub-tropical forest that was covered by successive and violent volcanic eruptions.
So the climate, as evidenced at Lesvos has switched to a sub tropical and back to a colder (pines) climate. Which is the "correct" one for the planet?

Even those animals threatened by "global warming" (which hasn't been happening for the last 12-18 years) are animals that arose only as adaptions to the preceding ice age -- back when New York, USA was under a glacier. Is that the "correct" climate?

Given that so far not one of the "global warming"/"climate change" models arguing for human caused climate change has shown accuracy if run against historical reality nor has it accounted for the 12-18 year hiatus currently being exhibited, I'm inclined to think that it's another example of human arrogance regarding human importance. The climate will change with or without us. Insisting that it remain static is an arrogance in and of itself.

Having less impact on the planet in terms of numbers and pollution is a worthy goal just as a human philosophy, but a horse is a completely biologically sound transport item (it's 100% biodegradable, has all natural fuel requirements and exhaust. And it's self-replicating). Yet the push is for a "leaf" or a Prius, not some equine as the transportation. The Prius doesn't actually pollute less -- it just pollutes less obviously while stabled in one's garage..
There are no right or wrong climates nor is there any ideal climate. What you have stated here is true in so far as pre-human history of climate is concerned. The violent lava eruptions that destroyed the sub-tropical forests on the Grecian island you cite are truly suggestive of the might of natural forces that have caused climatic changes from ice age to ice age and so on. But we humans also have caused substantial changes in the environment. Even in a micro-environment of a semi-urban area where I live, there is indiscriminate tree cutting, indiscriminate dumping of solid and liquid urban wastes on once grass covered open spaces that the authorities have coolly designated as municipal dumping grounds. Then they put the wastes on fire, causing a most vile smelling smoke to cover huge areas of our once green country supposedly once having a beautiful dry and cool climate. Newer and newer roads and buildings are covering the soil with relatively impermeable layers of concrete or asphalt, thus not allowing the subsoil to get recharged with rainwater and thus causing not only sudden flooding of rivers but a wasteful discharge of precious rainwater into the nearby saline creeks. I am staying here since 1996 and I am noticing the inexorable rise in summer temperatures y/o/y.Human activity is surely adversely affecting the environment, whether decisively or not, one can find out only to one's cost in the coming years and the generations to come may have cause to regret. So what is wrong if our precious fossil fuels are to be used with care with an eye to the future and to switch gradually over to renewable sources of energy ?

Last edited by rvsakhadeo; May 27th, 2015 at 06:06 AM.
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Old May 27th, 2015, 06:06 AM   #19
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 8,545

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvsakhadeo View Post
So what is wrong if our precious fossil fuels are to be used with care with an eye to the future and to switch gradually over to renewable sources of energy ?
Absolutely nothing is wrong with that and it's inevitable in the long run, but the time table should be dictated by economic factors, not political scaremongering.
constantine is offline  
Old May 27th, 2015, 06:29 AM   #20

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 8,419

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
Absolutely nothing is wrong with that and it's inevitable in the long run, but the time table should be dictated by economic factors, not political scaremongering.
Nobody is dragging this issue into the swamps of Politics, as far as I know. Some poster has stated here that there is no effort in Asia regarding avoiding coal burning etc. Let me state here i ) an immense effort is on way in India to start really big on solar energy as well as wind energy. In my state of Maharashtra ( size of France plus ), we are seeing a very large number of modern wind mills coming up pretty fast. ii ) in spite of resistance on account of misunderstandings /doubts caused by Fukushima and Chernobyl, a big push is being given to the erection of Nuclear Power plants. In my state, we are likely to soon see the start of erection of 6 plants each of 1600 megawatts, in a place called Jaitapur in the coastal district of Ratnagiri. The initial designs are being processed between the French firm Areva and our local firm Larsen and Toubro.
But this nuclear power production is not going to see the light of the day till another 4-5 years. Meanwhile a developing country has to burn coal, what else can it do to enable its industry to come up and the employment numbers to rise ?
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Natural Environment

Tags
change, climate, denial, extinction, koch brothers


« About C14 dating | - »

Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Before Climate Change was around... Congo Natural Environment 57 September 26th, 2014 11:27 PM
mpact of climate change on politics Port Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 2 September 22nd, 2014 03:25 PM
Climate Change (% influenced by Man) Congo Natural Environment 713 June 21st, 2013 04:09 PM
climate change c.500 BC ? Widdekind Ancient History 34 March 31st, 2012 03:36 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.