Prime-Evil

Computer models are not neccessary to identify the problem. Computer models are only neccessary to investigate the problem. The problem is simply that CO2 levels are too high, and that CO2 levels increase with deforestation and fossil fuel burning. The practical question is: How much deforestation and fossil fuel burning should be permitted while the problem is investigated?

That is what I am curious about. Historical levels of biomass. I think normally towards the end of an interglacial period you would have more biomass than we have, and that would drive CO2 levels down and lead to a long slow decent into another ice age. I think it is the combination of deforestation, soil depletion, and fossil fuel burning that is causing CO2 levels to rise so high. In Northern forests at least, before we started logging the forest were less dry, and so they were less susceptible to forest fires. Today, if we leave to much residue after logging it dries out and causes fires. If we don't leave residue the soil gets depleted faster, so we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. I think all the forests of North America are being managed to intensively. This too must change.

I am not sure that humans are that much of an exception to the rule. If you include things like make-up and high heels, you should also include luxury cars and sneakers. You could separate out items that are recieved as gifts, or have the appearance of gifts, but that can also be part of the appeal. Males and females are both naturally seductive and provocative, sometimes in different ways, but often by using methods normally associated with the other. It is notable that moderation and frugality is attractive to neither males or females, unless done in a very sly and seductive way, implying an underlying abundance of sexuality and excess. Usually however, this ploy is about as subtle as a baseball bat. Modesty and moderation are rarely effective when they are genuine. Sex sells. Whatever sells, is sex. Like peacock plumage, sports cars are attractive because they are wasteful, not because they are functional or efficient. Even hybrids are mostly plumage. They get somewhat better fuel economy, but are still overpowered wastefully expensive inappropriate technology. Thus, they are attractive. We are so doomed. .

So when is it's Birthday?

http://www.english-wine.com/vineyards.html

I understand it was relatively cold ~500AD I understand it was relatively warm ~1000AD I understand it was relatively cold ~1500AD I understand it was relatively warm ~2000AD But extra-ordinary climate change due to extra-ordinary CO2 levels has really just begun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Give it time. You ain't seen nothing yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux-2.png

History repeats itself, but it never repeats itself exactly. Two things which are the same, like years, or ice ages, are not the same. In the face of uncertainty we should err on the side of caution. Aristotle also teaches us we should lean away from our natural dendencies. He offered a third bit of advice in such matters, but I cannot recall what it was. I have never understood skepticism to be an argument for recklessness. .

Somethings are more harmful than beneficial. Somethings are more beneficial than harmful. Should we be more sceptical of the harm of polution, or the need for so much of it? Perhaps the best example of this is lawn care, but there are many many others. Personally, I have grown sceptical of anyone who tries to sell me anything, including scepticism. .

What I mean is if you broaden your definition of myth, and consider it from a psychological and sociological perspective, you may find that you do believe in many myths, if only on a sub conscious or subverted level. Otherwise how do you get up in the morning, or sleep at night? I think science is the process of uncovering these myths and finding more useful understandings of nature. Some myths you can also learn to live with, because they can be comforting, and don't really interfere with your science any more than a warm cup of tea or a walk in the woods. In fact, they can even be helpful. Getting married and having children is a great way to discover myths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth "Mythology, mythography, or folkloristics. In these academic fields, a myth (mythos) is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form. The active beings in myths are generally gods and heroes. Myths take place before time, before history begins. In saying that a myth is a sacred narrative, what is meant is that a myth is believed to be true by people who attach religious or spiritual significance to it. Use of the term by scholars does not imply that the narrative is either true or false. See also legend and tale." http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/myth Main Entry: myth Pronunciation: 'mith Function: noun Etymology: Greek mythos 1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY 2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion 3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence 4 : the whole body of myths p.s. The notion that we can't both be right is something of a myth. All generalizations ultimately fail, but are still useful. .

I would agree that the thing does not neccessarily speak for itself. You could argue that all religions have hidden agendas almost by definition, but even this assertion requires a leap into absurdity. For that matter, even pure science requires some abstract leaps of faith. Otherwise we would never get anywhere, or go insane, or as in my case, both.. One of the things that turns me off many religious zealots is what they say about nature. I can understand being against worshipping snakes and sacrificing virgin toads and stuff, but what's wrong with a simple walk in the woods. Some zealots just need to get out more. . p.s. My apologies to any traditional snake and toad cultures I may be ignorant of. .

I would agree that the thing does not neccessarily speak for itself. You could argue that all religions have hidden agendas almost by definition, but even this assertion requires a leap into absurdity. For that matter, even pure science requires some abstract leaps of faith. Otherwise we would never get anywhere, or go insane, or as in my case, both..

The trouble with electric is to get good charging and discharging efficiency you need lots of batteries, and batteries add weight which means you need more power for the same performance, which means you need more batteries. It's a trade-off. You end up 90% x 90% x 60% at best. That is for AC/DC + Charging + Discharging. You can add about another 75% because of wieght of batteries. Also it usually takes fossil fuels to make electricity, so another 33%. 90% x 90% x 60% x 75% x 33% ~12% So you can do just as well, or better, with a 10-20 hp diesel. But electric is nice and quiet for short distances. Also, the solar panels avoid a lot of innefficiency. Again, keep the weight down, and the HP down. Scooters are very efficient for one passenger. At some point a bicycle is even better. At some point, walking is best. .

There are many good religions and Islam is only one of them. As with most things in life, it is best to learn to be moderate. To do this it is best to listen to and observe the moderate. Religion is for the most part just a cultural thing anyhow. Ignore the zealots. Better to talk a walk in the woods. Honour thy Mother and thy Father. Consider the End. Fear the Land. .

92% isn't possible, thermodynamically speaking. 40% would be very good. 20% would be a considerable improvement good if you could get it over a wide power range. The focus should be on being efficient at 5-10HP while still being capable of 60-80HP.

Yeah. We have a lot of woods here and I like to do a lot of hiking. Most of New Brunsick has been logged several times over and is used mostly for cheap fibre, so I often wonder if there is still enough to live off compared to 200 years ago. Gone is the forest primaeval, but they still find a really old stunted tree here or there. The logging has greatly increased the white-tail deer population, but the woodland caribou went extinct about 100 years ago. The Moose population is still healthy as we are doing a better job of protecting wetlands. The Mi'kmaq were more of a Maritime people than the other Abenaki tribes. In the past 400 years there is much less marine life - walrus, seals, whales, cod, salmon. So it's hard to imagine what they lived on if you only look at what is left of our natural habitat. There is still some abundance, but it is different, and I think it is less in total. I am not sure how much less. Half maybe. It is still very abundant however, even as it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Brunswick The Black Bear is an interesting example of how we might live if we were out there. In all of New Brunswick, (28,500 sq.mi.) we have about 25 people, 3 deer, 1 moose, and 0.5 bear per square mile. People are mostly in small cities of course. It is interesting when I go hiking to think that there are bears out there and they see or smell me, but I never see them. Of course many of them are fed donuts twice a year by 'guides' in preparation for the Spring and Fall bear hunt. I suspect we have two somewhat distinct bear populations now, those that still live in the wild, and those that are more or less 'farmed'. Anyhow, it might be a while before the Atlantic Salmon return to our rivers. They were coming back for a while after we fixed up a lot of their streams but aquaculture and overfishing here and off Greenland and Iceland seems to have taken its toll. They are 'farmed' now also. Doesn't seem right. Sure it still taste good, but that's not always the point is it? We start by taking natures abundance and then we are turning nature into farms, and then farms into factories. Where are we going with all this progress? How will we define 'nature' in 100 years? .

Wasn't there a real problem with birds, particularly birds of prey, because of all the DDT and other spraying? Also, isn't there a problem that every generation we have a different perception of what is natural habitat? Every generation we have less natural habitat, and what we do have has less biomass, less biodiversity, and more contamination. But we always grow up thinking everything is normal. How will we ever know when things are no longer normal?. The other question has to be what we are really getting in return for all this. Some of it is very good, but most of it does not seem neccessary. .

SkepticLance,Thanks. I think that answers those questions but leaves one other. If we use the ratio of human biomass vs total above and below ground forest and wetland biomass as a measure of our vulnerability, how much higher can the human population go, and how much lower can the forest biomass go, before things get 'too risky'?

Interesting. I have also heard forests desribed as kidneys. But what is the other lung? Do you mean the oceans or the remaining forests and wetlands? The thing about forests and wetlands, as opposed to oceans and other systems, is that they store an aweful lot of biomass and contain an aweful lot of biodiversity. I am not sure how well we are really doing on just one lung, but I think that is a very good description. If we get sick, for example, I think we would be better off with two lungs.

I thought bass was a fish. Why is it spelled bass if it is pronounced base? That always bugged me. I have another fun question, perhaps less picky. I know the type of instrument "bass" is a noun. But when you are speaking of the range of frequency, is that a noun, or a noun used as an adjective, or an adjective in its own right, or something ambiguously in between? Can it also be used as an adverb, as in play that a little more bass?

It's still possible to eat these plants isn't it? EDIT - I guess they are dried first, and used more as a medicine than a food. http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/medicinal/bkq00s07.html .

I wonder if part of the stimulation is that it simulates ant feet?.