Why all this human versus nature talk in a lot answers to Global Warming questions?

Question

A few articles about mercury:

http://www.radiochemistry.org/periodictable/elements/80.html

http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele080.html

What I find interesting is that the ancient Eygptians used it to. And I recall my mom cautioning me about being careful when using an old glass thermometer which had a small amount of mercury in it. So was it Ancient man that was careless with this liquid metal or modern man?

I understand that if something isn't naturally in an environment in the first place it could be detrimental to things already living in that enviroment if something new is introduced, but isn't everything we create and use a part of nature?

Answer 1

Well this question seems like a philosophical one along the lines of 'since humans are part of nature, isn't everything we do natural?'.

To that I answer it's just an issue of semantics.  I don't really care if what we do is 'natural' or not.  If you want to argue that it's natural to drop an atomic bomb, go right ahead.  But I'll still argue that it's a bad idea.

With regards to global warming, there used to be a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere millions of years ago when the planet was much hotter.  Then over millions of years, various life forms absorbed much of it, died, decomposed, and fossilized, trapping the carbon.  Now suddenly we're digging up those fossil fuels and returning the carbon to the atmosphere.  If you want to call it natural - be my guest.  But it's still a bad idea.

Answer 2

Well it seems only one person even tried to answer your question in any fashion. To start with mercury is frequently found in the process of mining lead, silver and some other metals. It is now and historically been used in hundreds of scientific and industrial processes such as recovery of metallic gold from a waste black powder frequently found in gold mines. Because most people including the Indian’s of America used the substance for thousands of years it would of course leach into the rivers and oceans of the world over time.

Also because many of these metal deposits were originally exposed for rain to act on them mercury has probably been leaching into rivers and oceans for millions of years before men ever discovered ways in which to use this liquid mineral. Do a Google and discover just how many processes this mineral is used in, did you know that women would never have had mirrors to check themselves in if it had not been for mercury, it provides the silvery reflective surface of the mirror.

Answer 3

I don't know, since I don't do it.

My concern always has been focused on the harm we will do TO OURSELVES, if we don't do something about global warming.

Surely you've read the explanations here of why the CO2 we breath, and other natural sources, is not a problem, and CO2 from burning fossil fuels is?  Two versions for you, short and long:

The CO2 we breath was recently taken out of the air by plants, and so it's no big deal to put it back.  Burning fossil fuels releases, in a VERY short time, CO2 the plants pulled from the air over a period of millions of years.  Big deal.  Long version:

There are a great many natural sources and sinks for carbon dioxide.  But the present global warming is (mostly) the result of man made CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

There is a natural "carbon cycle" that recycles CO2.  But it's a delicate balance and we're messing it up.

Look at this graph.

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/qu...

The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels. The scientists can actually show that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels by using "isotopic ratios" to identify that CO2.  The natural carbon cycle buried carbon in fossil fuels over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast.  That's a problem.

Man is upsetting the balance of nature.  We need to fix that.

And those against CFLs need to remove every other fluorescent bulb in their house.  The long ones contain 2-10 times as much mercury as a CFL, and are MUCH easier to break.

Including the fluorescent bulb they're likely staring at right now.

EDIT - If the data has that strong a trend for at least 5 years, sure.  But I'd bet big bucks, and give you odds, that that won't happen.

No sensible world leader will bet the future welfare of his country on that possibility, it's just too remote.  We may only be 95% (low estimate) sure that the mainstream scientific view is right.  But that's plenty enough to take action.  If your doctor said you had a serious disease, and an operation was 95% sure to fix it, you'd have the operation.

Answer 4

Nature does not mean good and artificial does not mean bad (though supernatural does mean non-existent).

OTOH things that are artificial we know we can influence.

The main area where natural comes up with respect to global warming is the claim that it's natural and therefore we can't (or shouldn't) do anything about it.

"And if I were had been alive during WWII and had an advisory role in even developing the Atom Bomb I would have advised against it."

Although you would know Hitler would never get the bomb which they did not know (and even then, it would only be a matter of time once someone did get the bomb, maybe the Soviet Union would've got one early fifties had the US not commenced the Manhattan project).

Answer 5

I don't know.  The mercury used in those cases might be a little different from what's used in certain products today.  Also during the Victorian age, women used to swallow arsenic to make themselves paler--and they didn't realize that their health problems were caused by the arsenic.  The Egyptians probably did some unhealthy things, too.

"Man is upsetting the balance of nature. We need to fix that."

Bob: Then you should be against CFLs (takes 10x more energy to produce and puts mercury and plastic (using oil and which isn't biodegradable) into landfills that regular bulbs don't have)--they're all made in China, too, which is bad for the economy.

Answer 6

The distinction between natural and man made is misguided. What we need to do is evaluate what is harmful, what is of benefit.

In the global warming discussion the argument is whether human burning of fossil fuels is causing most of the recent elevated rate of global warming. This matters only if we can stop global warming by restricting the amount of fossil fuels we burn. If a significant part (note I did not say most of it) or global warming is not being produced by human burning of fossil fuels, then we may not be able to stop global warming progressing on to produce a major ice age.

It matters then to the argument that we MUST STOP global warming if we can not do so by merely reducing burning of fossil fuels. In effect we may need to evaluate other methods, or even give up on the project if we can not find a viable option.