3 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainIf the temperature keeps rising then, yes, eventually, in the long run, we won't be able to live on the planet.
Uninhabitable???
There is no scientific evidence to suggest rising CO2 levels will ever result in the planet becoming uninhabitable. I'm sure a billion years ago CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.
Previously, natural causes have caused both global warming and global cooling. That was because the natural system was basically stable; temperatures rose and fell around a roughly constant mean. Now, artificial additions of greenhouse gas are inexorably increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and so the system is no longer stable. Thus, the trend in the future will be upwards. Unless we find a way of reducing the concentration of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere, this trend will continue. Why is this difficult to understand?
Your argument is like saying that because it's warmer in your living room at midday when the sun's shining through the window than at midnight when it's dark, therefore your central heating doesn't make a difference to the overall temperature.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThe article says that solar output is only 0.015 per cent lower than during the previous lull. That is not as much as it could be. The article also goes on to say we could go into another mini ice age. If that is the case we might want to do nothing.
But see recent article on solar output and sunspots in New Scientist no. 2764, suggesting something unusual is happening inside the sun and that output may in fact be abnormally low of late.
I say we should wait for the solar cycle to complete before we panic and make rash decisions like implementing carbon taxes which would delay economic recovery.
Originally posted by TeinosukeIt is impossible to extract and burn enough fossil fuels to make the planet uninhabitable. Your claim is absolutely ridiculous.
If the temperature keeps rising then, yes, eventually, in the long run, we won't be able to live on the planet.
Previously, natural causes have caused both global warming and global cooling. That was because the natural system was basically stable; temperatures rose and fell around a roughly constant mean. Now, artificial additions of greenhouse gas are ...[text shortened]... dark, therefore your central heating doesn't make a difference to the overall temperature.
Co2 is a plant nutrient, yet some claim it is a pollutant. We all exhale Co2, so does that mean we are pollutants? Co2 is not a pollutant at all. Some people can be so dense!
I am tired of hearing these dumb claims by irrational pro environmentalists with a chicken little mentality. Things are not nearly that bad.
Originally posted by Metal BrainIt would be hilariously ironic if we did manage to get CO2 production under control and then found ourselves facing re-glaciation! Of course, from a geological viewpoint, we are still in an ice age, albeit an interstadial thereof.
The article says that solar output is only 0.015 per cent lower than during the previous lull. That is not as much as it could be. The article also goes on to say we could go into another mini ice age. If that is the case we might want to do nothing.
I say we should wait for the solar cycle to complete before we panic and make rash decisions like implementing carbon taxes which would delay economic recovery.
Originally posted by Metal BrainWell, Venus has an atmosphere of 96% CO2 and the plants there don't seem well-nutrient-ed. As far as the semantic argument, here's something from the Weather Underground:
It is impossible to extract and burn enough fossil fuels to make the planet uninhabitable. Your claim is absolutely ridiculous.
Co2 is a plant nutrient, yet some claim it is a pollutant. We all exhale Co2, so does that mean we are pollutants? Co2 is not a pollutant at all. Some people can be so dense!
I am tired of hearing these dumb claims by irrational pro environmentalists with a chicken little mentality. Things are not nearly that bad.
Is Carbon Dioxide a pollutant?
The fossil fuel industry points out in their ads that carbon dioxide it essential for both plant life and human life. Is it wrong, then, to label carbon dioxide as a pollutant? The definition of pollution in Webster's dictionary is "to make physically impure or unclean: Befoul, dirty." By that definition, carbon dioxide is not pollution. However, Webster's also has the definition: "to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste." Carbon dioxide is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion, so can be classified as man-made waste. One can also make the case that carbon dioxide is contaminating the environment, since increased CO2 from burning fossil fuels has already harmed sea life. Carbon dioxide, when dissolved in sea water, is deadly to shell-building microorganisms that form an important part of the food chain in some cold ocean regions. The extra CO2 lowers the pH and make the water too acidic for these organisms to build their shells. As I reported in my blog on Acidifying the Oceans, the observed increase in acidity of 0.1 pH units during the past century due to fossil fuel burning, and expected continued acidification in the coming decades, could cause a massive die off of marine life and collapse of the food chain in these ocean areas. Based on these arguments, the fossil fuel industry's slogan, "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life!" could just as truthfully be phrased, "Carbon dioxide. We call it pollution, and we call it death." One need only look at our sister planet, Venus, to see that too much "life" can be a bad thing. There, an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide has created a hellish greenhouse effect. The temperatures of 860 F at the surface are hot enough to melt lead. There's not too much life there!
http://www.wunderground.com/education/cei.asp
Originally posted by Metal BrainThere could be other reasons for changes in temperature than just solar activity or CO2. The climate is a chaotic system and so will show temperature fluctuations even when external parameters are (approximately) constant.
Sunspot activity has been observed during the mini ice age.
Are you saying that CO2 caused the medieval warm period?
There is some middle ground where climate sceptics and global warming alarmists meet - everyone (except idiots) recognize that natural resources run out and we need to change our economy to a sustainable one. So why not focus on sustainable energy rather than greenhouse gases? If we produce our energy sustainably - which we need to do anyway, global warming or not - there are no CO2 emissions.
Originally posted by Metal BrainIt's a worst-case scenario, but not ridiculous. Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels today, the temperature would keep rising, at least for a while. Why? Because the present concentration of CO2 is higher than the level at which the earth's temperature is stable. The problem is not just that we might make the temperature rise by burning more fossil fuel. It's also about the fact that the fossil fuel we've already burnt has disrupted the stability of the system, so the trend is temperature is now likely to keep heading up. In other words, even if we stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow, there will some rise in temperature until the excess carbon dioxide has broken down. If we keep burning fossil fuels, then the temperature will keep rising.
It is impossible to extract and burn enough fossil fuels to make the planet uninhabitable. Your claim is absolutely ridiculous.
It's also about feedback effects; eg, a relatively small increase in temperature will melt the Siberian permafrost, which will release methane (another greenhouse gas) from the peat below. This might lead to runaway global warming, that could change the earth quite quickly into another Venus.
These are worst-case scenarios, of course. Scientists dispute the extent of the threat of global warming. Things might work out OK; we might come up with a technological fix; solar variation may turn out to be a bigger factor than we thought. But as I said at the beginning of this thread, we're taking very extensive precautions against terrorism, precisely because of the worst-case scenario; we know how terrible the worst case could be. It's the same with global warming. It would be irresponsible not to respond to the possibility of catastrophe.
Originally posted by no1marauderDid you overlook the fact that Venus is closer to the sun? How about the sulfuric acid clouds and the lack of a magnetic field leaving it unprotected from deadly cosmic rays? I can't believe you would use Venus as an example. Poor comparison!
Well, Venus has an atmosphere of 96% CO2 and the plants there don't seem well-nutrient-ed. As far as the semantic argument, here's something from the Weather Underground:
Is Carbon Dioxide a pollutant?
The fossil fuel industry points out in their ads that carbon dioxide it essential for both plant life and human life. Is it wrong, the ...[text shortened]... here's not too much life there!
http://www.wunderground.com/education/cei.asp
This planet will never have an atmosphere of 96% CO2 unless all plant life dies. You can suffocate in CO2 but that is from lack of oxygen. The same would happen with nitrogen but it is not a pollutant, our atmosphere is mostly nitrogen!
Do you want to argue that we exhale a pollutant simply by breathing? That plants need a pollutant to survive?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI can agree with you somewhat here.
There could be other reasons for changes in temperature than just solar activity or CO2. The climate is a chaotic system and so will show temperature fluctuations even when external parameters are (approximately) constant.
There is some middle ground where climate sceptics and global warming alarmists meet - everyone (except idiots) recognize that na ...[text shortened]... gy sustainably - which we need to do anyway, global warming or not - there are no CO2 emissions.
I do think we should conserve fossil fuels for the next generation, but I think people are misguided and even foolish for supporting carbon taxes.
The fossil fuel that releases the most carbon when burned is coal. The fossil fuel that releases the least carbon is natural gas, and that would seem to make natural gas the fuel of choice for automobiles to those concerned with the man made theory. If that is what you want write your congressmen and tell them you support the Pickens Plan, not carbon taxes. At the very least, insist any new carbon taxes fund the Pickens Plan and strict efficiency standards and absolutely nothing else. But then again, natural gas is sometimes extracted using what is called "Fracking" and can contaminate the water table. Environmentalists would have a problem with it and I would too. Not my water! I am very much against fracking.
I personally would suggest strict efficiency standards, especially for electricity since most of it is generated by burning coal. Refrigerators and freezers should get most of the focus since they use more electricity than any other home appliance. Manufacturing them to work kind of like geothermal would save a great deal of electricity. That is by far the most pragmatic method of conservation. I am all for conserving fossil fuels for the next generation but I think carbon taxes are a horrible idea with the economy the way it is. I believe those that support carbon taxes are well meaning people who are very misguided. If you don't know where those taxes will go, you should make it a priority to find out before supporting a tax that will slow economic recovery.
Originally posted by Metal BrainBesides being an ill-informed fanatic, you also seem to not be able to pick up nuances. The Venus comparison is somewhat tongue in cheek.
Did you overlook the fact that Venus is closer to the sun? How about the sulfuric acid clouds and the lack of a magnetic field leaving it unprotected from deadly cosmic rays? I can't believe you would use Venus as an example. Poor comparison!
This planet will never have an atmosphere of 96% CO2 unless all plant life dies. You can suffocate in CO2 but ...[text shortened]... argue that we exhale a pollutant simply by breathing? That plants need a pollutant to survive?
The semantic argument about "pollutants" is worthless. As the WU site pointed out there's a perfectly logical rationale for CO2 to be considered a "pollutant" i.e.
[pollute] "to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste." Carbon dioxide is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion, so can be classified as man-made waste. One can also make the case that carbon dioxide is contaminating the environment, since increased CO2 from burning fossil fuels has already harmed sea life.
The point being that adding too much of a substance to any ecosystem is "polluting" it unless you think taking a dump in a city's water supply isn't "polluting" it (plants can use those nutrients too).
Originally posted by TeinosukeI guess we will have to agree to disagree.
It's a worst-case scenario, but not ridiculous. Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels today, the temperature would keep rising, at least for a while. Why? Because the present concentration of CO2 is higher than the level at which the earth's temperature is stable. The problem is not just that we might make the temperature rise by burning more fossil ...[text shortened]... obal warming. It would be irresponsible not to respond to the possibility of catastrophe.
2/3 of all petroleum is non recoverable. Some day that may change but I think it is fair to say that 1/2 will never be extracted and burned. The same is probably true of all fossil fuels. I don't see your worst case scenario ever happening.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat website you provided is not credible.
Besides being an ill-informed fanatic, you also seem to not be able to pick up nuances. The Venus comparison is somewhat tongue in cheek.
The semantic argument about "pollutants" is worthless. As the WU site pointed out there's a perfectly logical rationale for CO2 to be considered a "pollutant" i.e.
[pollute] "to contaminate (an envir ...[text shortened]... in a city's water supply isn't "polluting" it (plants can use those nutrients too).
Show me something better.