Originally posted by EladarSo, you're unwilling to speculate that, instead of 24 billion metric tons of CO2,
But as I said earlier, the only way we'll know when there is too much CO2 and the earth will continue to get hotter is to experience that amount of CO2.
if we produced 240 billion metric tons, we'd have an insurmountable problem?
That is, you appear only willing to accept data after the fact, not make
predictions based on what can reasonably be calculated.
Ironically, you're making a de facto prediction that the earth will be able to
take care of herself with respect to humankind's CO2 production.
Am I correct in my understanding of your contradictory position, or am I
missing something?
Nemesio
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Here is something I posted on a non-RHP forum in response to the subject. Names have been deleted:
XXX wrote:
here's a thought.
can you prove that global warming isn't just another of earths many cycles? I don't think so, humans have not been Recording history long enough.
Badwater wrote:
Can I prove that beyond the shadow of doubt? No, but I don't think that's necessary. The converse of that, to me, is to suggest that the enormous release of fossil fuel byproduct into the atmosphere will not have a measurable effect, or that the increase in global temperature is somehow a mysterious coincidence with the human caused introduction of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In balancing the information available to me and making an educated guess, I fall on the global-warming-is-a-human-contributed-problem-and-must-be-addressed side of the issue. Somehow, something can and must be done.
At one point in this thread, **** made an assertion about cows being the major contributor of greenhouse gases. I think he meant methane and if I recall correctly it is termites, and not cows, the are the leading cause of methane release (into the atmosphere). But let us assume that he is correct: if it is cows then are they technically responsible? Or is it because humans raise vast numbers of cows? I think the global warming debate takes on plenty of gray areas on both sides. If you want to get technical to the nth degree then by all means spin your gears. I personally am ok with saying, in and of myself, "There is a huge problem where humans are likely a major contributor and humans can have a significant impact on reversing that imbalance that they are likely a major contributor to." Or any similar such assertion.
See, I think a means of energy that has a dangerous byproduct, or a byproduct that is dangerous given sufficient level, is not the way to be going. Any of the gases in our atmosphere are not dangerous at levels that differ given the gas in question; but at some proportional level they do become dangerous. Carbon dioxide, to a point, is not dangerous; but if it's artificially introduced in amounts that significantly raise its proportion to other gases then it's dangerous. There's a point where if there is too much oxygen in the atmosphere then fires would rage uncontrollably. Nuclear energy has a very dangerous byproduct in very small amounts, so that's also not the 'clean' energy source that anyone who would spew such nonsense might purport.
But if nothing else - and this is the kicker when I hear people like YYYYYY talking - our reliance on fossil fuels is inherently dangerous to the security of our country. We don't have enough fossil fuel to meet our demand, and our politicians seem to not care about putting the security of our nation at risk. It crosses party lines and the branches of government; they refuse to do what is right. We are actively making excuses to stay with our addiction to oil rather than foster energy independence by dialing down our oil usage and the emissions they generate. We are ignoring economic opportunity in devising clean(er) methods of meeting our energy demands, ways that won't pollute and that we can generate without relying on anyone else.
So not only are we doing right by our planet in recognizing our part in global warming and doing something about it, but this is a golden opportunity to establish energy independence and deal with the real security issues that our reliance confronts us with. At some point we'll rationalize painting ourselves into a corner but it will still be the same corner with unpleasant consequences.
Originally posted by EladarThen you would be with the large camp of people who would do nothing until it was too late.
[b]What observable or measurable evidence would compel you to acknowledge
that man is having an significant negative effect on the climate?
I've already answered this question, but I'll do it again. When the earth is in a cooling cycle (as noted in the link I provided earlier) but the global temp continues to go up, then I'll believe the hype.
...[text shortened]... ntinued warming, even though we were in a cooling cycle, then I'd say it was because of man.[/b]
BTW, something is happening in your favor: The solar wind is at a lower temp than at any time in the last 50 years. Whether that continues or not is yet to be seen but it does mean the upper atmosphere at least will be cooler, they mentioned debris in orbit will then have less drag and therefore will spend more time in orbit and be more of a threat to space travelers and satellites for a longer period of time than normal. It might have a cooling effect on the weather if it continues for years but that is yet to be determined.
Originally posted by EladarI don't know if the amounts of CO2 we are producing today would ever be enough to create a problem.
I don't know if the amounts of CO2 we are producing today would ever be enough to create a problem.
Volcanoes can produce huge amounts of CO2 that go far beyond what we dump into the atmosphere yet the earth survives volcanoes. The amount of CO2 that gets dumped into the atmosphere from natural sources far outweighs what man dumps into the atmosphere. ...[text shortened]... situation. In other words, there is no tipping point at which the world will come to an end.
Define problem?, for the planet or for us to continue on with the lifestyle we've created for ourselves?
Since plants are one of the major CO2 cleaning mechanisms and a warming planet means a greener planet it seems reasonable to me that the earth's cycle can handle the situation
So the fact that were increasing dramatically atmospheric carbon output AND destroying most of the worlds largest carbon sinks in the name of burgers at the same time doesn't seem disruptive to "earth's cycle" to you?
I don't know about the rest of you but I certainly am not too curious to see what happens when we temporarily derail the climate cycles and the earths natural systems have to do something extreme to correct it......
In other words, there is no tipping point at which the world will come to an end.
You know your probably right, no amount of CO2 is going to end the planets existence, that would take the expansion of the sun, or a really really big lump of Iron hitting it.
However increasing CO2 will affect people, in a rather drastic manner I suspect if we don't kerb our enthusiasm for making a mess at least a little.
Its not the planet that needs saving its us and the way we live.....
Originally posted by NemesioI'm shocked that Eleadar didn't have an answer to this question. Just shocked.
So, you're unwilling to speculate that, instead of 24 billion metric tons of CO2,
if we produced 240 billion metric tons, we'd have an insurmountable problem?
That is, you appear only willing to accept data after the fact, not make
predictions based on what can reasonably be calculated.
Ironically, you're making a de facto prediction that t ...[text shortened]... in my understanding of your contradictory position, or am I
missing something?
Nemesio
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioNice targeted bumping... I'd forgotten about this one.... I bet he's got noting to say.... Actually (s)he's been inactive of late, maybe had a change of heart and joined the sea Shepards, or some left wing extremists in central America perhaps in a fit of concern for the state of the world. Or possibly just got taken back to the room with the padded walls....
I'm shocked that Eleadar didn't have an answer to this question. Just shocked.
Nemesio
Originally posted by EladarSure, 10 pages for world peace ... 10 pages for world hunger ... 10 pages for cancer, AIDS, syphilis, congenital idiocy ... 10 pages for people who drive bad ... 10 pages for Bono ... Thank you.
No, I'm still here. I've just said everything I've had to say. There's nothing more to say. How many pages do I really need to reply? 10 pages is more than enough for any topic.
Originally posted by EladarInteresting that, when posed with a hypothetical question, you suddenly have nothing more to say.
No, I'm still here. I've just said everything I've had to say. There's nothing more to say. How many pages do I really need to reply? 10 pages is more than enough for any topic.
That is, it is manifestly true that, at some point, CO2 production would have a deleterious affect on
the environment. Yet, when asked for your opinion on what that point would be, you become silent.
That is, you like empirical evidence -- we all do. But you seem to eschew the inductive abilities of
science.
Why is that?
Nemesio
For anyone interested in this issue, I recommend you watch the documental "an inconvenient truth" by Al Gore. It explains most of these phenomena in a way that's easy to understand for any type of viewer.[/b]The video An Inconvenient truth was inaccurate in many of it's facts.
Originally posted by EladarIn fact, you didn't answer it. You see: you have the opportunity to deviate from
I've already answered it. Circles and circles and ever more circles. Answer the same question again, and again and again. Classic internet arguing tactic.
going in circles by answering questions posed to you. But instead, you dance,
dance, dance.
The questions were:
So, you're unwilling to speculate that, instead of 24 billion metric tons of CO2,
if we produced 240 billion metric tons, we'd have an insurmountable problem?
That is, you appear only willing to accept data after the fact, not make
predictions based on what can reasonably be calculated.
Where is your answer to this?
and:
Ironically, you're making a de facto prediction that the earth will be able to
take care of herself with respect to humankind's CO2 production.
Am I correct in my understanding of your contradictory position, or am I
missing something?
Hmm?
You make predictions about the earth's capacity to tolerate the CO2 produced
by humans. What do you base this on?
Nemesio
Originally posted by CalJustSadly, there are many in America that truly think that despite dumping millions of tons of industrial and automotive waste into the air, this has no effect on global warming. These are the same mentally challanged people who worship the political party of Ronald Regan who proudly stated that "trees cause air pollution". This sad group illustrates the old saying that you really can fool some of the people ALL of the time!! 😏
I read in Time mag recently that Sarah Palin does not believe GW is manmade (or womanmade).
Is this a view widely held in the US?
Will this affect the US joining a post-Kyoto UNFCCC initiative? And does it support Sonono's view that anti-GW efforts will "undermine the American way of life"?
Just wondering...
CJ
Originally posted by bill718Just like your religion.
Sadly, there are many in America that truly think that despite dumping millions of tons of industrial and automotive waste into the air, this has no effect on global warming. These are the same mentally challanged people who worship the political party of Ronald Regan who proudly stated that "trees cause air pollution". This sad group illustrates the old saying that you really can fool some of the people ALL of the time!! 😏