Thinking About Climate Change

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]vroom wrote:
The global warming issue needs a lot more study before we act rashly.

Hahahahaha. Rashly? Bahahahahaha! Yes, indeed, trying to limit our pollution levels is an unwise rash act. Bahahahahaha!

There is nothing wrong with being unwilling to believe in the concept of global warming. However, please don’t try to suggest it is “rash” to think we should limit our creation of pollution.[/quote]

We should limit our production of pollution in all cases, no question. But we shouldn’t make up unscientific reasons to do so. Do we need the global warming boogyman to know that pollution is not a good thing?

The problem is, and you seemed to have totaly missed it, is what is pollution and how do we clean it up? Is C02 pollution? The trees don’t think so. Yet, politically motivated scientists do think so.

So you think we should act. Ok, what shall we do? Maybe we should put a bag over your head to reduce the C02 you breath out because it is causing global scamming (I mean warming)?

No, we stop and/or clean up what we KNOW is pollution, ozone, etc… and stop listening to the medea hype machine.

62

It isn’t the media hype machine that is spreading problems here. It is the fact that 55% of America’s energy comes from coal, and it would not be an easy thing to combat.

Just as you can drink water in a large enough quantity to kill yourself, you can create large enough quantities of various process byproducts to throw things out of kilter.

Now, I know you believe every scientist on the planet performs research purely for the purpose of pushing a liberal agenda, but perhaps, just perhaps, most (not all, but most) scientists agree on this because the evidence is pretty damning.

I’d rather spend a few bucks and deal with a bit of hardship than ignore the warnings and completely fuck ourselves out of shortsighted greed.

Where is the counter evidence? I don’t mean bullshit little studies put forth by right wing groups or industry groups, but reasonably independent groups with hard evidence?

63

[quote]vroom wrote:
It isn’t the media hype machine that is spreading problems here. It is the fact that 55% of America’s energy comes from coal, and it would not be an easy thing to combat.
[/quote]

I agree. We need to convert to less polluting means of energy ASAP. If we have the technology we should be using it.

That’s a little far fetched. It is possible to drink that much water, but very difficult unless you have kidney problems. Even given that it would take some time for your electrolites to get that out of whack.

But just for shits and giggles let’s say your argument is reasonable. That would also mean that we could have so much clean and pure 02 in the air that it would also put us out of kilter? Remember, 02 in C02 out. Trees take in C02 and put out 02. So if your idea is correct, more C02 to the tree would also mean more 02 out of them. Just something to think about.

Not sure what you have been reading, but I think an objective view would be that there is equal representation on each side of this issue. The scientific community is anything but united around this issue.

I agree, but the focus should be ozone and other things we KNOW are bad. Messing with C02 with the junk science we have now would be foolish.

[quote]
Where is the counter evidence? I don’t mean bullshit little studies put forth by right wing groups or industry groups, but reasonably independent groups with hard evidence?[/quote]

So you prefer bullshit little studies from left wing groups instead? Ah, now I see where you are coming from. Any info supported by a political party is biased my friend. And if you can’t see that than you will always only have half of the truth.

64

Lorisco, info isn’t tainted because of who believes it, it is tainted because of who produces it, to match their agenda.

Nice try though.

Your arguments are simply talking points, you have nothing realistic to point to in this respect.

65

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I think that it’s relatively open question whether CO2 is “pollution” – that, after all, is the crux of the debate on whether we’re causing global warming.[/quote]

It’s much more complicated than that. Even if we assume CO2 is “good”, you know as well as I do (after all, the same applies to supplements) there IS such a thing as “too much of a good thing”. MAG-10 might have been great, but what would happen if you took 20 pills in a sitting?

Same goes for CO2. It’s an essential gas, but clearly we’re starting to have too much of it, especially considering that the staggering reduction in forest area we have been causing in the past few centuries. So not only we are producing more of it, we’re killing off the very lifeform that during the day recycles it into what we do consume, which is oxygen, keeping the atmosphere balanced.

So the % of CO2 in our atmosphere is steadily increasing. That is a fact that NOBODY denies. Anyone with a spectrometer can prove it.

And even if you don’t buy any of what I say above, I’ll tell you something that is so basic that anyone will get: CO2 is heavier than O2 and N2. That means that even if CO2 was indeed “harmless”, if the % rose enough, both O2 and N2 would start rising to the upper layers of the atmosphere, because they are lighter (basic fluid dynamics). Even the O2 that the trees would produce would rise. So eventually, near the ground, there would be so little oxygen and nitrogen that every single animal on this planet – including under water – would suffocate… followed by the plants, which would die during the night, when they need oxygen.

Of course, this will take several millions of years to happen, but it will, if we don’t stop producing more CO2 than what the trees can recycle.

And before you say “we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it, i.e., when the oxygen levels get to a dangerously low point”, well, I can tell you this: the sooner we act, the cheaper it will be, and the less people will die.

The Earth’s biosphere has a very delicate balance… The series of events and circumstances that created that balance are what made it such a unique planet in our neighborhood of the Universe… We are, right now, offsetting that balance, pushing it around, which, if we’re not careful, can transform this planet in another Venus or another Mars. It’s as simple as that.

We’re not Gods. We should stop acting as if we were.

66

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
But just for shits and giggles let’s say your argument is reasonable. That would also mean that we could have so much clean and pure 02 in the air that it would also put us out of kilter? Remember, 02 in C02 out. Trees take in C02 and put out 02. So if your idea is correct, more C02 to the tree would also mean more 02 out of them.[/quote]

I know you are being sarcastic, but so that nobody thinks you’re not, I just want to make sure everybody understands that is completely and totally wrong. The amount of O2 a tree can put out is limited, much like any metabolic function of any living being that is not moving.

At the current CO2 levels, it’s actually already at its maximum for virtually all the trees on this planet. They have much more CO2 to work with than what they can.

Also, remember that during the night trees put out CO2 themselves just like everybody else.

So it is no surprise that, as I say above, the % of CO2 in our lower atmosphere has been increasing, while the % of O2 has been decreasing.

67

[quote]vroom wrote:
Lorisco, info isn’t tainted because of who believes it, it is tainted because of who produces it, to match their agenda.
[/quote]

And yet if “right wing” people believe a certain way that is “bullshit”?

Dude, sounds to me as if you are going in circles on this one. Perhaps your political views are clouding your own judgment.

I’m neither right nor left, but it is clear from your post where you lean.

[quote]
Your arguments are simply talking points, you have nothing realistic to point to in this respect.[/quote]

Apparently I lost you with the science of C02 and 02. I guess facts of what C02 is and how it works is too “unrealistic” for you. That’s a Shame; another perferctly good brain shot to hell because of political brainwashing.

Maybe you should go back to the DNC so they can explain this to you and tell you how to refute it using their unbiased non-pollitically motivated “sceince”.

If you even want to talk about the actual science of C02 let me know. Untill then, just believe whatever the DNC tells you. Watch the swinging pendant; you are getting sleepy, sleepy, sleepy…

68

[quote]hspder wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I know you are being sarcastic, but so that nobody thinks you’re not, I just want to make sure everybody understands that is completely and totally wrong. The amount of O2 a tree can put out is limited, much like any metabolic function of any living being that is not moving.
[/quote]

I was just joking. The obvious solution is to plant more trees to help with the C02.

And you know this because…?

Well then I guess we should cut them all down. Is it just me, or does anyone else think this guy is talking in circles?

69

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
And you know this because…?[/quote]

Because I do my research. So I picked up a Biology 101 book. It’s the same basic Biology that tells you that the volume of O2 that animals can absorb is also limited. Ever heard of a “VO2 Max” test?

Here’s a really basic article on it if you haven’t:

http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/vo2max.htm

Unfortunately, you can’t make plants do cardio to increase their “VCO2 Max”.

If that’s not enough for you, and you also think Biologists are a bunch of biased liberals (like all of us scientists that do not get grants from the GOP crowd) studies have been made – many, many moons ago – where scientists put trees in several conditions – including several concentrations of CO2 – and observed that the CO2 consumption and O2 output, even at maximum solar light conditions, topped off at CO2 levels even much below the current ones.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Well then I guess we should cut them all down. Is it just me, or does anyone else think this guy is talking in circles?[/quote]

“This guy” is not talking in circles. It’s just you who seems to have problems following a scientifically-based, rational argument, and prefer to resort to poor rhetoric and personal attacks.

70

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
The obvious solution is to plant more trees to help with the C02. [/quote]

First of all, please stop writing C02 (Charlie-zero-two) and 02 (zero-two). It’s annoying. Not having the 2 in subscript is already bad enough; let’s not murder the right nomenclature more than it needs to, OK? Write CO2 (Charlie-Oscar-Two) and O2 (Oscar-Two), or, even better, “Carbon Dioxide” and “Oxygen”.

Secondly, the amount of trees that would need to be planted to deal with all the extra Carbon Dioxide we’re putting out (and by extra I mean all the Carbon Dioxide besides what we breathe out) would require reclaiming massive land areas that are now being used for agriculture, cities – and possibly even some landfills would be needed. Trees don’t grow in the oceans or in the desert. You need to take up arable land to plant them. So, it’s possibly the single most expensive solution of all, and one that could make the lack of food that we already have (and will be much worse in 50 years) even more serious.

(if you don’t know what arable land is, read Arable - Wikipedia )

And even if we did plant all those trees, you do realize that it would take several decades for them to start curbing the Carbon Dioxide (they don’t grow overnight, you know), and it might be just too late then.

That does NOT mean we should kill off more trees; the fact that we would have problems finding space for planting more of them, or that it would take ages for them to grow tells us that we should spare the existing ones even harder, and make sure we dramatically reduce the cutting ASAP, especially because they?re cutting them up in areas that are not really good arable land.

What does grow in water, and is a much better source of Oxygen (and consumer or Carbon Dioxide) is Phytoplankton. Problem is, we’re screwing that up too. We’ve let it grow out of control in some areas (they feed off pollutants) – especially in rivers and lakes – which unavoidably leads to it dying off in massive amounts (overpopulation tends to do that), which actually takes a toll on the amount of oxygen, because the decomposition process consumes it; on the other hand, because Phytoplankton is extremely sensitive to increases in temperature, it’s dying off also in the oceans, in gigantic numbers. That death means that even if the Carbon Dioxide is not the cause of the global warming, global warming will inevitably result in massive increases in Carbon Dioxide level, because all the Phytoplankton will die off. And, as I say above, if Carbon Dioxide goes too high, we all turn blue and die…

71

Lorisco, the DNC has very little input on anything I think, especially since I don’t even know their opinions on any of this.

You claim to be neither left nor right, but you have some scientific knowledge to impart concerning CO2?

Get real. The garbage you are spewing should be considered pollution. I understand that CO2 is natural, but that doesn’t mean that too much of it can’t be harmful.

The fact that it is used in various life processes, doesn’t mean that life is limitless in its ability to adapt to increasing levels of CO2.

You are simply throwing out all kinds of baseless conjecture, which is really pointless. Try coming up with something realistic, and I’ll be happy to discuss it.

Concern about the environment is not a “left” vs “right” issue, or at least it should not be.

72

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I think that it’s relatively open question whether CO2 is “pollution” – that, after all, is the crux of the debate on whether we’re causing global warming.[/quote]

Nice try, lawyer man. No, the crux was whether the surplus of CO2 we are causing was a factor in the warming. But it’s not really an open question anymore. The new crux is what to do about it.

And that’s why many people would like to keep the question open. They like the old crux better than the new crux.

73

[quote]hspder wrote:

So the % of CO2 in our atmosphere is steadily increasing. That is a fact that NOBODY denies. Anyone with a spectrometer can prove it.

And even if you don’t buy any of what I say above, I’ll tell you something that is so basic that anyone will get: CO2 is heavier than O2 and N2. That means that even if CO2 was indeed “harmless”, if the % rose enough, both O2 and N2 would start rising to the upper layers of the atmosphere, because they are lighter (basic fluid dynamics). Even the O2 that the trees would produce would rise. So eventually, near the ground, there would be so little oxygen and nitrogen that every single animal on this planet – including under water – would suffocate… followed by the plants, which would die during the night, when they need oxygen.

[/quote]

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule compared to nitrogen and oxygen.

CO2 displacing oxygen in the atmosphere isn’t going to happen.

As to the “delicate balance” of nature, there is no such thing.

Nature and are climate are in a transient state. It is always changing, there has never been a “balance”.

We look at a snapshot of a couple years and assume it has always been that way. It hasn’t always been that way. Things change.

74

I guess someone should point out here that not only is reforestation lengthy, and expensive, we are currently deforesting the planet at a great rate of knots. The preferred method?

Burning.

75

[quote]vroom wrote:
…

The fact that it is used in various life processes, doesn’t mean that life is limitless in its ability to adapt to increasing levels of CO2.

…[/quote]

vroom, the amount of atmospheric CO2 is extremely low even considering the elevated emissions of the last century.

Study after study has shown that plants are growing better with the higher CO2 content.

The levels of CO2 emissions are nowhere near toxic levels. That is not a consideration.

76

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Nice try, lawyer man. No, the crux was whether the surplus of CO2 we are causing was a factor in the warming. But it’s not really an open question anymore. The new crux is what to do about it.

And that’s why many people would like to keep the question open. They like the old crux better than the new crux.[/quote]

No. The question is very real. Do your homework and you will see.

77

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
I guess someone should point out here that not only is reforestation lengthy, and expensive, we are currently deforesting the planet at a great rate of knots. The preferred method?

Burning.[/quote]

Unfortunately this is true in some third world countries.

How do you stop people from doing what they think they have to do to feed themselves? I wish I had a solution for this problem.

78

[quote]The amount of atmospheric CO2 is extremely low even considering the elevated emissions of the last century.

Study after study has shown that plants are growing better with the higher CO2 content.

The levels of CO2 emissions are nowhere near toxic levels. That is not a consideration.[/quote]

Zap, you do realize the points you raise are at a tangent to this issue right?

Whether or not plants are growing at an increased rate does not mean they are growing fast enough to counter the rate of CO2 production occuring due to industrialized processes.

Of course the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is low. It’s a small fraction of the atmosphere. That doesn’t mean that it can’t have a big impact however.

Toxic? What the fuck does toxic have to do with this? Is anybody claiming that there is a danger of global warming because CO2 levels are toxic?

What the fuck are you talking about, because it certainly isn’t the issue of whether or not CO2 causes global warming. Try addressing THAT issue perhaps.

79

[quote]vroom wrote:
The amount of atmospheric CO2 is extremely low even considering the elevated emissions of the last century.

Study after study has shown that plants are growing better with the higher CO2 content.

The levels of CO2 emissions are nowhere near toxic levels. That is not a consideration.

Zap, you do realize the points you raise are at a tangent to this issue right?

Whether or not plants are growing at an increased rate does not mean they are growing fast enough to counter the rate of CO2 production occuring due to industrialized processes.

Of course the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is low. It’s a small fraction of the atmosphere. That doesn’t mean that it can’t have a big impact however.

Toxic? What the fuck does toxic have to do with this? Is anybody claiming that there is a danger of global warming because CO2 levels are toxic?

What the fuck are you talking about, because it certainly isn’t the issue of whether or not CO2 causes global warming. Try addressing THAT issue perhaps.[/quote]

You brought up the subject. Life is doing very well in adapting to the increasing levels of CO2.

vroom wrote:
…

The fact that it is used in various life processes, doesn’t mean that life is limitless in its ability to adapt to increasing levels of CO2.

80

vroom, endgamer, hspder

You all appear to be out of your “element” when discussing the earth’s carbon balance. (ha ha)

I need some sleep.