Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What some have asserted is that temperature causes an increase in CO2, in addition, more CO2 in the atmosphere also causes an increase in temperature. Thus, once it passes a certain equilibrium we end up with a run-away "greenhouse" effect.
Since it has been considerably warmer with significantly more CO2 in the past, than it currently is today, and we did not end up like Venus, it is reasonable to conclude that we are not anywhere near that tipping point today. At the present rate of change, it also appears that we will not approach that pivotal point anytime in at least the next few million years.
there is certainly an argument for a 'feedback' loop, and you are right that it has "been...warmer with significantly more CO2 in the past...".
not sure what that statement was meant to imply? perhaps it was worded wrong?
but you have to have some "faith" that research and modeling (for which it all comes down to the variables and assumptions built into those models....) can come close to assessing future conditions based on our current projections.
considering that dozens+ of labs and researchers have developed models (in fact, I think there are over 100+ GCM's) and the statistical trend in all models is (1) increased localized and regional climate uncertainty and (2) average global temperature increases, then your last statement would be false.
but we digress way off the OP's point. this discussion is just an example of how any chemical (natural or manmade) can be deleterious in large quantities.
another example....water. yes H20. drink to much and you get hypnatremia and can die. now no one is saying "regulate water as a pollutant" (Yet ! ) because it's a personal choice how much to drink.
but do you have a personal choice in what a corporation or another entity chooses to do with the environment....not always.
thus congress passes laws and creates agencies. those agencies are tasked with taking the laws and creating regulations.
congress does not regulate!
courts interpret whether congress or the agency has then done something in violation of the constitution
I don't think national security is jeopardized at any point when it comes to these issues. We're not talking about the Feds giving up their military.
an educated populace is a national security issue
industry and manufacturing are national security issues
clean air, water and food supplies are national security issues
national security does not have to equal military strength.
this is even more vital in today's world. smart people can bring down a country through a cyber attack. is this military strength? or the strength of an education system?
another country controlling vast food or manufacturing production could dictate other country's policy? is this military strength?
but again, i digress from the OP....congress passes laws and creates agencies. some laws need to be repealed. others need to be reinstated (eg. glass-stegall).
to sit back and say that the EPA needs to be shuttered, or the FDA closed....well think what the consequences would be.
if you think 'free markets' can manage it (at the same time some people are trying to curb the ability to litigate and restrict damages), well then I would like to know what you are smoking....
might as well just hand America over to the Corporations and top 1%....wait the SCOTUS did that with $$$$ = free speech
there is certainly an argument for a 'feedback' loop, and you are right that it has "been...warmer with significantly more CO2 in the past...".
not sure what that statement was meant to imply? perhaps it was worded wrong?
It was meant to imply that if we have been warmer with significantly more CO2 in the past, it would mean that today it is cooler and with significantly less CO2. Hence, whatever maximums we reached in the past could not have been the tipping point or it would not be as cool as it is today with significantly less CO2.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if the past temperature and CO2 levels were not reached to bring about a "greenhouse" effect and turn Earth into Venus, that we must first reach those same temperature and CO2 levels of the past before we need to be concerned about "greenhouse" gases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davehalo
but you have to have some "faith" that research and modeling (for which it all comes down to the variables and assumptions built into those models....) can come close to assessing future conditions based on our current projections.
considering that dozens+ of labs and researchers have developed models (in fact, I think there are over 100+ GCM's) and the statistical trend in all models is (1) increased localized and regional climate uncertainty and (2) average global temperature increases, then your last statement would be false.
Sorry, but I have no "faith." Faith requires blind belief in the unknown, and I only believe in what I can observe. Meteorologists cannot accurately predict the weather 24 hours in advance, and you are going to believe Climatologists can predict climate years in advance? That is like believing Congress, that cannot even balance an annual budget, when they tell you they will balance the budget in 10 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davehalo
but we digress way off the OP's point. this discussion is just an example of how any chemical (natural or manmade) can be deleterious in large quantities.
another example....water. yes H20. drink to much and you get hypnatremia and can die. now no one is saying "regulate water as a pollutant" (Yet ! ) because it's a personal choice how much to drink.
but do you have a personal choice in what a corporation or another entity chooses to do with the environment....not always.
thus congress passes laws and creates agencies. those agencies are tasked with taking the laws and creating regulations.
congress does not regulate!
courts interpret whether congress or the agency has then done something in violation of the constitution
Precisely. Congress enacts laws, and regulations are based upon that statutory authority in order to enforce the law. No regulation can exist, and be enforceable, if the regulation does not cite the law it is based upon.
If people are cited, it is for violating the law the regulation is based upon, not for violating the regulation itself. All the punishments and fines are also determined by Congress, not by regulation.
With that said, there are times when a regulation does not have the desired effect that Congress intended. Or a regulation may not have been correctly interpreted, which can happen when Congress leaves portions of the law vague. In either case, it is up to Congress to either change the law to better express their intent, or be more specific in how the law should be applied.
It was meant to imply that if we have been warmer with significantly more CO2 in the past, it would mean that today it is cooler and with significantly less CO2. Hence, whatever maximums we reached in the past could not have been the tipping point or it would not be as cool as it is today with significantly less CO2.
not sure what you mean by tipping point but I will take a SWAG and answer this....'tipping point' may refer to suitable conditions in which people live. not everyone likes the tropics or can live there just as not everyone likes the artic circle or could make a life there. same can be said for the desert.
so what's the tipping point where the majority of humanity will find earth's overall climate unbearable? better, we also know that the tropics harbor more harmful diseases than anywhere else - this is pretty much a global tropic thing. so what happpens if things warm a bit more....we can conjure all sorts of scenarios. best one would be an increase in mosquito born illnesses. ever heard of malaria...yeah some will say just spray more DDT.
Quote:
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if the past temperature and CO2 levels were not reached to bring about a "greenhouse" effect and turn Earth into Venus, that we must first reach those same temperature and CO2 levels of the past before we need to be concerned about "greenhouse" gases.
what is it with the Venus thing? earth has never approached the temps estimated to occur on Venus. Fallacious argument at its best and you are mixing apples and oranges in your arguments. i have not heard of a static point whereby the chemical property of CO2 to trap solar radiation begins. please enlighten me.
Quote:
Sorry, but I have no "faith." Faith requires blind belief in the unknown, and I only believe in what I can observe. Meteorologists cannot accurately predict the weather 24 hours in advance, and you are going to believe Climatologists can predict climate years in advance? That is like believing Congress, that cannot even balance an annual budget, when they tell you they will balance the budget in 10 years.
faith. such a trick word. better belief is do you agree that the scientific method works whereby research and hypotheses (albeit the null hypothesis) are rejected until after repeated testing the hypothesis (the alternate hypothesis) is left standing....and becomes....(drumroll)....a theory?
and maybe the local meteorologist is not so good but you only have to look at the last winter olympics to understand just how far climate science has come. calgary and the surrounding area is not known for consistent snowfall and yet....meteorlogical science allowed the olympic planners to accurately predict the weather and schedule events.
so yes, it's getting better and substantially better than that elementary dart board example from decades ago.
It just might be me but I don't think a plan that would eliminate the department of energy, which regulates who buys, uses, and how they dispose of all nuclear material, is going to gather a single vote. Generally most people with brain cells than teeth would think that even proposing something like that would be pretty crazy, and supporting it delusional.
Most people with brain cells actually read Dr. Paul's proposals before making outrageously false claims about them. Obviously, YMMV.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
! ) because it's a personal choice how much to drink.
