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.
The science says that CO2 in small amounts regulates all the other heat-trapping gases (like water vapor) in such a way that 0.00% atmospheric CO2 would eliminate Earth's heat blanket, rendering our planet frozen and uninhabitable. Is the very existence of the CO2 greenhouse effect disputed by Republicans? I never heard them doubt it until CO2 regulation was first proposed. How many realize that global warming denial is no different than greenhouse effect denial?
The smart ones don't doubt the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses for a minute. They do dispute the claimed extent of that effect, with some basis in fact - the current cooling trend and the one that the idiot media was all lathered up over in the 1970's indicate that our understanding of climatic cycles is primitive at best. They also dispute that a carbon tax will actually correct the alleged problem and that it will have a significant negative impact on the US economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
For those who think critically, what's so illogical about being concerned with global temperatures rising as we add more CO2 each day? We've gone from about 280 ppm (0.028%) to 400 ppm (0.040%) since we started burning fossil fuels. Remember, 0.00% CO2 = a frozen Earth. It's a large force in a small package.
The concern is not illogical, the notion that we can do anything about warming or cooling trends is illogical. As I said above, evidence suggests that our understanding of climate and atmosphere is primitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
If you want to address this topic, you'll need to prove that CO2 isn't the main controller of radiative forcing in the atmosphere. Offer evidence that CO2 has nothing to do with Earth's habitability. Posting "the U.N. wants to control us!" or "Al Gore flies jets!" has no value in these discussions.
If you want to argue only about the science then your requirement of those proofs might be a starting point. But you aren't arguing just about science, are you? You are continuing with "therefore we must do X" -- much of the argument against your position has to do with whether "X" is the best thing to do from the point of view of cause and effect. Are you not arguing that we must follow a certain course of action based on what you and others conclude from your limited understanding of the science?
A lot of people consider that Al Gore has little credibility when talking about carbon foot print. Does anyone take a fat doctor who tells you to loose weight seriously? If Al Gore is advocating that same "X" that you are, why would people take him at his word when his actions show him not following that same "X" as a course of action?
The science says that CO2 in small amounts regulates all the other heat-trapping gases (like water vapor) in such a way that 0.00% atmospheric CO2 would eliminate Earth's heat blanket, rendering our planet frozen and uninhabitable. Is the very existence of the CO2 greenhouse effect disputed by Republicans? I never heard them doubt it until CO2 regulation was first proposed. How many realize that global warming denial is no different than greenhouse effect denial?
A mere 0.028% atmospheric CO2 (before the fossil fuel age) was the difference between a livable and non-livable frozen planet. Does that strike anyone in the GOP as significant to our survival and happiness? Do they still want to dismiss it as a "trace gas" just because it's a small percentage in layman's terms?
Much of science is not common knowledge aka common sense, especially when it comes to volume vs. potency. Few would have guessed that a bomb the size of a small car could destroy an area millions of times larger, but "elitist" scientists knew it long before Joe Six Pack had a clue. In fact, Joe Six Pack would never have figured it out. Same goes for the physical properties of CO2 (outside of beer foam). The average Joe never studied CO2 but now sees himself as an expert because Rush Limbaugh planted taxation/regulation theories that have no bearing on physics.
For those who think critically, what's so illogical about being concerned with global temperatures rising as we add more CO2 each day? We've gone from about 280 ppm (0.028%) to 400 ppm (0.040%) since we started burning fossil fuels. Remember, 0.00% CO2 = a frozen Earth. It's a large force in a small package.
Why would anyone cry "hoax" about global warming concerns, given those facts? Why isn't this worth worrying about? Life isn't fair. The planet has been (per the 3-bears story) "just right" for our survival but now we're pushing it into unknown territory. Conservatism is ostensibly about maintaining a comfortable life and not disturbing what works, so why ignore a huge threat to that?
If you want to address this topic, you'll need to prove that CO2 isn't the main controller of radiative forcing in the atmosphere. Offer evidence that CO2 has nothing to do with Earth's habitability. Posting "the U.N. wants to control us!" or "Al Gore flies jets!" has no value in these discussions.
taking the time to explain the skeptical position on your question would be like explaing diferential equasions to a 3rd grader. there simply is no basis for understanding.
You dont know what the issue is so you have come up with an innane, silly strawman.
As an actual question that deals with the real issues skeptics are pointing to and we can have an intelegent discussion.... but we wont until you demonstrait that you have a basic understanding of the issue.
Thus, while the non-condensing greenhouse gases account for only 25% of the total greenhouse effect, it is these non-condensing GHGs that actually control the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect since the water vapor and cloud feedback contributions are not self-sustaining and as such, only provide amplification. Because carbon dioxide accounts for 80% of the non-condensing GHG forcing in the current climate atmosphere, atmospheric carbon dioxide therefore qualifies as the principal control knob that governs the temperature of Earth.
The smart ones don't doubt the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses for a minute. They do dispute the claimed extent of that effect, with some basis in fact - the current cooling trend and the one that the idiot media was all lathered up over in the 1970's indicate that our understanding of climatic cycles is primitive at best. They also dispute that a carbon tax will actually correct the alleged problem and that it will have a significant negative impact on the US economy.
The concern is not illogical, the notion that we can do anything about warming or cooling trends is illogical. As I said above, evidence suggests that our understanding of climate and atmosphere is primitive.
If you want to argue only about the science then your requirement of those proofs might be a starting point. But you aren't arguing just about science, are you? You are continuing with "therefore we must do X" -- much of the argument against your position has to do with whether "X" is the best thing to do from the point of view of cause and effect. Are you not arguing that we must follow a certain course of action based on what you and others conclude from your limited understanding of the science?
A lot of people consider that Al Gore has little credibility when talking about carbon foot print. Does anyone take a fat doctor who tells you to loose weight seriously? If Al Gore is advocating that same "X" that you are, why would people take him at his word when his actions show him not following that same "X" as a course of action?
Doing something stupid for the sake of "Do SOMETHING" will always be stupid. Doing nothing may not seem brilliant, but it's better than being stupid - and dropping a ton of bricks on the economy will always be a stupid thing to do.
One potential solution, off the top of my head, is research into whether carbon sequestering plants like peat moss can make much of a difference. Some are already researching this, but I would like to see more and some engineering applications. I read a news article not too long ago that talked about similar effects contributing to the demise of the dinosaurs. Can't find it now, but I'll keep looking.
Another thing to do is come up with some engineering planning for what we do with Florida when and if sea levels rise significantly. If they do not rise, we've not lost much, just some planning effort. The enviro-liberal plan seems to be preventing the rise they predict through economic punishment of industry. About as logical as was the Spanish Inquisition.
Another consideration is that if the climate science is significantly wrong about the cause of the 1970's to 1990's warming trend, large scale sequestration projects could have a negative effect rather than a positive one. Either way, we'd need a much better grip on the cause and effect of climate than I think we have at the present time. That is one reason I tend to argue in favor of the science and against the politics - we never lose by clear understanding of science, but we do lose by precipitous political action.
The science says that CO2 in small amounts regulates all the other heat-trapping gases (like water vapor) in such a way that 0.00% atmospheric CO2 would eliminate Earth's heat blanket, rendering our planet frozen and uninhabitable. Is the very existence of the CO2 greenhouse effect disputed by Republicans? I never heard them doubt it until CO2 regulation was first proposed. How many realize that global warming denial is no different than greenhouse effect denial?
A mere 0.028% atmospheric CO2 (before the fossil fuel age) was the difference between a livable and non-livable frozen planet. Does that strike anyone in the GOP as significant to our survival and happiness? Do they still want to dismiss it as a "trace gas" just because it's a small percentage in layman's terms?
Much of science is not common knowledge aka common sense, especially when it comes to volume vs. potency. Few would have guessed that a bomb the size of a small car could destroy an area millions of times larger, but "elitist" scientists knew it long before Joe Six Pack had a clue. In fact, Joe Six Pack would never have figured it out. Same goes for the physical properties of CO2 (outside of beer foam). The average Joe never studied CO2 but now sees himself as an expert because Rush Limbaugh planted taxation/regulation theories that have no bearing on physics.
For those who think critically, what's so illogical about being concerned with global temperatures rising as we add more CO2 each day? We've gone from about 280 ppm (0.028%) to 400 ppm (0.040%) since we started burning fossil fuels. Remember, 0.00% CO2 = a frozen Earth. It's a large force in a small package.
Why would anyone cry "hoax" about global warming concerns, given those facts? Why isn't this worth worrying about? Life isn't fair. The planet has been (per the 3-bears story) "just right" for our survival but now we're pushing it into unknown territory. Conservatism is ostensibly about maintaining a comfortable life and not disturbing what works, so why ignore a huge threat to that?
If you want to address this topic, you'll need to prove that CO2 isn't the main controller of radiative forcing in the atmosphere. Offer evidence that CO2 has nothing to do with Earth's habitability. Posting "the U.N. wants to control us!" or "Al Gore flies jets!" has no value in these discussions.
If I wear one pair of sun glasses that block 50% of the Sun's light and then put on a second identical pair, will they together block 100% of the light or 75%?
What happens if I put a third pair on?
If 280 ppm CO2 gets us to 286K, with CO2 now at 400 ppm, shouldn't we be enjoying a nice summer with temperatures around the 400 degree F mark?
If not, why not?
Without using GHCN v3 numbers, can you show me where temperatures have increased over the past century?
Can you show me where elevated levels of CO2 have consistently preceded an increase in the Earth's surface temperature beyond a few degrees?
47 minutes into this video retired MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Lindzen said that no co2 in the atmosphere would result in an earth 2.5C colder than it is now. "Current climate is mostly water vapor and clouds"
I liked the video. I personally felt the most relevant part of the video was from about an hour and twelve minutes to about an hour and fifteen minutes.
It basically explains what many have already acknowledged even here. That the entire argument about global warming on the one hand, is based around alarmism which declares that there will be dire consequences for human life unless something is done immediately. And on the other hand, recognizes that those changes themselves will have dire consequences for human life, which is why so many humans are opposed to them.
My personal position is basically that, yes, the Earth's climate has changed very very slightly over time. But that change has not been significantly different from what might be expected from natural variation. And that the warming began around the conclusion of the Little ice age. So if you don't keep it in proper context, it does appear more striking than it really is.
But more importantly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the consequences of that change will be dire. In fact, you can make a better argument that a small warming would be beneficial for the Earth rather than detrimental(IE, a warming planet actually means more food).
The only negative that I have found which is both provable and stands up to reason, is sea-level rise. Which seems to me to be a good opportunity for human geological engineering. As opposed to obsessing about preventing a change which at some point in the future will be an inevitability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
So, your solution is do nothing....Brilliant!
You pretend as if your "solution" comes at no cost. Secondly, you pretend that your solution is actually a solution. Or more importantly, you assume there is actually a problem which requires a solution in the first place.
The truth is, the solutions which are being proposed, come at a very high cost. If they didn't come at a cost, then there wouldn't be any opposition. The question here is whether or not that cost is justified and necessary.
I'll use military spending as an example(since liberals tend to hate the military). Obviously there is a certain amount of military spending which is necessary, and anything beyond that is just a waste of resources. And that "waste" invariably goes to enrich defense contractors and other appendages of the "military industrial complex" at the expense of the public.
We are already spending a considerable amount of money on "global-warming". From alternative energy credits to businesses and homeowners, to government financing of research, to environmental education around the world, and other mitigation efforts. The United States alone is already spending about $10 billion a year. And Europe and other Western countries are generally doing a lot more than the United States is. Many believe that by 2020, climate-change will cost world governments about $100 billion a year. And if you listened to some of these global-warming alarmists, that isn't nearly enough.
The question in regards to climate-change, is the same question many levy towards the military industrial complex. What spending is necessary and beneficial? And what spending is unnecessary and wasteful?
In the same way that many Republican warmongers will argue that the current military spending is not only necessary, but is also insufficient for the threats we face around the world. They say that current "defense cuts" are making America(and the world) unsafe.
Well, then the liberals will turn around and say, the current climate-change spending is not only necessary, but is also insufficient for the threats we face. They will say that current climate-change spending is detrimental for America's future security and world stability.
In my opinion, neither group provides sufficient evidence for their case. But in the end, fear rules the day.
riginally Posted by sanspeur So, your solution is do nothing....Brilliant!
You pretend as if your "solution" comes at no cost. Secondly, you pretend that your solution is actually a solution. Or more importantly, you assume there is actually a problem which requires a solution in the first place.
You are the one making an assumption that there is no problem, I follow the evidence that there IS a problem, a big problem that has been exasperated by the fossil fuel lobby.
A revenue neutral carbon tax comes at little to no cost, and it has been shown to be effective in reducing CO2 emissions in BC since 2008...If it can work here it can work there. During the time the tax had been in place, fossil fuel consumption had dropped 17.4% per capita. http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/A6.htm
You are the one making an assumption that there is no problem, I follow the evidence that there IS a problem
So do I, although it is doubtful we agree on what the problem is. The problem I see is we are overdue for an ice age. What should we do to bring on an ice age?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
A revenue neutral carbon tax comes at little to no cost, and it has been shown to be effective in reducing CO2 emissions in BC since 2008...If it can work here it can work there. During the time the tax had been in place, fossil fuel consumption had dropped 17.4% per capita.
What input should a Canadian have on US policy? China puts out more than us and does little to control pollution - let's step on their throat!
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.
