Climate Change Discussion [Split from Election 2008 Thread]

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Well apparently it did withstand the scrutiny as you haven't even bothered to address my rebut.

Oh I accept your retraction.

Scientists are not in fact trying to deperately disprove the negative. Some are no doubt exploring the extent to which human CO2, which is a part of all CO2, which is a part of climate science, contributes to climate change.

Is there anything we're arguing about after that?

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

^myk, what are you talking about?

Rebuilding the ozone layer? How do you rebuild an ozone layer?

How do you know for a fact that reducing GHG isn't going to help the environment? (via climate change)

I'm curious what your expertise is

Thats why I said The answer is likely to be something we dont have yet. Reading is something that is a basic prerequisite of forum posting IMO.

I think I explained my opinion fairly clearly. How does stopping the burning fossil fuels actually reduce the earths temperatire and "fix" the ozone there by fixing global warming. I will tell you, it DOESNT. All it does is it doesnt cause it to get worse.

Thats why I surmise to spend billions on fixing the actual problem instead of trillions on switching the way the world does buisness and not actually fix the problem.

I agree, the tech doesnt exist, but you think that mankind can clone humans, split the atom, send a man to the moon and return him safely but cant figure out a way to fix the holes in the atmosphere. I guess I have more faith in the power of science than you do.

I am not saying reducing GHG by iteself doesnt help, but it doesnt fix the problem of the earth getting hotter and evenutally killing us - which is the whole reason for the debate. If people were serious about fixing the problem they would bring out tangible solutions not pie in the sky everyone stop driving cars that use gas bs.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Thats why I said The answer is likely to be something we dont have yet. Reading is something that is a basic prerequisite of forum posting IMO.

Your right, it is. So I wish you would have answered my question, what is your expertise to make such assertions:

Originally Posted by mykalberta

How does stopping the burning fossil fuels actually reduce the earths temperatire and "fix" the ozone there by fixing global warming. I will tell you, it DOESNT. All it does is it doesnt cause it to get worse.

(do you actually understand the greenhouse effect for the earth's atmosphere?)

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Thats why I surmise to spend billions on fixing the actual problem instead of trillions on switching the way the world does buisness and not actually fix the problem.

(like what?)

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I agree, the tech doesnt exist, but you think that mankind can clone humans, split the atom, send a man to the moon and return him safely but cant figure out a way to fix the holes in the atmosphere.

(what are you talking about? Anyone who knows anything about science knows that there is a different science being putting a man on the moon and cloning, compared to the suggestions you are making)

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I am not saying reducing GHG by iteself doesnt help, but it doesnt fix the problem of the earth getting hotter and evenutally killing us - which is the whole reason for the debate. If people were serious about fixing the problem they would bring out tangible solutions not pie in the sky everyone stop driving cars that use gas bs.

(what? everything in moderation)

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I guess I have more faith in the power of science than you do.

Its funny you say that ... to someone who studies / works in the field of science, with particular focus on fields like laser power fusion, photovoltaic cells (aka solar cells). Being directly immersed in the field, you learn a thing or two about science and the politics of new science. If anything, what you suggest is pie in the sky. What I suggest is a leaner and more efficient society - hey, dirty China is doing it. Wasteful America is doing. But Calgary, AB is still gunning down the deerfoot in their 1 ton truck or SUV.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

It doesn't matter how much CO2 is produced naturally. CO2 that is naturally produced is carbon neutral because it's part of the carbon cycle. That's why when you burn biofuels it is supposedly better for the climate because those carbon emissions came from the carbon cycle.

Umm.. yes it does. If we as humans are only producing 5% of the total CO2 emissions on a yearly basis, and the rest (95%) is being produced naturally. Then I am going to question you. CO2 is CO2, regardless of where it comes from.

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

The CO2 that has been sequestered in the earth in the form of fossil fuels is not part of the carbon cycle.

Really? So it just kind of appeared in the earth out of no where? Maybe injected by aliens, kind of like a twinkie?

But seriously, fossil fuels we are burning now, where at some point, part of the natural carbon cycle. So if they had been sequestered inside the earth, that would be a negative in CO2 emissions at that point in history, and would now be considered a positive in CO2 emissions now.

I am not saying that we should all go out and buy coal, and have coal burning parties. We should try to reduce the "man-made" CO2 emissions, I agree. But even if we do our best, and reduce our carbon foot print to absolute zero, I guarantee you that the climate will keep changing.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Bagor,

You want to argue. I don't. Why? Because there is nothing to argue about. It's a useless exercise. You say we need to understand the cause of the problem to solve it. How does my stance, in any way, prevent me from understanding the cause of the problem? Where have I denied human activity as a root cause of climate change?

People waste billions of dollars and hours arguing about the extent to which we have caused this problem.

STOP IT!

Fix it.

How is that not THE perfect stance?

[Phanuthier]

^ Emphasizing on what Dis said... there is no right answer to how this is caused, and there is no black and white solution. We arn't going to pull ozone out of thin air then deposit it into the ozone layer in one day that that's that. We arn't going to suddenly drop the amount of heat on Earth. Quite frankly, environmental issues arn't a quick fix. Its slow, its boring but it has to be done.

It starts by turning off your house lights when you arn't home, turning down the heat when you arn't there, walking to market rather then hopping in your SUV to drive 5 blocks, taking public transit rather then flooding the Deerfoot. The next time you buy a car, but a fuel efficient car - or even consider an electric car - instead of a gas guzzling SUV. (You don't need to get rid of your truck right away or anything, but take this consideration the next time you buy a car.) For more drastic measures, installing solar panals if it makes sense. Recyling. Little things that don't take much effort, and bigger things if you can. I'm honestly amazed by some of the ignorance showed by some here sometimes, as I said earlier this thread, Canada is actually one of the more wasteful countries in the world and thats got to change.

[Azure]

Well, I've put together almost 2,000 posts in numerous climate change threads over the years, and I've never seen anyone say there is a difference between CO2 produced 'naturally'....and the C02 humans create. Or any kind of CO2 for that matter. Hell, is there even a difference?

Isn't everything natural? Or a byproduct of something that was naturally created? Oil, gas, even nuclear waste.....all from 'natural' resources.

Unless someone stuck his foot into his mouth, which wouldn't be surprising, because I simply do NOT understand that argument.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

^ Emphasizing on what Dis said... there is no right answer to how this is caused, and there is no black and white solution. We arn't going to pull ozone out of thin air then deposit it into the ozone layer in one day that that's that. We arn't going to suddenly drop the amount of heat on Earth. Quite frankly, environmental issues arn't a quick fix. Its slow, its boring but it has to be done.

It starts by turning off your house lights when you arn't home, turning down the heat when you arn't there, walking to market rather then hopping in your SUV to drive 5 blocks, taking public transit rather then flooding the Deerfoot. The next time you buy a car, but a fuel efficient car - or even consider an electric car - instead of a gas guzzling SUV. (You don't need to get rid of your truck right away or anything, but take this consideration the next time you buy a car.) For more drastic measures, installing solar panals if it makes sense. Recyling. Little things that don't take much effort, and bigger things if you can. I'm honestly amazed by some of the ignorance showed by some here sometimes, as I said earlier this thread, Canada is actually one of the more wasteful countries in the world and thats got to change.

Good post, and props for realizing that not everyone can go out and buy a more fuel efficient car tomorrow.

I'm inclined to believe that little by little, people WILL get it. Especially if it benefits them to be more environmentally friendly.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, I've put together almost 2,000 posts in numerous climate change threads over the years, and I've never seen anyone say there is a difference between CO2 produced 'naturally'....and the C02 humans create.

Isn't everything natural? Or a byproduct of something that was naturally created? Oil, gas, even nuclear waste.....all from 'natural' resources.

Unless someone stuck his foot into his mouth, which wouldn't be surprising, because I simply do NOT understand that argument.

I don't want to go into this too much since there are probably better people to answer this, but the answer is no, not all byproducts of something natural will produce natural waste. Burning of fossil fuels don't just emit CO2 (which isn't the biggest concern), it emits CO obviously (incomplete combustion), H2S and so on, disturbing the equilibrium which in nature is bad, even if its 0.1%.

Now, in the past 100 years we have distorted environmental equalibrium, but because we're talking about such a large volume, we arn't seeing the effects. However, this isn't going to be a non-issue forever. This is an escalating problem that for the past 100 years, has been near inconsequential (ie. distrubing equalibrium, no specific event in particular)... but we're getting to the point where its no longer inconsequential. If there's one thing that I know about science that I think many here don't, its that science is not accepted over night and it has to be progressively installed into society for a smooth transition. If things like solar energy and so on push hard, the other side pushes back. What we need to do is start taking baby steps, from the early adopters (i.e. leaders such as Google, China and Dongtan, California) to show that this science does work, then have the others follow. We're not in dire straights yet, but it is time to start installing these types of ideas and values before its too late - and trust me, its has started, ie. Googleplex, Dongtan.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Azure

Good post, and props for realizing that not everyone can go out and buy a more fuel efficient car tomorrow.

I'm inclined to believe that little by little, people WILL get it. Especially if it benefits them to be more environmentally friendly.

I see, I think we might have had some mis-communication before. I wasn't saying everyone should go out and buy an electric car and solar panals tomorrow, I'm saying that the science is already there and its time to start implementing these environmental values, as some have around the world. In Canada, who knows, we might be stuck with oil/gas because solar panals likely won't be able to withstand or even work given the harsher climate of Canada (I'm almost 100% positive in Calgary, solar panals won't work due to the temperature preventing the panals from working, rather then the actual hours in a day) but there are changes that Canada can make to be more environmentally responsible.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Umm.. yes it does. If we as humans are only producing 5% of the total CO2 emissions on a yearly basis, and the rest (95%) is being produced naturally. Then I am going to question you. CO2 is CO2, regardless of where it comes from.

Let's question where it goes as well.

Say for example, we take the 5% as a given value as "actual" CO2 output and say for example this 5% is the equilibrium that Phanuthier speaks of. But consider my earlier post where records show they're already the highest they've ever been in 650000 years.

If the 5% is exceeded then there's the potential for the whole show to go out of equilibrium.

e.g. ocean acidification -research shows/suggests that CO2 uptake by oceans halved between 1995-2005. Man made or otherwise I don't know but I'm going . Fact is the oceans are getting more acidic (as kevman says chemistry doesn't discriminate) killing off carbon fixing algae and phytoplankton. . The capacity of surface waters to take up anthropogenic CO2 is decreasing as CO2 levels increase. That = loss of uptake. The 5% and increasing can't go anywhere.

Take the same principle and apply it to a tropical forest. Deforestation = reduced carbon uptake for the purpose of increased carbon production.

Consider the warming process also and a positive feedback loop. Snow/icecaps = white = good reflector. icecaps smaller = less reflection = more absorbtion = more heat retention.

Consider the Methane (x23 the warming potential of CO2) locked under the tundra and permafrost melting (which is happening here and in Russia). The loop accelerates.

The problem is in this measurement; ocean acidification and its depleted ability to uptake CO2 , methane release from the artic tundra, and the increasingly depleted reflection of the sun's rays aren't measured as anthropogenic outputs.

What I'm saying is the CO2 output is going up, it's having an effect/affect impact on others systems ability to uptake it, it has nowhere to go but up.

Call me alarmist/liberal leftie want. (not directed at you specifically arsenal )

[dobbles]

i think there is a big misunderstanding going on here. no one is implying that the CO2 from cars is 'different' than the rest of the CO2 out there. what they are saying is that the earth can handle a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and stay stable. humans are increasing that amount by burning fossil fuels. being carbon neutral just refers to using the same amount of CO2 that the earth regularly would.

quit trying to play smarting pants and spouting off how many moles per gram the molecules are and stupid stuff like that. actually read what is being posted and not what your preconceived stereotypes assume the other people will say...

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by dobbles

actually read what is being posted and not what your preconceived stereotypes assume the other people will say...

That advice needs to be adopted by everyone in this debate. Don't assume that those that disagree with you are doing so because they either don't believe in Climate Change or believe that humans are causing it 100% (whichever end of the spectrum you're on).

[photon]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

burn fossil fuels, the emissions kill the ozone, thereby heating the earth.

I would also ask what you're talking about, it sounds like you've got all kinds of things crossed together.

Ozone is a greenhouse gas itself, it contributes TO global warming. That's a good thing, without some greenhouse gasses the planet would be a frozen wasteland.

So you saying that killing the ozone heats the earth is wrong.

If there were no other side effects and you wanted to cool the earth, getting rid of the ozone would be one way.

The downside of no ozone though is increased UV radiation, which is bad for us (cancer etc).

CO2 is a greenhouse gas not because it depletes the ozone, but because it traps infrared radiation and helps heat the planet so we can live here comfortably.

If there wasn't enough C02 (and other greenhouse gasses like water vapor, methane, ozone) then we'd be frozen. If there was far too much like on Venus then we'd have rivers of molten lead instead of water.. Venus is as hot as it is because of it's CO2, not because of its proximity to the sun.

And you are backwards too.. depleting the ozone doesn't warm the planet, warming the planet depletes the ozone, or at least some theories say; global warming means a colder stratosphere, slowing down the natural creation of ozone and the ozone's layer ability to replenish itself.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by arsenal

. But even if we do our best, and reduce our carbon foot print to absolute zero, I guarantee you that the climate will keep changing.

Of course. The climate has been substantially different in the past than it is now, and no doubt will continue to change well into the future. What is dangerous is the rate of change.

3 degrees difference spread over 10 000 years? No big deal, that's a natural cycle which the earth and its biodiversity can totally handle.

Mass-extinction event (our fault), reducing bio-diversity + 1 or 2 degrees difference spread over 100 years? That is one seriously big effing problem.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, I've put together almost 2,000 posts in numerous climate change threads over the years,

Wow 2000 posts on climate change; you must be an expert.

... and I've never seen anyone say there is a difference between CO2 produced 'naturally'....and the C02 humans create. Or any kind of CO2 for that matter. Hell, is there even a difference?

Apparently, not.

The difference is that we have reached a point of general climate equlibrium which is highly stable, generally warm and condusive to a high degree of biodiversity and human carrying capacity on Earth with the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle. If we use that carbon which is already on the surface of the Earth for fuels and other uses then we will not disrupt the balance because we will not be increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It's called being carbon neutral. We use the carbon in plants to heat our homes or power our cars which goes up into the atmosphere, the carbon already there will be uptaken but new plant growth and there is no NET increase of carbon to the whole system.

Isn't everything natural? Or a byproduct of something that was naturally created? Oil, gas, even nuclear waste.....all from 'natural' resources.

What's up with skeptics and semantic arguments in this thread? It looks desperate. The carbon we emit from fossil fuels is not natural because it's not apart of the carbon cycle. It has been sequestered underneath the Earth's surface for millions of years. I guess you are correct that at some point that carbon was natural because it was apart of the cycle, but the Earth was considerably warmer during that time, ocean levels were MUCH higher and the steady state would likely not have been condusive for humans. If we burn up all of the fossil fuels and do not rapidly expand forest cover then we will increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to its highest levels since life on Earth. In other words we are introducing carbon to a carbon cycle that was already in equilibrium. The system will now have to find a new point of equlibrium. If we were happy with the old climate that was highly condusive to rapid human dispersion and expansion then this introduction of new carbon should be alarming.

So your argument here doesn't old.

Unless someone stuck his foot into his mouth, which wouldn't be surprising, because I simply do NOT understand that argument.

Yep, when it doubt try to slag the messager in the attempt of discrediting the content.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Bagor,

You want to argue. I don't. Why? Because there is nothing to argue about. It's a useless exercise. You say we need to understand the cause of the problem to solve it. How does my stance, in any way, prevent me from understanding the cause of the problem? Where have I denied human activity as a root cause of climate change?

People waste billions of dollars and hours arguing about the extent to which we have caused this problem.

STOP IT!

Fix it.

How is that not THE perfect stance?

Nothing to argue about? This thread has already shown there's loads of room for debate whether or not CC is man made, natural (cyclic) or a combination of the two.

Again you seem to miss the simple point that in order to solve the problem we need to understand and arrive at consensus as to the root cause of it.

Palin doesn't attribute CC to man' activities, has a punchline of "drill baby drill" then talks about reducing emissions? Yep, perfect stance.

She then says that she wants to argue about ADAPTATION, not MITIGATION.

Her perfect stance is energy independence (drilling), ADAPTATION (which I admit is important) with a token reduce emissions thrown in the middle.

She does not, apart from a blanket reduce emissions thrown in the middle of a drilling speech talk about fixing anything. She talks about cleaning up the planet whilst being a strong advocate for drilling in one of the few remaining undisturbed, pristine areas of the globe. Laughable.

No one discussed your stance. Why don't you share it? I can only assume given that you find Palin's stance so perfect that it's similar to hers. i.e. you don't attribute CC to man, have a token reduce emissions and support more fossil fuel development. Of course I could be wrong and feel free to correct me.

Billions of dollars. And? Drop in the ocean IMO considering the cash that's going to be forked out for adaptation measures and the trillions that will be lost from the impacts. e.g. On the east coast of England they're already doing a "managed retreat" from the coast. Look at the cost of the Thames flood barrier ($40bn) for one small example.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...es-463191.html

[Displaced Flames fan]

No need to post anything more for you to twist Bagor.

I've explained what I said a half dozen times and you've ignored it and put your own spin on it every single time.

I'm through.

[liamenator]

The really troublesome thing about the whole Climate Change issue for me is, touching similarly on what Phanauthier was talking about, encountering people who argue with or simply refuse that turning your lights off when you go out, putting on a sweater instead of jacking your thermostat up, recycling, trying to cut down a bit of driving, etc. aren't beneficial in any way. The whole "why should I have to change my habits, there is no problem" mindset. Fair enough, you're entitled to form your own opinion about it, but I find it absolutely baffling that anyone could argue that cutting down on our energy consumption and trying to make gradual changes in our personal habits could be a BAD thing in the long term.

The whole key is moderation.

I'm not attempting to point fingers at anyone in here, but these people do exist, and what's frightening to me is how widespread this kind of mindset actually is.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by liamenator

The really troublesome thing about the whole Climate Change issue for me is, touching similarly on what Phanauthier was talking about, encountering people who argue with or simply refuse that turning your lights off when you go out, putting on a sweater instead of jacking your thermostat up, recycling, trying to cut down a bit of driving, etc. aren't beneficial in any way. The whole "why should I have to change my habits, there is no problem" mindset. Fair enough, you're entitled to form your own opinion about it, but I find it absolutely baffling that anyone could argue that cutting down on our energy consumption and trying to make gradual changes in our personal habits could be a BAD thing in the long term.

The whole key is moderation.

I'm not attempting to point fingers at anyone in here, but these people do exist, and what's frightening to me is how widespread this kind of mindset actually is.

You think? I'm might be the last of the great consumptionists and even I'm down with the basics.