Global Warming. Time To End That Debate Right Now.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BlackProject

That list sounds a lot like Ghandi's preferred way of life.

Want to know why India is still backward? Ghandi.

You do realise that was a joke list, to point out the madness of their wishes? In so many words, that is how they say we should live, obviously we would not and could not it is just about pricing the fuel and electric a little more expensive.

a reply to: BlackProject

Ya madness that was created to make a strawman.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: BlackProject

Ya madness that was created to make a strawman.

That makes perfect nonsense to me. Thanks for clearing it up.

a reply to: BlackProject

Of course it does.

You are presented this list of ridiculous measures that no one is proposing and then using that list to make the discussion about what steps can be taken in regards to AGW seem ridiculous so it is easy to shut down.
You create the argument that is easy for you to knock down, AKA a strawman.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Actually, his 'joke list' is accurate in a strict sense. Just because no one in power has actally proposed most of them, it does not follow that they are not reasonable conclusions to the stated problem.

The stated problem being that we produce carbon dioxide.

It is impossible to oxidize (reduce) carbon in an oxygen-rich environment without creating carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the lowest energy compound attainable, so it will be the primary result. Now consider that almost all energy created is dependent on carbon oxidation... that includes fuel (hydrocarbon) combustion, food (carbon-based) metabolism, many forms of electrical production (like coal-fired, oil-fired, or natural gas plants), and heat produced by combustion. That's simple chemistry.

The solution to producing carbon dioxide is to not produce carbon dioxide. That equates to not using electricity, not using automobiles, not using energy-intensive factories, not using public institutions that are energy-intensive, not living in heated structures, and, yes, not breathing. You can add not eating domesticated meat to that list, because all those meat animals breathe as well... and if you want to stretch, eating plants decreases the amount of floral carbon dioxide sinks. Maybe we should add eating to the list.

The bottom line is that we cannot completely remove our contribution to the carbon dioxide cycle. Therefore we should either accept physics or at least concentrate on scrubber technology instead of taxation. The very fact that we concentrate on taxation proves that no one is serious about carbon dioxide levels being an issue... or perhaps that we have all gone insane. Call me an optimist for assuming the former.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The only reasons taxation gets talked about is because the refusal to step away from what we are doing that has been pumping the CO2 out.

I don't agree with it either as those that are getting taxed just pass the cost down.
But ridiculous list like the one in the OP do nothing to add to the discussion.

a reply to: Sremmos80

That is one confusing post.

On one hand you say the reason for taxation cost is people's inability to 'step away' from producing carbon dioxide... which is produced through all the activities on that list, as I pointed out. Further, you seem to oppose the taxation of carbon dioxide.

On the other hand, you don't agree with the list as a possible method for solving the problem.

So let's get some clarity here: Do you believe man should stop producing carbon dioxide? If so, in full or to a certain level? And if to a certain level, what is that level?

Those are basic questions that should be answerable if one believes carbon dioxide production is an issue.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't agree with the list as it takes everything to the extreme, it isn't very confusing at all tbh.

I believe we need to step away from our reliance on fossil fuels and move towards greener tech and agree taxation is not the answer.

Twist away.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Why would I twist?

I agree that we should end or at least minimize dependence on fossil fuels. I don't need carbon dioxide fear to help me with that decision. The fact that efficiency would likely increase, air pollution would likely decrease, it would be one less resource to wage war over, and we would have access to more energy overall is plenty enough reason for me.

But you still didn't answer my question... let's take it one step at a time. Do you believe humankind should stop producing carbon dioxide?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Well you have been twisting everything else.
We can't stop producing it full stop. That is my issue with the list as it presents that as an answer people are pushing.
I never said we needed too or that we could.
There your loaded question is answered.

Do you think we should ignore how much is produced?
See I can ask then too.

a reply to: Sremmos80

That's a fair answer, and one I can empathize with. We should decrease, not stop.

See? No twisting. I just want straight, reasonable answers. No need to be suspicious.

Now, follow-up. What would be an acceptable level of carbon dioxide production?

Do you think we should ignore how much is produced?

Not entirely, no. I think the acceptable level has probably not been reached yet. If the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continued to climb to about 500-600 ppmv within, say, 20 years, we probably should begin to question whether action is needed. That would indicate to me that there is a reasonable possibility that the levels are not being compensated for sufficiently by the natural controls. That's my level of concern.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I think 600 is to high. Or if we want to wait to get to that level we have to stop getting rid of the mechanism available to absorb some of that.

a reply to: Sremmos80

My personal preference to the situation:

• Stop deforestation. Not only is removal of the rainforests also a removal of a carbon dioxide sink, but it is destruction of quite a few species found nowhere else. Many of the native flora could probably be used as medicinal aids if they could be saved from extinction by bulldozer. Of course, that entails giving the poor people that live there some benefits that they don't have yet, which is why they allow the clear-cutting of the rainforest in the first place.
  
  
• Seed the oceans with algae. You not only increase a carbon dioxide sink, but you feed fish and in turn, feed people. Win-win-win.
  
  
• Continue to search for new energy sources. We could use some funding assistance, you know...

That's my personal take anyway. As for the 600 ppmv level, I really don't think 1000 ppmv would mean the destruction of life. 500-600 ppmv would give us plenty of time to develop scrubber technology if nothing else. My main concern would really not be an absolute level, but a trend. The rise thus far simply doesn't worry me because it is minor and we haven't given the planet time to compensate yet.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Humans might be able to survive that level but there are ecosystem all over the world that would be drastically changed with those kind of levels. I guess the root to this whole discussion would be if you agree with the models of what would happen at 450 and above.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I really can't think of an ecosystem that would have problems at that level. Carbon dioxide levels should increase plant growth, so there would be more food. Any temperature change would be slight, far below daily fluctuations, and it's self-evident from history that life thrives in warmer climates. Birds would likely be the first to have difficulties, but at the levels we're talking about, I really don't think they would have much difficulty.

I don't see storm frequency or intensity increasing. Storms are a result of temperature differentials, not absolute temperatures. And thus far, I have seen no confirmation of concerns over storms.

So no, I really don't see problems.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sremmos80

I don't see storm frequency or intensity increasing. Storms are a result of temperature differentials, not absolute temperatures.

Not entirely true---the chemical & thermodynamic potential energy matters. And with a globally hotter atmosphere, and more water dissolved in it, more chance of big storms.

There is extremely little precipitation in Antarctica.

And although there's no water, the velocity of winds on Venus is extreme.

And thus far, I have seen no confirmation of concerns over storms.

Let's leave this to the professionals who use numbers and physics.

originally posted by: TheRedneck


The solution to producing carbon dioxide is to not produce carbon dioxide. That equates to not using electricity, not using automobiles, not using energy-intensive factories, not using public institutions that are energy-intensive, not living in heated structures, and, yes, not breathing. You can add not eating domesticated meat to that list, because all those meat animals breathe as well... and if you want to stretch, eating plants decreases the amount of floral carbon dioxide sinks. Maybe we should add eating to the list.

The bottom line is that we cannot completely remove our contribution to the carbon dioxide cycle.

We don't need to remove the natural carbon dioxide cycle---that was in balance for 10,000 years. If we grow a plant, and then eat it and fart it, that's OK.

We need to stop adding additional carbon which was fossilized for many millions of years and was utterly absent from the ecosystem during the entire evolutionary history of primates. For that extra usable energy, we should tap wind, sun and uranium.

a reply to: BlackProject

Yep. That does it. This debate is over now. Thanks so much, Black Project, for clearing that up.

a reply to: mbkennel

Not entirely true---the chemical & thermodynamic potential energy matters. And with a globally hotter atmosphere, and more water dissolved in it, more chance of big storms.

You just described a differential.

Potential is also based on a difference in temperature. If the temperature of one air mass is at 40 C and the other at 20C, the clash will have the same potential as if one were at 30C and one were at 10C. The only way potential increases is if differential temperatures increase.

Let's leave this to the professionals who use numbers and physics.

What do you think I do for a living?

We need to stop adding additional carbon which was fossilized for many millions of years and was utterly absent from the ecosystem during the entire evolutionary history of primates. For that extra usable energy, we should tap wind, sun and uranium.

Then may I suggest you get busy developing a wind or solar system that will work beyond the supplemental?

Wind is approaching saturation levels.

Solar is unreliable and sporadic, plus it produces low-voltage DC whereas transmission needs high-voltage AC... expensive to convert.

Uranium is great. Too bad too many people are scared of it.

TheRedneck