Global Warming tit-for-tat

reply to post by lordtyp0

Yet, we still crank out the gases millions of tons a day.

Herein lies the rub: to make change, you need the support of the people involved, all the people. Now, if you want my support to curb SO2, for instance, I am all for developing technologies to make sure we release as little SO2 as possible. If you want to talk about not polluting oceans with massive plastic islands, I'm all for that. But if you start telling me that a gas that I breath out simply by existing is deadly, you just lost my support.

Cap & Trade does just that. It overshadows a problem I support correcting with one that I cannot support. In the process, it masks the real dangers of deforestation and pollution. The solution is simple: forget about CO2 and fix the real problem.

Gore can use the old yacht for another year...

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I've been kind of curious about this for awhile. This is kind of a left field thing-unrelated to direct science, just sort of a hypothetical...

I am sure this has been said before as a pro or con to this debate. But, I am sure based on your writings that you are familiar with the Punnett Square-Yes I am aware of it's normal purpose. But it is very useful to illustrate things across diverse topics.

..Wish I could do tables in this forum
In the following mock up, the exercise is to blow it a bit out of proportions (sort of Reducto Ad Absurdum) and examine the worst case possibility of 4 items:
GWR = Global warming is real, and man influenced.
GWH = Global warming is a hoax or misinterpretation of things.
Y = People treat it as real and act accordingly.
N = People do nothing for a wide swath of reasons.

----------------------------------
Y (Both GWR and GWH) New tech is made, Cleaner envirion. Catastrophe averted(for GWR, GWH this part is irrelevant). Healthier lifestyle, renewable energy. Elves dance happily in the streets to the songs of Lady Gaga. At the cost of (potentially) trillions, companies will probably go bankrupt-if they do not reinvest (such as big oil, transportation etc.)


N (GWR) Mass extinctions, possibly including humans. Economies world wide topple as diseases reign unchecked from the new swampy style environment. Mass chaos ensues as nations fight for resources and people kill each other for food stocks. Money means nothing-if you even live after the worst hits.

N(GWH) The world continues as is. Rising rates of lung cancers and asthma. Unchecked development continues to kill off species with untold consequences in the biosphere. Eventually it could get so bad that instead of "Red Days" where they recommend nobody drives or goes outside, they have "Red Months".
----------------------------------------

Again, this Square is intentionally inflated. The obvious solution is that we act as though GW is real because all that is lost is money-for an increase in quality of life for the entire world. Cleaner energy sources, potential improvements in food production etc. etc. Basically it advocates a massive infrastructure overhaul. This Punnett Square set is of course just looking at the risks of each if true. Not whether any one is true on it's own merit.

Now, I am aware that this so far is sounding like an appeal to betterment in place of facts. I am NOT intending it that way. The purpose of this is the allusion that the 'people need to be won over'.

We know things about the masses:
They don't care.
They don't care enough to study subjects-favoring instead being told.
They don't care to check the credentials so long as it sounds fancy "Oh, a physicist says that GW violates the second law of thermodynamics! He says it can't warm the planet because no outside force is offsetting entropy? Sounds reasonable to me... What Sun are you talking about?"
They don't care because they think some force will save them-from some Deity to 'nature'.
They don't care because they still have the Immortality Complex (the idea that they can't possibly get hurt, or do anything bad.).
What do they care about? Money.

Here's the real rub: If GW is fact, and in full swing, and humans act to stop it... The masses will always think it was a scam-no matter what. They never saw the really bad parts.

If GW is real and nothing is done: suppose it saves the masses from the dilemma of "Do I get up to change the channel? Or wait till someone comes in and ask them?".

Course, if it's not real-the world is so polluted and only getting worse, that it is possible the Human species will go extinct in a couple hundred years anyway-from hormone tainted waters, to waste in playgrounds, mercury in rivers.. But: OMG!! Don't regulate! That could cause Walmart to increase prices by 10 cents!!


It's getting to where I am actually hoping GW is real and wipes the waste that humanity is off the galaxies rear, maybe it will get it right next time.

reply to post by lordtyp0

Yes, I have heard this before. The problem is that it is not reality. Here's my breakdown using your square:

Y:GWR - The world is destined for chaos anyway. Carbon credits will not reduce carbon dioxide. What they will do is cause poverty, suffering, and a further separation of social classes, quite possibly to an extent to rival the Medieval period. Carbon credits have no intrinsic value and can be printed as easily as cash. We both know what excessive printing of cash has done to the US economy; why would one expect carbon credits to be different? There will be no possibility of actual research into alternate energy, since the only people who will be able to afford to do so will be those already in the business of power production. They have already been accused of everything from price gouging to suppression of new technology. So why in the world would you want them to have sole control of all possible research?

Y:GWH - Society will suffer the same ills as in the case of Y:GWR. Also, there is a real possibility that actions taken could actually increase other aspects of the environment, leading to food shortages or possible global cooling.

N:GWR - We're screwed. All of our science pre-AGW is wrong. Society has to adapt to warmer climates, meaning seriously expensive movement of humanity across the globe, finally resulting in more available agricultural land for food and better crop yields as growing seasons elongate and temperate regions migrate toward the poles.

N:GWH - Nothing climate-related happens.

Again you bring up cancer rates and illnesses, none of which are caused by CO2. Nothing in the Kyoto protocol, nothing in the recent Copenhagen Conference was geared at reducing cancer or curing illness. The two arguments are simply not connected (unless financially and that would mean that adopting CO2 Cap & Trade would have the opposite effect on cancer/illness than what you appear to want).

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


And you keep bringing up Cap and trade. The Square above had nothing to do with proposed solutions per se. I am also not an advocate of cap and trade. Nor had I linked Cancer etc. to GW. Swapping in "Cap and Trade" to the square simply shows CaT is not desirable. Has nothing to do with what I was indicating.

What I was saying is GW is a point of concern. Had we not been essentially-trying to destroy the world as fast as we can, GW would not be as big of a concern. The waste and other factors are what makes GW the more worrisome. Heat and presence of so much waste in almost every facet of life means there are all sorts of catalytic possibilities. I can't imagine a one being beneficial.

The techniques to curtail potential GW would also curtail all the other nasty things. That is, if the solution is inclusive and not some get rich quick scheme.

As far as I am concerned. If Humanity doesn't get out of these weird Huxley/Orewell hybrid societies that are being born all over. Soon.. There won't be a point to even trying. The only way to get Humans to survive the next millennium is to have cleaner tech and renewable energy sources that are cheap. Lastly (IMO) we need a concerted Universal Education system that should be mandatory which focuses on the sciences. The last is multi-spectral as it would address lagging jobs, but more importantly allow more people to participate in educated brain-storms for finding solutions.

Obviously the education part is just frosting though.

With that in mind. It isn't something to vote on. If there is conclusive proof of danger-it should simply be acted on. This is meant in a broader scope and not just GW as obviously-at least on internet forums-the debate still rages.

The idea of needing to convince the masses though. If that is a true requirement, then perhaps they don't deserve being convinced. If a speeding care is approaching a wall, it is obviously bad to fight about the best method of not impacting the wall. While the fight ensues the wall will great the passengers faces.

Here's a challenge: Instead of all the Anti-GW people railing against gore and CaT.. Show links to better solutions and programs. At the very least such programs could improve quality of life. Regardless of GW.

reply to post by lordtyp0

And you keep bringing up Cap and trade. The Square above had nothing to do with proposed solutions per se.

I bring it up because you cannot separate the consequences from the solutions.

Every action has consequences. The fact that you were born and exist on this planet as a lifeform means that you have in some way altered the environment. That is simply the way things are. Anything we do, be it Cap & Trade, scrubber technology, continued existence, or mass genocide of our own species, will have consequences to the environment.

To separate the solutions from the consequences is to indulge oneself in pure fantasy.

I am glad to hear you have realized the scam behind Cap & Trade.

Heat and presence of so much waste in almost every facet of life means there are all sorts of catalytic possibilities. I can't imagine a one being beneficial.

Actually, increased temperatures of a few degrees would in the long run themselves be beneficial to life. Life thrives in warmer climes. Compare the life in existence in a tropical rain forest with the life that exists in the same area of the Arctic or Antarctic.

As to chemical reactions, yes, increased temperatures normally mean increased reaction rates. I am a bit unclear on exactly what reactions it is that you are concerned about, however. I know of none that would undergo a dramatic increase in reaction rates because of a minor (less than 5°C) rise in temperature.

Can you elaborate on what chemical reactions you are concerned about?

The techniques to curtail potential GW would also curtail all the other nasty things. That is, if the solution is inclusive and not some get rich quick scheme.

No disrespect intended, but this is what is commonly referred to as 'snake oil'... "good for what ails ye!"... "cures cancer, gout, diabetes, arthritis, depression, and a bad cold!"

There is no single thing that will across the board stop air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and temperature swings. It simply doesn't exist. There are individual acts that can curb individual problems, but to lump all our environmental problems in one big mass and try to find a single cure is an exercise in futility.

The only way to get Humans to survive the next millennium is to have cleaner tech and renewable energy sources that are cheap.

Cap & Trade (yes, I will continue to bring that up) will stifle any attempts to promote alternate energy. Firstly, it bases carbon dioxide emissions on power creation, not on actual emissions. That means it is a tax initially on anyone who wishes to produce power by any means. Secondly, it drains the economy, meaning the only people who will be able to even experiment or research alternative energy will be the wealthy... the very ones whose wealth is based on the status quo.

Lastly (IMO) we need a concerted Universal Education system that should be mandatory which focuses on the sciences. The last is multi-spectral as it would address lagging jobs, but more importantly allow more people to participate in educated brain-storms for finding solutions.

We have made attempts at this. In many ways you have just described the "No Child Left Behind" program. It established certain guidelines to make sure all children were being effectively taught a national standard in various subjects. The effect was that, since compliance could only be measured via standardized testing, all children were taught to pass the test, and only to pass the test.

We do not need more people to learn the same things we already think we know. We do need more individual thinkers with a solid background in the physical sciences. That cannot be accomplished with a test or a national (or by extension a global) mandate. It can only be accomplished by allowing freedom of thought and expression while requiring that teaching be exactly what it is intended to be: a transfer of knowledge from one generation to the next.

With that in mind. It isn't something to vote on. If there is conclusive proof of danger-it should simply be acted on.

A more dangerous statement I have yet to hear.

If there is no debate, no 'voting' by exercise of dissent, there is nothing to prevent self-centered interests of those in power form acting in personal interests rather than global interests. This is exactly what is wrong with the 'science' today... your proposal would only serve to worsen the situation.

The idea of needing to convince the masses though. If that is a true requirement, then perhaps they don't deserve being convinced. If a speeding care is approaching a wall, it is obviously bad to fight about the best method of not impacting the wall. While the fight ensues the wall will great the passengers faces.

Would it not be worse to tie the passengers hands so that the driver can increase speed and jump clear at the last minute?

THAT, my friend, is what you are arguing for.

Here's a challenge: Instead of all the Anti-GW people railing against gore and CaT.. Show links to better solutions and programs.

1. IF you just have to lower CO2 concentrations: www.abovetopsecret.com...
   
   
2. Do nothing until the science is better resolved; the last decade has shown no global temperature increase anyway.
   
   
3. Enforce EPA restrictions already on the books as to NOx, SO2, and HCl
   
   
4. Require reforestation when public lands are used for logging on a 2-for-1 basis to allow for natural die-offs
   
   
5. Assist equatorial countries economically so they are not forced to destroy rain forests to survive
   
   
6. Implement public energy-research grant programs to assist private inventors with their goals
   
   
7. Allow auto manufacturers more flexibility in research instead of just continually tightening regulations without regard to practicality. I drove 50 mpg vehicles 20 years ago... all those restrictions have left us with little now that gets over 40 mpg and most which get 35 mpg (hybrids and electrics excluded).
   
   
8. Use venues such as the recent Copenhagen Conference to address issues that will bring under-developed countries up to modern standards instead of giving them a free ride while efficient countries suffer.
   
   
9. Use public awareness campaigns to educate the general population about methods to reduce or recycle waste.
   
   
10. Enact import/export policies that bring jobs back to the US so average people can afford to use more energy-efficient technology, and so products can be manufactured under more ecologically-friendly conditions.
    
    
11. Stop using our food for fuel and paying companies via tax breaks to sell that food/fuel to other countries. 'Gasohol' gets less economy than gasoline.
    
    
12. Restrict patents on GM crops, and take steps to ensure that 'heirloom' seeds are available for posterity
    
    
13. Consider waste reduction technology, such as incineration, to reduce the amount of waste that must be disposed of
    
    
14. Provide places to put waste products, instead of the present practice of demanding waste disposal methods without ensuring they are practical or even possible.
    
    Shall I go on?
    
    TheRedneck

reply to post by lordtyp0


This is nothing more than another pro AGW made up claim, and it doesn't present all the facts...

Just because temperatures increased at the same time CO2 levels increased it doesn't show causation... More so because temperatures were already increasing for most of the world since the early 1600s, and in some areas of the world temperatures started increasing since the early 1500s...this is well before atmospheric CO2 began to increase...

Then we have the fact that the Sun's activity had been at it's highest in more than 1,000 years during the late 20th century, and part of the beginning of the 21st century.

Then we also know for a fact that the Earth's magnetic field began to weaken since 1840, which amplified the increased activity of the Sun.

Then there is another little fact, among the many others the AGW fans like to ignore, that during warming cycles water vapor levels increase naturally because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, and it causes a feedback loop because of water vapor which accounts, as far as we know, for 95% to 98% of the greenhouse effect. Meanwhile CO2, and other ghgs contribute about 2% to 5% of the greenhouse effect.

But of course the AGW fans have to blame a gas that is needed for all life on Earth, and which has NEVER been shown to cause the warming claimed by the AGW fans.

But nice try in trying to keep the AGW religion alive...

BTW, that link has nothing at all that makes it fairly balanced.... It makes it another biased pack of lies. I am not saying you are, but the lies, and the lack of information against the AGW claims in that link surely show bias towards AGW.


[edit on 31-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by TheRedneck

I bring it up because you cannot separate the consequences from the solutions.

Every action has consequences. The fact that you were born and exist on this planet as a lifeform means that you have in some way altered the environment. That is simply the way things are. Anything we do, be it Cap & Trade, scrubber technology, continued existence, or mass genocide of our own species, will have consequences to the environment.

This is a mix of concepts. It is true that mere presence affects everything. It is not true that GW would be a consequence of the solution. CaT is a proposed solution to address GW. It is not a direct consequence and would create it's own set of C&F's. CaT is not even in place yet yet you seem to use it as if it could disprove man-involved GW.

In a conversation of Apples and Oranges, that seems to be a Banana argument to me.

Heat and presence of so much waste in almost every facet of life means there are all sorts of catalytic possibilities. I can't imagine a one being beneficial.

Actually, increased temperatures of a few degrees would in the long run themselves be beneficial to life. Life thrives in warmer climes. Compare the life in existence in a tropical rain forest with the life that exists in the same area of the Arctic or Antarctic.

As to chemical reactions, yes, increased temperatures normally mean increased reaction rates. I am a bit unclear on exactly what reactions it is that you are concerned about, however. I know of none that would undergo a dramatic increase in reaction rates because of a minor (less than 5°C) rise in temperature.

Can you elaborate on what chemical reactions you are concerned about?

As for the 5 degree shift: Countless things go wrong within the human body at a simple 5 degree shift. Enzymes and Proteins are notoriously easy to denature via temperature. 5 degrees lower slows down reactions, as the temperature increases so does the reactions-until the Enxyme is denatured anyway.
Other chemical reactions that are obvious would be an increase in acid rain.
Countless bacteria in the soil and waters would also be impacted by such a shift-This could cause soil erosion and soil PH issues. As the balance tips in the soil-worms could start being stunted or killed resulting in barren soil.
That last is a worst case potential of a chemical related temperature increase. (I could probably find more, but I have to get my DL renewed today, and then go get drunk )

The techniques to curtail potential GW would also curtail all the other nasty things. That is, if the solution is inclusive and not some get rich quick scheme.

No disrespect intended, but this is what is commonly referred to as 'snake oil'... "good for what ails ye!"... "cures cancer, gout, diabetes, arthritis, depression, and a bad cold!"

There is no single thing that will across the board stop air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and temperature swings. It simply doesn't exist. There are individual acts that can curb individual problems, but to lump all our environmental problems in one big mass and try to find a single cure is an exercise in futility.

Meh, I just enjoy debating on here, being forced to look things up to backup a statement is much better for one than surfing the web for random pages or channel surfing

Otherwise: Enforcing a strict list of no-dumping/releasing (from Mercury Waste, to Acids, biologic/sewer waste, biologic/slaughterhouse, etc. etc. etc.) Is somehow a 'snakeoil' approach? Halting all the toxins that are released would make every facet of the envirionment better. I dare saw Bunk on the snakeoil statement-outright.

A more dangerous statement I have yet to hear.

How about "Doing nothing when obivious threat is present"?

Lastly:

Would it not be worse to tie the passengers hands so that the driver can increase speed and jump clear at the last minute?

THAT, my friend, is what you are arguing for.

How about.... Stomping on the breaks and then avoiding the wall?



With the options to fix: Awesome, hammer those home in all the threads.

Originally posted by TaraLou

No I cannot explain. Mammoths were huge elephants so I don't think they would be cuddly.

Hey, if you want to cuddle a polar bear go ahead... Is it a lie that polar bears are "dying off"?... Well, let's see.... The SCAM that the environlunatics created by showing a polar bear in a small iceberg and claimed he was in danger was debunked by the woman who took that pacticular photo, and this has been shown here many times.

Australian TV Exposes Stranded Polar Bear Global Warming Hoax

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
April 6, 2007 - 11:05 ET

Remember that wonderful picture of stranded polar bears on an ice floe that were used by folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore to demonstrate how dire the man-made global warming issue is?

Well, ABC television in Australia, on a show called “Media Watch,” recently debunked the entire issue (video available here, h/t NB member dscott).

It turns out -- as NewBuster Jake Gontesky reported on March 20 -- the picture was taken in August, “when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt regardless of the wider effects of global warming.”

The photographer, Australian marine biology student Amanda Byrd, didn’t think the bears were in any jeopardy:

They did not appear to be in danger…I did not see the bears get on the ice, and I did not see them get off. I cannot say either way if they were stranded or not.

Denis Simard of Environment Canada agreed:

You have to keep in mind that the bears are not in danger at all. This is a perfect picture for climate change…you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die...But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim...They are still alive and having fun.


How delicious. Think this kind of broadcast would ever happen in America?

What follows is a full transcript of this segment. Furthermore, here are the e-mail questions answered by the photographer who took the picture. And, here is the full transcript of the interview “Media Watch” did with The Sunday Telegraph’s Neil Breen regarding this matter.

Those stranded polar bears on the shrinking Arctic ice - victims of global warming - certainly tugged at the heart-strings.

That photo was published not only in the Sunday Telegraph.

It made it onto the front page of the New York Times.

And the International Herald Tribune.

It also ran in London's Daily Mail, The Times of London and Canada's Ottawa Citizen - and that's just to name a few.

All used it as evidence of global warming and the imminent demise of the polar bear.

But the photo wasn't current. It was two and a half years old.

And it wasnt snapped by Canadian environmentalists.

It was taken by an Australian marine biology student on a field trip.

And in what month did she take it?

“The time of year was August, summer.”

— Email from Amanda Byrd to Media Watch


Summer, when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt regardless of the wider effects of global warming.

So were the polar bears stranded?

“They did not appear to be in danger…I did not see the bears get on the ice, and I did not see them get off. I cannot say either way if they were stranded or not.”

— Email from Amanda Byrd to Media Watch


And they didn't appear stranded to Denis Simard of Environment Canada.
...........

newsbusters.org...

As we can see the environlunatics and the AGW scientists have to lie through their teeth to keep their religion alive.




[edit on 31-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by lordtyp0
..............
As for the 5 degree shift: Countless things go wrong within the human body at a simple 5 degree shift. Enzymes and Proteins are notoriously easy to denature via temperature. 5 degrees lower slows down reactions, as the temperature increases so does the reactions-until the Enxyme is denatured anyway.
Other chemical reactions that are obvious would be an increase in acid rain.
Countless bacteria in the soil and waters would also be impacted by such a shift-This could cause soil erosion and soil PH issues. As the balance tips in the soil-worms could start being stunted or killed resulting in barren soil.
That last is a worst case potential of a chemical related temperature increase. (I could probably find more, but I have to get my DL renewed today, and then go get drunk

)
....................

Could you tell us then why did life thrive with higher temperatures in past Climate Changes?...

The first neotropical rainforest was home of the Titanoboa
Published: Monday, October 12, 2009 - 15:09 in Paleontology & Archaeology

Smithsonian researchers working in Colombia's Cerrejón coal mine have unearthed the first megafossil evidence of a neotropical rainforest. Titanoboa, the world's biggest snake, lived in this forest 58 million years ago at temperatures 3-5 C warmer than in rainforests today, indicating that rainforests flourished during warm periods. "Modern neotropical rainforests, with their palms and spectacular flowering-plant diversity, seem to have come into existence in the Paleocene epoch, shortly after the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago," said Carlos Jaramillo, staff scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. "Pollen evidence tells us that forests before the mass extinction were quite different from our fossil rainforest at Cerrejón. We find new plant families, large, smooth-margined leaves and a three-tiered structure of forest floor, understory shrubs and high canopy."

esciencenews.com...


And again there is no evidence whatsoever that the climate will become 5C warmer because of atmospheric CO2, and please do not show us flawed computer models, aka GCMs, as evidence.

Life in the oceans, and on land has thrived with higher temperatures, even during the Medieval, and Roman Warm Periods which were warmer than anything we have seen so far. And again just knowing this fact doesn't prove atmospheric CO2 increases temperatures that much.

Show us proof that CO2 causes that much warming...



[edit on 31-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

It comes down to this.
To keep on believing GW is human caused one has to be either very daft, very arrogant or very gullible.
To think that us measly humans can influence global temperatures.

GW caused by humans has been debunked exposed as a money-grubbing racket and yet some sheeple continue to follow Al Gore right off the cliff.


I I T S S




[edit on 31-12-2009 by joey_hv]

Originally posted by joey_hv
It comes down to this.
To keep on believing GW is human caused one has to be either very daft, very arrogant or very gullible.
To think that us measly humans can influence global temperatures.

GW caused by humans has been debunked exposed as a money-grubbing racket and yet some sheeple continue to follow Al Gore right off the cliff.

I I T S S

[edit on 31-12-2009 by joey_hv]

Heh,
You realize your statements are akin to saying "God has been debunked by Atheists" or "Faithful have debunked Evolution".. yes?

Simply because two groups each claim evidence to the exclusion of others offered-doesn't debunk anything.

The whole idea that humans are trivial and could not influence the planet is almost staggering...

Techniques of mining such as this tend to destroy the water tables and create toxic soil greatly impacting all life for miles.

Scenes such as this tend to destroy all life in the water. The contamination of such events spreads.
Dead zones in the ocean as well-huge swaths of dead water means less oxygen being produced and less CO2 being 'scrubbed' from the atmosphere.
Soil Pollution leads to barren soil, plants die and erosion increases causing damage to cities as well as... having less plants to 'scrub' the atmosphere.


As for life thriving during past warm/hot periods... Not all did. Such events herald extinctions simply by occurring. The idea that "Global Warming is caused by man" is misleading. It is EXACERBATED by man in a multi-directional way. A simple analogy is this:

Deep sea diving, if you rise slowly the nitrogen can be absorbed/flushed/dealt with by bodily processes, but if you shoot to the surface, without medical care-you will die.

In this thread there have been many references to plants prospering in greenhouses with enriched CO2. Those are of course controlled environments with optimal everything, from soil nutrition and ph balance, water levels direct and in the form of humidity and constant care. A Greenhouse is not a good example of how a large CO2 level is fine or beneficial... I wonder how those same plants would do if you inserted the various other nasty pollutants that are in the real world to similar concentrations.

The is sufficient evidence to show that CO2 accelerates warming and makes the period last longer. The reason is that it traps more solar energy within the atmosphere. The planet would be fine on it's own cyclic terms, and could possibly be fine with what man is doing-if it were not for the other pollution variables.


Al Gore and his proposals are about as genuine as an argument of saying that Christianity is evil and false in every way because the Westboro Baptist Church exists. People will try and spin a profit from anything and everything. People will use fear mongering to gain political sway. These arguments do not change events anymore than not paying an insurance premium somehow makes one's kidney grow back and make dialysis no longer needed. One's opinion on Christianity and it's proponents either pro or con does not change the fact it exists.

Again, humans are capable of intentionally destroying the planet: From massive nuclear bombs to the Russian Cobalt bomb that can wipe all life out. We "measly humans" can do that, right now. And we do far more destruction via ignorance even on a personal day to day level like pouring chemicals down drains, or flicking cigarettes out the window and burning down forests.

If you cannot see or acknowledge the potential and power of the things around you, you have no hope of influencing anything when the time is needed.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


That was in reply to Redneck's hypothetical of 5C. As for the rest, please go back and read the full discussion. It's getting tiring repeating readily available things ad nauseum.

The image in the OP is a good piece of progaganda pro-MMGW/MMCC.

Mann has been discredited along with his hockey stick, yet he is still considered a credible scientist.

Mann has been implicated in the CRU e-mails.

If GW was happening:

* why the need to fudge the figures?

* why the need to hide or destroy data?

* why the need to have big-ass meetings that uselessly resulted in the emission of 42,000 tons of CO2 - the very gas we are told is going to lead to "dangerous climate change"?

* why, when the pro camp is asked for proof, do they just say "there is a consensus", or resort to adhomien attacks, whilst failing to actually show any hard data supporting their position?

* why has no raw data been presented outside of IPCC reports?

* why has no 3rd party ever said GW is real, independently of the IPCC?

* since when did politicians ever tell the truth on anything?

* why so much focus on giving poor (note poor, not endangered) countries money, if the moneys intent is to help "combat the effects of climate change"?

* why did France suddenly find it necessary to have to "re-think" their CO2 legislation that just happened to exclude Big Business from any restrictions on emissions, whilst simultaneously TAXING THE GENERAL PUBLIC? news.bbc.co.uk...

To use a Rumsfeld-ism: The obvious should be obvious.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by lordtyp0

It is not true that GW would be a consequence of the solution. CaT is a proposed solution to address GW. It is not a direct consequence and would create it's own set of C&F's. CaT is not even in place yet yet you seem to use it as if it could disprove man-involved GW.

I never stated that Global Warming would be a consequence of any solution, even of Cap & Trade. I only state that Cap & Trade will do little to nothing to help stop any climactic changes that may or may not be happening, but that it will accomplish much in the area of increasing human misery.

And Cap & Trade is indeed in place in certain areas, and is scheduled to take place in the US. See EPA Poised to Declare CO2 a Public Danger.

In any action, the subject of motive is critical. Who will potentially benefit from this? What are their possible motives? Is their track record one of honesty or deceit? My view of the motivation behind those who propose the dangers of carbon dioxide increases is that they are far from honest, they hide important information behind a wall of secrecy, and they care nothing about the effects on those whom they do not consider 'important'. Thus, my high level of suspicion when confronted by 'facts' published in conjunction with or by the likes of the CRU or IPCC... the two organizations that press for Cap & trade because of the 'dangers' of increasing carbon dioxide levels.

As for the 5 degree shift: Countless things go wrong within the human body at a simple 5 degree shift.

It is strange, then, that I seem to function just fine at temperature ranges from 60°F to 90°F. I can even function just fine at temperatures up to 100°F, although I do have to watch my exertion level at that temperature. That is a 40°F or 22°C temperature differential.

Perhaps you have confused environmental temperatures with core temperatures? We're talking about the temperature of the air, not of a fever.

Other chemical reactions that are obvious would be an increase in acid rain.

Acid rain is composed of small amounts of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) which result from the release of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the air, and nitric acid (HNO3) that results from NOx emissions. I have found nothing that indicates that increasing the temperature of the earth by a few degrees would add more sulfur dioxide or NOx to the atmosphere. So exactly where is this extra matter coming from that is so temperature-dependent?

Countless bacteria in the soil and waters would also be impacted by such a shift-This could cause soil erosion and soil PH issues. As the balance tips in the soil-worms could start being stunted or killed resulting in barren soil.

Are the bacteria in the tropics being impacted?

Are there worms in the tropics? Are they not larger and more abundant than the worms in temperate zones?

Your claims do not seem to fit the observations. Please show me one area on the planet where temperature alone causes life to have trouble surviving.

And notice I said 'temperature alone'... that does not include arid areas such as the Sahara Desert.

Meh, I just enjoy debating on here, being forced to look things up to backup a statement is much better for one than surfing the web for random pages or channel surfing

No disagreement there. Plus, you may learn something. IO know I frequently do.

Enforcing a strict list of no-dumping/releasing (from Mercury Waste, to Acids, biologic/sewer waste, biologic/slaughterhouse, etc. etc. etc.) Is somehow a 'snakeoil' approach? Halting all the toxins that are released would make every facet of the envirionment better.

The problem is that you cannot simply pass a law thatb says "you cannot discharge nasty stuff". What is nasty to one might not be considered nasty to another. You have to be specific: "You cannot discharge more than x kilograms of SO2 in every ton of exhaust, and no more than x kilograms per day."

When you say that, you also have to define every single pollutant. NOx levels are not the same as SO2 levels of HCl levels. And remember that there are literally thousands upon thousands of toxic chemicals. So no, it is not a one-shot deal that wipes out pollution, at least not in a legal sense.

How about "Doing nothing when obivious threat is present"?

How would that be worse than doing the wrong thing?

Consider this: there is a bomb ticking away and no way to escape. Now, would it make much difference whether you waited for it to go off or if you detonated it yourself?

How about.... Stomping on the breaks and then avoiding the wall?

Show me where the driver will hit the brakes instead of bailing out. Then we can talk.

TheRedneck


[edit on 12/31/2009 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by TheRedneck


(doing a reply for space conservation, not sure if I hit all the points though.)

I think I was getting the GW being a consequence of a solution came from: "I bring it up because you cannot separate the consequences from the solutions."
What I was getting at is proposed solutions don't effect causality. I realise you are saying that GW is false or overblown because people are trying to profit and other things, thus implying that things like CaT are the actual cause of the GW debate (in a round about way).
Motivations are tricky of course, since it's all just perspective based on things the onlooker has already made their mind up on.

Are the bacteria in the tropics being impacted?

Are there worms in the tropics? Are they not larger and more abundant than the worms in temperate zones?

Your claims do not seem to fit the observations. Please show me one area on the planet where temperature alone causes life to have trouble surviving.

Aw, come on now, you're better than this selectivism
Tropical creatures thrive in tropical areas. Other factors impact in various ways like altitude. Take a creature that is not from a tropical area, say a walrus, and drop it into the Amazon (taking care to keep creatures away), how long do you think it will survive? Take a Bird from the Amazon and put it in the wooded of Finnland. I am sure it's fate would also be grim. Temperature affects a huge swath of creatures, from simple plants that use Heat to tell it when to bloom, bears to hybernate etc. etc. a simply 5 degree potential shift could mess up the balance of life all over.

All creatures adapt to their envirionment. If you flood water over a Bristlecone Pine, it would probably die. It is used to a tiny amount of water a year. Point being: Change the envirionment too fast and the creatures wont last long. Depending on what dies first (say, like the predators) and the faster reproducers will spawn and devour vegitation etc.

In Utah I can think of one example: Fleas. In Moab (where I am from), Fleas were everywhere, was constantly having to treat cats and dogs. In SLC due to altitude and heat differences-Fleas cannot live. All the Animals in the Salt Lake area are Flea free. This example does not fit the mould completely-obviously. But it shows how creatures have zones that they can live in. Screw with the zone and chaos could ensue.

You asked about the degree shift impacting life and then ask if tropical plants and animals are OK in tropical areas?

Increased Acid rain is simple: Greater heat = more humidity = more rain. Now it is subjective in a way that is obvious at the momment: Supply of chemicals to make it acidic. If the chemicals maintain, they must first reach saturation before 'acid rain' occurs, otherwise it's just rain, until it hits that point of saturation anyway. A more likely scendario (I am presuming) is all the rainfal would carry an acidic rating on a lesser scale. (something like a PH of say, 5.5 instead of 7, instead of single rains being, say a 4... Those numbers are meant to illustrate, not reflect actual values).

On the 5 degree shift: Of course I was talking Core temperature to illustrate an envirionment being upset by mere heat/cold. Based on your exhibited knowledge of O-Chem, biology and botony and demonstrated intellect. That would have been instantly apparant that I was not confused-the area was in reply to heat changes and how it affects life functions afterall. "Gotcha" replies certainly seem beneath your capabilities

Course, if the entire world increased in temp it would be very close in analogy to Core heat. Various bacteria thrive in Volcanic vents, in super acidic waters and then others thrive in the cold.

Yellowstone National Park is a perfect example of the wide spectrum. If the heat were off, if the salination or PH or presence of other minerals were upset, those bacteria colonies would either die, or be fundamentally altered.

Examples Temperature alone affecting life(Or "Making live difficult): Volcanic Vents (bacteria survives, other life obviously has trouble), Antarctica (not much of a mammal or insect population on the continant itself.)
Here is a listing or areas that you see sparce creature populations: en.wikipedia.org...

Now if your question is more "where no life exists" instead of just having trouble, which I hope it isn't since bacteria and some animals like Frogs can be completely frozen-dethaw and be fine, other life forms exist in near boiling conditions etc..Hypothetically there could even be forms of life floating around in orbit of earth etc.. Well, this discussion isn't about whether all life dies, or even that potential. It is about whether life will be able to sustain humans really. All almost, 7billion of us now. About whether the effects of GW will leave a world we would even want to survive in, and the likes.

And more over: If action should be taken to curb the potentials of this threat. Less about the actions that are best.

---------------
Anyway, need to run off for the night now, party starts in half an hour and I will need to brave all the drunk idiots who are undoubtedly creating a destruction-derby on the free-way

Anyone who's reading: Have a good New Years... Shall butt heads with you again next year

Originally posted by lordtyp0

That was in reply to Redneck's hypothetical of 5C. As for the rest, please go back and read the full discussion. It's getting tiring repeating readily available things ad nauseum.

The only thing that is getting tiring are the repeated attemps from the AGW proponents making the same old claims which have been debunked dozens of times.

First of all, no one was, or is saying that there was no warming...but we have been saying there has been, and continues to be NATURAL Climate Change...

You can't fix what isn't broke... Again, show us PROOF that CO2 causes the warming claimed by the AGW scammers. You claim CO2 makes things worse, then prove it... It has been shown that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 is BENEFITIAL to all green biomass of Earth, which also benefits the fauna of the world, and increased levels of atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature changes.

PROOF does not equal flawed computer models which have been shown time and again to be wrong, and through the leaked emails we found out that the main proponents of AGW had to rig the data, they had to hide the original programs and original data, they talked about using legal and illegal ways to keep people in the dark and not able to get any information through the FOIA. They even discussed changing the "peer review process" if necessary to not allow any research that refutes AGW to be published. They discussed even ways to discredit and make personal attacks at anyone who dares doubt AGW, etc, etc...

It is obvious by now, and even nature has shown it, that Climate Change has been, and continues to be natural.

Increased levels of atmospheric CO2 has ALWAYS been benefitial to Earth, and right now the Earth is deprived of atmospheric CO2.

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

Much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than the present 380 ppm makes plants, trees, and ALL green biomass of Earth stronger, healthier, and increases the harvest yields.

Also it is a known fact that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 makes all green biomass better use water, which means we will also have more potable water for us, and animals. Atmospheric CO2 is not a problem, and in fact it helps all life on Earth if there are much higher levels than at present.

Rebecca Lindsey June 5, 2003

Leaving aside for a moment the deforestation and other land cover changes that continue to accompany an ever-growing human population, the last two decades of the twentieth century were a good time to be a plant on planet Earth. In many parts of the global garden, the climate grew warmer, wetter, and sunnier, and despite a few El Niño-related setbacks, plants flourished for the most part.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...



[edit on 31-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by lordtyp0

First off, Happy 2010!

What I was getting at is proposed solutions don't effect causality. I realise you are saying that GW is false or overblown because people are trying to profit and other things, thus implying that things like CaT are the actual cause of the GW debate (in a round about way).
Motivations are tricky of course, since it's all just perspective based on things the onlooker has already made their mind up on.

Proposed solutions do not affect causality, but implemented solutions obviously have their own causality. Cap & Trade is not a proposal, but a forced implementation in progress. Therefore, any causality from Cap & Trade is a part of the equation.

You should know that I was not always so vehement about the fallaciousness of Anthropogenic Global Warming. At one time, I was among those who blindly believed the 'scientists'. I personally thank Al Gore for opening my eyes with that silly 'fake-umentary' called "An Inconvenient Truth". That thing contained so many glaring errors in scientific thought that it prompted me to take a closer look into what I was being told. The deeper I looked, the further this rabbit hole seemed to go. I do not think I have found the bottom even yet.

So yes, my mind is pretty much made up. But I did not decide whether or not I believed in AGW because of what some politician or IPCC mouthpiece told me; I personally verified, studied, and considered the evidence, both scientific and political.

Tropical creatures thrive in tropical areas.

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

Obviously a walrus is not suited for tropic climates. Obviously a hippopotamus would quickly die in bitter cold. No one is disputing that.

But if one looks at the ability of life in general to adapt, that adaptation ability seems to be more capable in warmer climates. This is evidenced by the abundance of life in the tropics, not by individual characteristics of lifeforms. I would not be surprised if for every species living above the Arctic Circle, there were tens of thousands living below the Tropic of Cancer. Yes, life adapts, but it is apparently easier to adapt to warmer climates than to colder ones.

Also, you seem to think that a 5°C difference is somehow critical when average daily temperatures have much higher swings. I know it is not unusual at all for temperatures here to vary 15°C within the space of 24 hours. Yet, animals survive, and thrive, and life goes on. Now please explain to me how a 5°C difference over 100 years is going to have a more drastic impact on life than a 15°C (3x) difference in 24 hours.

That was my point.

Increased Acid rain is simple: Greater heat = more humidity = more rain.

More rain = more solute for the same amount of acid = less acidity.

If the chemicals maintain, they must first reach saturation before 'acid rain' occurs, otherwise it's just rain, until it hits that point of saturation anyway.

Are you saying that the acid that is in acid rain simply wanders around the atmosphere until it decides there is enough to do damage?

Whatever acidic components are in the atmosphere at any one time become dissolved with the water vapor in the atmosphere. Acid rain falls when the water vapor condenses and there are enough dissolved acids in that condensed water to change the pH appreciably. It is certainly not pure water because the acidic components are waiting on numbers to take the net storm!

Also, where is the correlation between global temperature changes and atmospheric contaminants? Sulfur does not simply start appearing from the ether because the temperature went up.

On the 5 degree shift: Of course I was talking Core temperature to illustrate an environment being upset by mere heat/cold. Based on your exhibited knowledge of O-Chem, biology and botony and demonstrated intellect. That would have been instantly apparant that I was not confused-the area was in reply to heat changes and how it affects life functions afterall. "Gotcha" replies certainly seem beneath your capabilities

I am still a little amazed that you would make that illogical leap. AGW does not in any way affect core temperatures of lifeforms. Warm-blooded animals maintain their internal temperatures through chemical combustion of sugars and regulatory systems to control heat loss. Cold-blooded animals would be more at risk, but these already deal with much wider and faster temperature swings on a daily basis.

So no, no 'gotcha'... you have to make it at least satisfying. This was just too easy.

Course, if the entire world increased in temp it would be very close in analogy to Core heat. Various bacteria thrive in Volcanic vents, in super acidic waters and then others thrive in the cold.

Volcanic vents can regularly run from 700°-1200°C. The interior of the Antarctic has a mean temperature of about -60°C. How exactly are you relating those temperature extremes to a 5°C differential?

Carrying a theory to its conclusion is one thing; making assumptions based on totally unrealistic extremes is something else entirely.

Well, this discussion isn't about whether all life dies, or even that potential. It is about whether life will be able to sustain humans really. All almost, 7billion of us now. About whether the effects of GW will leave a world we would even want to survive in, and the likes.

Agreed. So why are you bringing up effects that wild temperature extremes may have on niche bacteria?

Humans right now thrive from the equatorial regions past the Arctic Circle. The 'cradle of civilization', however, is generally agreed to be located in semi-tropical and tropical Northern Africa and the Middle East. We have, as a species, expanded into colder climates than those which we originally inhabited, not into warmer ones. Thus, it should be no major problem to adapt back to warmer temperatures within the range we are discussing.

Our advance into colder climates has come with a price. We must maintain layers of clothing and use heat sources to survive. Our bodies simply are not well-suited to colder weather. In warm climates, however, humans need very little clothing and no external climate adjustments to maintain ourselves. Our core body temperature is even designed to handle heat more than cold. Hypothermia is a known killer, taking the lives of many people each year. Yet, the opposite is a common occurrence known as a 'fever'... a normal biological response to infection in the body.

When the core temperature of the body drops, the first response is to shunt blood away from the skin and extremities. This in itself is a serious response since it is the reason for frostbite, the actual death of extremity tissue from freezing. The next response is also the last: shivering, the using of massive amounts of energy to maintain core temperature. If that doesn't maintain core temperature, one dies.

Compare that to the body's response to heat. The first response is sweating, an efficient method of transferring heat away from the body via evaporation. If that fails, the body can shunt more blood (and thus heat) to the extremities and skin. Unlike the response to cold, more blood will not damage the cells. And finally, as a last resort, our muscles react to overheating by becoming somewhat listless, causing us to burn less energy and therefore slow or stop any temperature increase (heat exhaustion).

(One aspect of this comparison should be noted... it requires more energy to survive in cold temperatures and less energy to survive in warm temperatures.)

Yes, heat stroke can kill should all of the above fail. However, prompt medical attention, even on a first-aid level, can counter heat strokes even after they have begun (I should know; I am not smart enough to stay out of the sun, apparently, and have had my share of instances of minor heat stroke and heat exhaustion). But if one compares the number of heat-related deaths per year to the number of cold-related deaths, it becomes obvious that cold is a much greater threat to our species than is heat.

If we extend our consideration to agriculture, something that has been brought up frequently, it is plainly obvious that any increase in global temperatures would extend the growing seasons as well as allowing crops to be grown farther north. Again, heat helps life to thrive. More available land to grow food on plus longer growing seasons equals more food.

There is no aspect of society that would collapse from a 5°C temperature change. There are many which would improve. And in that context, it is actually somewhat of a shame that the science is false and that we are not increasing global temperatures.

I like summer.

I hope you had a safe and enjoyable evening.

TheRedneck


[edit on 1/1/2010 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by TheRedneck

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

Obviously a walrus is not suited for tropic climates. Obviously a hippopotamus would quickly die in bitter cold. No one is disputing that.

But if one looks at the ability of life in general to adapt, that adaptation ability seems to be more capable in warmer climates. This is evidenced by the abundance of life in the tropics, not by individual characteristics of lifeforms. I would not be surprised if for every species living above the Arctic Circle, there were tens of thousands living below the Tropic of Cancer. Yes, life adapts, but it is apparently easier to adapt to warmer climates than to colder ones.

Also, you seem to think that a 5°C difference is somehow critical when average daily temperatures have much higher swings. I know it is not unusual at all for temperatures here to vary 15°C within the space of 24 hours. Yet, animals survive, and thrive, and life goes on. Now please explain to me how a 5°C difference over 100 years is going to have a more drastic impact on life than a 15°C (3x) difference in 24 hours.

Hey, you asked for example areas where life had problems existing due to temperature alone That is all the locations and extremes were about. A request for examples of temperature making things difficult for life. Was not in relation to a simple degree shift.

Are you saying that the acid that is in acid rain simply wanders around the atmosphere until it decides there is enough to do damage?

Whatever acidic components are in the atmosphere at any one time become dissolved with the water vapor in the atmosphere. Acid rain falls when the water vapor condenses and there are enough dissolved acids in that condensed water to change the pH appreciably. It is certainly not pure water because the acidic components are waiting on numbers to take the net storm!

Also, where is the correlation between global temperature changes and atmospheric contaminants? Sulfur does not simply start appearing from the ether because the temperature went up.

Thats kind of what I was getting at, is the acid rain part would come in the form of less acidity due to increased rain. As the greater evaporation would cause a more constant supply instead of bursts-the increased rain would be 'flushing' it more.

Essentially I was saying-via deduction(since there is no real fact or experiments to show what would happen either way, that I am aware of)- Acidic Rain would be more common, just less intense.

I am still a little amazed that you would make that illogical leap. AGW does not in any way affect core temperatures of lifeforms. Warm-blooded animals maintain their internal temperatures through chemical combustion of sugars and regulatory systems to control heat loss. Cold-blooded animals would be more at risk, but these already deal with much wider and faster temperature swings on a daily basis.

You had asked how temperature would affect chemical reactions. The world is an ecology with trillions of components. The body of a mammal such as a human is an ecology with trillions of components. With prime examples of how simple heat shifts affect the chemical reactions in the body.

Perhaps it was not the best method to illustrate, but then it was there to address the question of how temperature shifts affect chemical reactions.

It can be expanded to the enviornment thusly: You mentioned when one gets hot-they sweat, when one gets cold, shiver: etc.

Examine those in areas like Pheonix or LA, and those in Anchorage. Their bodies adapt over time for the areas to which: 30 degrees F in Alaska is shorts and T-shirt weather. 70 degree's in hot areas means people toss on Parkas.

Things can eventually adapt. The problem is how long it will take to make that adaption. Humans have the luxury of heating and AC. Organisms of course do not. If the temp change is too rapid, one can expect mass die-offs.

A natural cycle would be something like: Sun heats planet, over time areas like the Taiga thaw releasing mass quantities of CO2 and other related gases (presumably oxygen etc. since it is basically millions of square miles of frozen plants) The release makes things swampier over time. Sun cools down, northern areas freeze again, the swamp factor dies down, then a cooling period.

According to:cdiac.ornl.gov... (this addresses the properties of CO2 and heat, not GW itself. This is a chemistry fact, testable via a spectrometer)

Molecules can absorb and emit three kinds of energy: energy from the excitation of electrons, energy from rotational motion, and energy from vibrational motion. The first kind of energy is also exhibited by atoms, but the second and third are restricted to molecules. A molecule can rotate about its center of gravity (there are three mutually perpendicular axes through the center of gravity). Vibrational energy is gained and lost as the bonds between atoms, which may be thought of as springs, expand and contract and bend. The three kinds of energy are associated with different portions of the spectrum: electronic energy is typically in the visible and ultraviolet portions of the spectrum (for example, wavelength of 1 micrometer, vibrational energy in the near infrared and infrared (for example, wavelength of 3 micrometers), and rotational energy in the far infrared to microwave (for example, wavelength of 100 micrometers). The specific wavelength of absorption and emission depends on the type of bond and the type of group of atoms within a molecule. Thus, the stretching of the C-H bond in the CH2 and CH3 groups involves infrared energy with a wavelength of 3.3-3.4 micrometers. What makes certain gases, such as carbon dioxide, act as "greenhouse" gases is that they happen to have vibrational modes that absorb energy in the infrared wavelengths at which the earth radiates energy to space. In fact, the measured "peaks" of infrared absorbance are often broadened because of the overlap of several electronic, rotational, and vibrational energies from the several-to-many atoms and interatomic bonds in the molecules. (Information from "Basic Principles of Chemistry" by Harry B. Gray and Gilbert P. Haight, Jr., published 1967 by W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York and Amsterdam)

If the CO2 levels are inflated, but plants reduced (from burning down rainforests, blowing mountain tops off for mining, dumping waste in rivers, burying waste barrels in various places etc. etc.)-more CO2 is presant for longer periods. Humans alone exhale around 1kg/day. Rounded off that is about 7x10^9kg (scientific notation is fun, and alot more entertaining than saying 7 billion,, god I'm a nerd.) of CO2/day From Human existance alone. This says nothing about the billions of tonage produced from cars and factories and the likes around the world.

CO2 is an issue because it begins the cycle, as the oceans warm, water vapor increases which is another powerful 'insulator'. It is easy to see how human intereference is the trigger of this acceleration.

In a natural setting, the Greenhouse Gas collective more or less reduces heat 'bleeding'. It is just "insulation" that keeps solar energy here.

With the above in mind:
I suppose I should mention my thesis statement again. It keeps getting ignored it seems in place generalized statements against GW are put forth.

(Gah, a novel post, continued in next)

reply to post by TheRedneck




The danger IMO is:

Will crops be sustainable? (You have said CO2 and Heat is good for crops, but that is an optimal picture. The one we are looking at are GM crops with soil contamination of all types (persticides, herbacides, fertalizers. Given chemical reactions occur quicker with heat or are in fact catalyzed, that temperature shift in the soil could do all sorts of things. Look at Hawaiian Punch (example of something benign turning toxic simply by temperature): if left in heat it starts making poisons because of the Ascorbic acid reactions with preservatives. If cold it's fine, if in the sunlight and warmer areas-like 'room temperature' it becomes toxic.)

Will recovery of the ecology be possible?
Humans have caused mass extinctions, any number of which might be key in the recovery. If the bacteria dies off soil erosion increases. Not all bacteria has super fortitude. Predators could gain an edge and wipe out integral creatures like bees, or ants etc. Then starve.

I don't care about things like Oceans rising (which we are seeing now in Florida and Venice). I think CO2 emissions should be curbed simply because it could and is seeming to, give the process a hit of PCP. The real problems we have to address though are the ecological contaminations.


I do not consider GW as the actual crux of the problem. I consider it a "Coffin Nail". Perhaps the last coffin nail. The real threat involved (IMO) is that the damage humans have done planet wide will make it so Global Warming will be radically worse than the natural cycles, beyond just the CO2 heat acceleration. The heat will still take years to accumulate, perhaps decades or even centuries-allowing life to adapt. In the meantime we could be sitting on a chemical monstrosity that will eat us when the heat wakes it.
-------------------

Btw, glad to see you survived last night I think I passed 5-6 car accidents. What is it with morons and booze?

reply to post by lordtyp0

A request for examples of temperature making things difficult for life. Was not in relation to a simple degree shift.

Considering the fact that we were discussing an assumed 5° temperature shift, it could be seen as that restriction was implied.

Thats kind of what I was getting at, is the acid rain part would come in the form of less acidity due to increased rain. As the greater evaporation would cause a more constant supply instead of bursts-the increased rain would be 'flushing' it more.

But acids are only dangerous based on their pH value. If the same amount of acid is dissolved in a larger volume of solvent, the pH value gravitates back toward 7 (neutral), meaning the acid is no longer dangerous to life.

Also, more heat does not equal more rain. It will equal more moisture in the atmosphere, but it is the temperature changes that create rain, not the absolute temperature. If the temperature remained steady, there would be no rain.

The body of a mammal such as a human is an ecology with trillions of components. With prime examples of how simple heat shifts affect the chemical reactions in the body.

Perhaps it was not the best method to illustrate, but then it was there to address the question of how temperature shifts affect chemical reactions.

The human body is indeed a complex reaction mechanism... but it is a complex reaction mechanism which uses negative feedback to maintain a steady state of existence.

And I agree, this can be extended to the atmosphere, and the biosphere in general. It as well is a complex mechanism that uses negative feedback to retain the 'Goldilocks zone' I mentioned earlier. And that means just as a human body that gets a bit too hot sweats to cool itself off, the ecosphere as well uses negative feedback to offset and control changes in itself.

Examine those in areas like Pheonix or LA, and those in Anchorage. Their bodies adapt over time for the areas to which: 30 degrees F in Alaska is shorts and T-shirt weather. 70 degree's in hot areas means people toss on Parkas.

I do believe you exaggerate a bit, but your point is taken.

However, this is not the same kind of 'evolution' that causes animals to acclimate to environmental changes that produce new species over long periods. This is simple metabolism adjustment, and can be overcome in the space of a few years of living in different climates. There is no reason why someone born and raised in Phoenix would be unable to survive in Anchorage, or vice-versa. They simply need a little time for their metabolism to acclimate.

If anything, this ability to acclimate quickly using metabolic adjustment rather than evolution disproves the idea that a 5°C temperature rise would prove catastrophic.

A natural cycle would be something like:

"Something like" would be the most correct statement. There is no real evidence yet for or against solar cycles themselves having such a direct impact on the climate. Also, if what you say it true, we are living on either a ball of molten lava or a ball of solid ice. The Goldilocks zone cannot exist in a runaway mechanism. What you have just described (increased energy input by the sun creates conditions that exacerbate that solar increase) is the definition of a runaway system, one that would become uninhabitable at the first sign of any shift in the environment.

This is a chemistry fact, testable via a spectrometer

Yes, it is, and it is not under dispute. What is under dispute is how much heat is emitted by the earth due to blackbody radiation, how much of that emitted heat is in the wavelength band that carbon dioxide can absorb, how much the escape of that heat energy will be delayed by radiative forcing (which is generally like a game of catch between carbon dioxide atoms), what systems will be able to compensate for any heat increase or carbon dioxide increase, the amount of heat or carbon dioxide they can mitigate, and whether or not the conditions we find in the atmosphere today are outside the limits of natural mechanisms to function and control the climate.

In simpler terms, the question is quantitative, not qualitative. If you are indeed a 'nerd' as you claim, you will know the difference between the two.

If the CO2 levels are inflated, but plants reduced...

Then why not try to stop the reduction of plant life? Would that not be an overall better method of solving the problem?

One should also consider that plant life may indeed be under threat in certain areas, but in other areas it is not. I can look out my window and see literally hundreds of trees, and those hundreds hide thousands behind them. I can drive across the country, and with the exception of two areas, cities and deserts, see a literal sea of green. All that green is converting carbon dioxide to oxygen be it green tree leaves, green grass, green crops, green brush, or green ornamental shrubbery outside in a lawn.

The only reason trees are specified so often is their size... yet trees do not contribute to carbon dioxide scrubbing as much as algae... simple plant life floating about on the tides account for the vast majority of the carbon dioxide conversion on the planet.

As much as I would love dearly to see the Amazon Basin protected, it is only partially because of the carbon dioxide issue. The simple fact is that the Amazon Basin represents a small percentage of the total scrubbing potential of the biosphere, and even that small percentage is offset to some degree by the agricultural use of cleared land. The real reason for me is that these are unique flora and fauna zones that may well contain organic chemicals that can be used for medicine as well as a beauty that does not exist anywhere else. The fact that the rainforests scrub CO2 is a side benefit.

Will crops be sustainable? (You have said CO2 and Heat is good for crops, but that is an optimal picture. The one we are looking at are GM crops with soil contamination of all types (persticides, herbacides, fertalizers. Given chemical reactions occur quicker with heat or are in fact catalyzed, that temperature shift in the soil could do all sorts of things.

If there is a problem in this area, it is due to the use of overly severe pesticides, unnatural fertilizers, and GM crops. Of course, you should realize that the very reason GM crops are used is so the plants are more resistant to pests, resulting in less pesticides being needed.

The temperature changes predicted for the next century are minor when concerning chemical equilibria, and will not cause new reactions to occur in any case. At the most, there could be a slight increase in reaction rates of presently occurring reactions. Now, if you know of a chemical reaction that does not occur at one presently experienced temperature, and yet occurs at 5°C above that temperature, please let me know so I can eat my words. BTW, I remind you that ice melting is not a chemical reaction but a physical one.

Humans have caused mass extinctions, any number of which might be key in the recovery. If the bacteria dies off soil erosion increases.

Do you have a link to this connection between bacteria and soil erosion?

Also, do you have proof that humans have been directly responsible for all the extinctions in the last 100 or even the last 50 years? Is it possible that the extinctions themselves were due to natural events? Is that not what drives evolution in theory?

I don't care about things like Oceans rising (which we are seeing now in Florida and Venice).

It is physically impossible for the ocean to rise in one location and not in another, unless you know of someone who has figured out a way to change the gravitational constant.

I do not consider GW as the actual crux of the problem. I consider it a "Coffin Nail". Perhaps the last coffin nail. The real threat involved (IMO) is that the damage humans have done planet wide will make it so Global Warming will be radically worse than the natural cycles, beyond just the CO2 heat acceleration.

Absolutely we have done damage to the planet! Yet, experience has taught me that the planet (meaning the ecosphere of course) is much hardier than we seem to think. I live in a mobile home parked at the very edge of a mountain which is covered in virgin forest. To park the thing here, I had to spend a couple of weeks cutting small trees and brush, despite the fact that it had been cleared many times in the past. Even now, with my family living right here, the mountain encroaches again, slowly, yes, but steadily.

Even more telling of this is a place where I used to hunt. My great-uncle lived out in the middle of a wooded area, on a plot that was once used for strip mining. Once the ore ran out, the mine was abandoned. I'm sure back then it was a real mess.

Fast forward twenty short years. I am now hunting deer on that place. three huge pits that were scooped out had become lakes that served as watering holes for the deer, the bobcats, the bear (yes, a black bear lived there ), the coyotes, and the myriad of smaller animals. Trees again covered the area, although obviously most of the hundred-year-old ones were not there. The cliffs and mounds that were left from all the digging became a part of the natural setting. It looked as though a giant hand had skillfully sculptured a rugged landscape instead of a smoother one, and that made it even better for some of the wildlife that inhabited this place.

I understand that if one lives in an urban or even suburban area, or if one lives in a desert area, one could easily get the impression that there is a lack of trees and other flora. But I assure you, as someone who for many years made their living by driving back and forth across the USA, there is no shortage of plant life. The majesty that is nature is indeed both fragile and hardy at the same time. Break it, and it will mend.

Of course, I will agree that it would be better to not break it in the first place.

Btw, glad to see you survived last night

I think I passed 5-6 car accidents. What is it with morons and booze?

As I am glad to see you did the same. I have this strategy... I keep my happy little redneck butt at home.

I am beginning to think that morons are simply misunderstood. They are not really stupid; it is just that they have this booze deficiency that makes them act like it.

At least, that how it seems sometimes...

TheRedneck