Environment gets Bushed

[Narz]

So you don't have any substance. I didn't think you would. Have fun looking "deep".

Think this is fun for me? Knuckleheads who can't understand science and insist on conspiracy theories to justify their lifestyles sicken me.

I'm trying to break it down into simple concepts even a toddler could understand. In vain apparently. Plenty of people on this thread are already getting into the specifics. I'm not getting paid to teach you here, do your own research (though it seems plainly obvious you're interested not at all in research besides just cherrypicked supposed anomalies to support your already formed conclusions).

And now it's time to move onto to bigger and better things. Sometimes one must know when to quit.

 

[skadistic]

Once you get above 475-550 ppm. At this point you're filling the Oceans with so much Carbonic Acid that the pH levels start to vary significantly near the surface. Ocean life starts to die, as aquatic creatures are extremely sensitive to acidity changes. This would be extremely destabilizing to the ecosystem, and could cause widespread effects.Are we at that level yet? How far do we have to go?

Or you can even get yourself into anoxic conditions, capable of causing H2S blooms, such as those occasionally seen in the Dead Sea and off the coast of Nigeria. Given the right conditions, a bubble will form under the ocean, and when that comes up, very bad things happen. It has been theorized as the cause of 'The Great Dying'. I would rather not be around for anything like that.A theory thats what did it? Very convincing.

That's while ignoring the obvious contribution to Global Warming, since, those villainous scientists are all just out to trick us any way.Some of them are. Some are just using flawed data from temp stations placed in the wrong spot. Why did you have to call scientists villainous? Good thing we know that lighting is caused by the gods throwing things at us, and the sun is brought by a golden chariot riding across the sky.

That's nice. I see in lacking substance you resort to exaggerating things to an absurd point. Good for you!

 

[skadistic]

Think this is fun for me? Knuckleheads who can't understand science and insist on conspiracy theories to justify their lifestyles sicken me.

I'm trying to break it down into simple concepts even a toddler could understand. In vain apparently. Plenty of people on this thread are already getting into the specifics. I'm not getting paid to teach you here, do your own research (though it seems plainly obvious you're interested not at all in research besides just cherrypicked supposed anomalies to support your already formed conclusions).

That's right attack my intelligence because you lack substance.

If you have to type that its "plainly obvious", it isn't.

 

[bhsup]

No, but it has the ability to figure out what a pollutant* is as defined by the Environmental Protection Act when the act describes, but doesn't explicitly mention, some pollutants.

*I'm not sure if this is the word used in the Act.

So then you ARE backtracking completely from your OP when you claimed that the President ignored an order from the Supreme Court.

 

[El_Machinae]

What do you suggest? Beyond the usual mantras of "raise the gas tax" and "improve efficiency", I mean.

1) at the personal level, try to get proper economic return for your CO2 expenditure. No one's asking you to use less energy, or even less gasoline. Just use what you want to use efficiently. If climate change impacts the economy by the ~2-6% it's expected to, then if we can bump up our rate of (otherwise sustainable) economic growth by an additional 2-6%, then the consequences won't be so bad.

If Canada and the USA could get the same $GDP/[CO2] seen by France, we'd not want to use less CO2 anyway.

2) pay to sequester CO2. I'm really starting to like the idea of deep mine CO2 sequestering. Coal-fired plants and oil-fired plants should collect a portion of their waste CO2 onsite and then pay to get sequestered. We can also do things to improve the biomass potential of various wild portions of the planet, so that they can grow and capture more CO2. Other sequestering ideas can be added to mine, of course. Even at a personal level, we can increase sequestering by increasing the biomass on our properties.

Tropical places can be paid to eat my pollution. That's pretty cool.

3) economically punish cheaters. If producers don't pay for their fair share of CO2 sequestering, then refuse to purchase their goods. Ideally, I'd like that to be done at an individual level, but moral suasion is proving to be insufficient in this regards. Treaties will have to be signed, where goods are approved.

4) all the cheap sequestering will be done earlier, so be prepared to migrate into nuclear, wind, and solar power. Plan ahead of time. This is something that needs to be done by whatever is the appropriate government level. Right now, I suspect it's cheaper to sequester than to use nuclear, but it won't always be.

5) get the bottom billion out of poverty. If we can improve their economic growth rates by a ferocious amount, then we'll sufficiently compensate them for the negative impacts due to the coming climate change. Because right now, we're projecting to effectively wipe out the gains they'd be making on their own. Even if they naturally could develop a (say) 2% economic growth rate, climate change will undo most of it.

Co2 isn't pollution.

That's right. Fossil records from Noah's Flood show seasonal periods of much higher CO2, and their climate was sufficiently stable for millions of now-extinct species all at the same time.

Because I assume you're using some variant of Creationist science to come to your conclusions.

If all those people who cry about Co2 were really concerned they would stop breathing.

The breathing of the entire planet is only a small portion of the rise of CO2 concentration we've seen in the last 40 years. We're pumping out fossil fuels at a prodigious rate. Each year, our entire biomass causes CO2 concentrations to fluctuate, but our fossil fuel use (1000 barrels a second) is totally swamping that in the long run.

If everything stopped breathing, but our fossil fuel use stayed the same, then CO2 would rise at 10% the rate it does when the entire planet is effectively exhaling.

On the other hand, it's our style of eating that's really a problem. IIRC, 13 kilocalories of fossil fuels are used to produced a kilocalorie of grain. It's not sustainable on the face of it. And most meat eating is just compounding the problem, since it takes a lot of grain calories to produce meat calories.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Co2 is still not a pollutant. Its not even the biggest driver in "global warming".

I think this point deserves some further clarification, as it might be misleading, and there's actually a whole story behind this argument that deserves to be told.

CO₂ and other greenhouse gases work at differing strengths, and at differing concentrations, and they overlap, and have different durations. There's one table at the bottom of this page giving a summary:
http://www.hko.gov.hk/wxinfo/climat/greenhs/e_grnhse.htm
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to mention water vapor.

The global current temperature, from what I learned from my textbooks, is maintained largely by water vapor, which has a far lower "strength" than CO₂, but exists in such a larger quantity that it has more of an effect than CO₂ in total, although less per volume or molecule.
Water vapor also cycles out of or into the atmosphere faster if there's more or less of it than normal, due to this.

On the other hand, the global climate change is being run by CO₂ more than water vapor, because of CO₂'s longer lifetime and greater effect per measure, and because humans are doing more to increase CO₂ than water vapor. But, some of those "other gases" are also doing nasty stuff. They're having more of an effect per measure, but less in total, according to my textbook. (Norwegian "naturfag" book.)

There's a lot more stuff out there, and it deserves proper understanding instead of one-liners.

What definition of "pollutant" are you using, skadistic?

 

[Oerdin]

The court has the ability to tell congress to control business? Really?

By law the EPA has the legal obligation to regulate all emissions which harm human health or the environment.

 

[History_Buff]

Once you get above 475-550 ppm. At this point you're filling the Oceans with so much Carbonic Acid that the pH levels start to vary significantly near the surface. Ocean life starts to die, as aquatic creatures are extremely sensitive to acidity changes. This would be extremely destabilizing to the ecosystem, and could cause widespread effects.Are we at that level yet? How far do we have to go?

We're at about 380 and rising quite quickly. Ocean acidity is climbing measurably, and ocean life is feeling the effects. Even if you don't like theories like H2S blooms (that are ongoing on small scales), this one alone is a huge deal, and as big a problem as a majority of scientists make out Global Warming to be (regardless of whether you believe in that). Even better, it doesn't rely on models. Put CO2, Water and dirt in a sealed box, and you can watch the CO2 dissolve into the water; put more in, it goes faster.



As for why I called them villainous, it's because of how you always write about how 'science' is attempting to trick us into buying into Global Warming through Peer Review. Why they would ever do such a thing I have no idea, but I'm sure you have some motive in mind? The grant money excuse is pretty flimsy, seeing as scientists have always worked for grant money, and all kinds of people will hand out money to say what they want (see: big oil). The simple fact is that a majority of scientists from a wide range of institutions all seem to have come to more or less the same conclusion.

 

[skadistic]

That's right. Fossil records from Noah's Flood show seasonal periods of much higher CO2, and their climate was sufficiently stable for millions of now-extinct species all at the same time.

Because I assume you're using some variant of Creationist science to come to your conclusions.

And when you assume you make an ass out of U and .....well not me you only make an ass out of your self.

Co2 still isn't a pollutant.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's like smoking. When the majority of scientists are saying "yes, the second hand smoke is hurting people, please stop" then the smokers deny, deny, deny. They wouldn't stop polluting until other people forced them to. Then, a generation later, they knew it was a pollutant, but wouldn't really stop until people forced them to still.

It's the same thing with regards to CO2. This generation of polluters are insisting upon denying. Next generation of polluters will accept the fact that it's a pollutant, but do it anyway. Unless they're stopped.

 

[skadistic]

We're at about 380 and rising quite quickly. Ocean acidity is climbing measurably,How measurably? and ocean life is feeling the effects.Which ones and by how much? Even if you don't like theories like H2S blooms (that are ongoing on small scales), this one alone is a huge deal, and as big a problem as a majority of scientists make out Global Warming to be (regardless of whether you believe in that). Even better, it doesn't rely on models. Put CO2, Water and dirt in a sealed box, and you can watch the CO2 dissolve into the water; put more in, it goes faster.



As for why I called them villainous, it's because of how you always write about how 'science' is attempting to trick us into buying into Global Warming through Peer Review.I always write about how science is attempting to trick us? Even in my other posts in threads that don't have anything to do with global warming? Thats amazing. Why they would ever do such a thing I have no idea, but I'm sure you have some motive in mind? Are you sure? How sure are you? The grant money excuse is pretty flimsy, seeing as scientists have always worked for grant money, and all kinds of people will hand out money to say what they want (see: big oil).Ohhh so grant money isn't a good enough reason. In this currant climate would it be easier to get a grant for studying baboon ass lice or how global warming is effecting baboon ass lice? The simple fact is that a majority of scientists from a wide range of institutions all seem to have come to more or less the same conclusion.

More or less? And it becomes less each day as new data is introduced and old data is shown to be severely flawed. Like that data from NASA about what the warmest years were or even better the climate data centers that are in areas that greatly distort the data being collected.

But hey some scientists more or less came to a conclusion on something using flawed data we shouldn't question that. It is a consensus after all! We'll ignore all the scientists who say they are not right. Tell me does that more or less conclusion include the 32000 American scientists That say no?

 

[Sims2789]

So then you ARE backtracking completely from your OP when you claimed that the President ignored an order from the Supreme Court.

I was, yes, but then I researched it more and once again updated the initial post. I tend to admit when I think I'm wrong.

What you quoted was unrelated to my retraction, however. In that post, I was saying that the Supreme Court does not have the power to create new regulations, but it does have the power to settle disagreements between multiple parties over the law. In the carbon dioxide case, the plaintiffs believed that carbon dioxide is regulatable under the Environmental Protection Act; the defendants didn't. Whether carbon dioxide was regulatable was unclear because the Act describes pollutants and defines what constitutes a pollutant for the purposes of regulation under the Act, but it doesn't explicitly mention all covered pollutants.

 

[skadistic]

It's like smoking. When the majority of scientists are saying "yes, the second hand smoke is hurting people, please stop" then the smokers deny, deny, deny. They wouldn't stop polluting until other people forced them to. Then, a generation later, they knew it was a pollutant, but wouldn't really stop until people forced them to still.

It's the same thing with regards to CO2. This generation of polluters are insisting upon denying. Next generation of polluters will accept the fact that it's a pollutant, but do it anyway. Unless they're stopped.

It is just like smoking. Where people went in with a conclusion and made the report fit. "Scientists" would never do that. Not even when they have an agenda. Results would never be twisted to and evidence would never be be ignored.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

skadistic, please stop writing in quote boxes, it makes it hard to answer your posts.

But hey some scientists more or less came to a conclusion on something using flawed data we shouldn't question that. It is a consensus after all! We'll ignore all the scientists who say they are not right. Tell me does that more or less conclusion include the 32000 American scientists That say no?

Do you think there's a consensus on evolution? The Creationists are more than happy to cite thousands of scientists on their side, after all.

 

[El_Machinae]

It is just like smoking. Where people went in with a conclusion and made the report fit. "Scientists" would never do that. Not even when they have an agenda. Results would never be twisted to and evidence would never be be ignored.

Regardless of your link: did smokers stop blowing smoke at me when they found out about its effects (after years of denial) or after they were forced to stop?

Even when the data was a lot more clear, the polluters hardly cared. And it's stunningly clear that CO2 is a pollutant. First the denial, then the lack of responsibility.

I like your link of the 'scientists' who objected (9000 PhDs!, though the double-checking mechanism on the petition is pretty easy to exploit). Not much mention of their fields, eh? If a bunch of PhD physicists and biologists disagree with consensus of mechanics, who should I trust to fix my car? Probably with the guys who have made it their field of study for decades, eh?

The problem with the debate is that the majority of public opposition to Climate Change theory has been done dishonestly. I don't mean by individuals, but by organisations, of course. The majority of the organised efforts to debate the issue are intellectually dishonest. Their motivation was to obfuscate and distract, it seems. And the other problem is that most opposers of the theory bought the crap arguments because they were willing to cling to any cheap excuse.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

El_Machinae, you mentioned checking the fields of the petition signers.
Save time, let someone else do it.

My subsample was the first 10 people of the petition, and the first two of each subsequent letter (ten from A, two from B, two from C…two from Z). I actually did a bit of cherry picking, but only to help out there side a bit more, so starting from “B,” I chose the first two people who were listed as phD’s. I looked at their publication records by the criteria of typing their name in the “search by author” box in Google Scholar. So, here we go
A
1) Earl M.J. Aagaard - Professor of Biology
Research Interests:
Intelligent design (we’re off to a great start), Relation of Man to his environment
No publications relevant to climate
2) Charles W. Aami
Can’t find him anywhere on google, with a few different terms.
Charles W. Aami
“Charles W. Aami”
“Charles Aami”
Apparently no publications, nor anything relevant to climate
3) Roger L. Aamodt
Looks like someone from the National Cancer Institute
Here and Here
No publications relevant to climate
4) Wilbur A. Aanes
Veterinary /Large Animal Surgery
No publications relevant to climate change
5) Robert Aaron (now deceased)
Electrical Engineer/Telecommunications
Here and Here
No publications relevant to climate

...

Full thingy

 

[Integral]

1) at the personal level, try to get proper economic return for your CO2 expenditure. No one's asking you to use less energy, or even less gasoline. Just use what you want to use efficiently. If climate change impacts the economy by the ~2-6% it's expected to, then if we can bump up our rate of (otherwise sustainable) economic growth by an additional 2-6%, then the consequences won't be so bad.

If Canada and the USA could get the same $GDP/[CO2] seen by France, we'd not want to use less CO2 anyway.

2) pay to sequester CO2. I'm really starting to like the idea of deep mine CO2 sequestering. Coal-fired plants and oil-fired plants should collect a portion of their waste CO2 onsite and then pay to get sequestered. We can also do things to improve the biomass potential of various wild portions of the planet, so that they can grow and capture more CO2. Other sequestering ideas can be added to mine, of course. Even at a personal level, we can increase sequestering by increasing the biomass on our properties.

Tropical places can be paid to eat my pollution. That's pretty cool.

3) economically punish cheaters. If producers don't pay for their fair share of CO2 sequestering, then refuse to purchase their goods. Ideally, I'd like that to be done at an individual level, but moral suasion is proving to be insufficient in this regards. Treaties will have to be signed, where goods are approved.

4) all the cheap sequestering will be done earlier, so be prepared to migrate into nuclear, wind, and solar power. Plan ahead of time. This is something that needs to be done by whatever is the appropriate government level. Right now, I suspect it's cheaper to sequester than to use nuclear, but it won't always be.

5) get the bottom billion out of poverty. If we can improve their economic growth rates by a ferocious amount, then we'll sufficiently compensate them for the negative impacts due to the coming climate change. Because right now, we're projecting to effectively wipe out the gains they'd be making on their own. Even if they naturally could develop a (say) 2% economic growth rate, climate change will undo most of it.

Thanks for the detailed reply!

After scanning through the wikipedia article, sequesteration looks nifty.

Regarding point (5), it's always good to tie development into the mix. And particularly regarding the bottom billion, factoring in global warming just makes the need for good development initiatives all the more urgent.

 

[skadistic]

skadistic, please stop writing in quote boxes, it makes it hard to answer your posts.No. You'd think people would stop asking.


Do you think there's a consensus on evolution? The Creationists are more than happy to cite thousands of scientists on their side, after all.

A "consensus" does not a theory prove.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

A "consensus" does not a theory prove.

You didn't answer my question. And please stop writing in other people's quote boxes.

 

[imperfect.la]

El Machinae, you're being very intellectually dishonest. Smoking is not like Co2, smoking is addicting. You can't blame an addict for being addicted, unless you're heartless.

And a lot of people in this thread could benefit from an elementary biology book so they can understand the carbon process and how it works, and what Co2 is.. an oxidized form of carbon.

Then again, from someone that advocates curing aging or space elevators, I wouldn't expect you to have anything less than an arcane and distorted view of science and its role in our world.