This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Global Warming Debate

edited March 2007 in Forum Stuff
An issue that is beginning to get some press, in regards to global warming, is how greenhouse gasses fit into the picture.

One side of the argument is saying that greenhouse gasses cause global warming and we need to reduce CO2 emissions. The other side says that increased greenhouse gasses are a result of global warming and not a cause of it, therefor curbing CO2 emissions does nothing to fix the problem.

Discuss
«13456789

Comments

  • Let's see the science.
  • I'm sick of it. Looks like it's going to be an election issue this year. I might just shoot myself now. What does decomposing flesh do to the environment?
  • I was doing some research at work and found this buried deep in our archives:

    Do your share: Stop air pollution
    Thursday, Feb. 15, 1968 — The problem of air pollution has been much in the news in recent years.
    For people who live in metropolitan areas — which now means most of us — air pollution becomes more apparent all the time. The American Medical Association points out that there’s little doubt that pollutants in the air aren’t good for us. Just how serious a health problem is air pollution is a question still being studied. It has been associated with a number of various physical ills.
    We read about air pollution, but it seldom occurs to us that we can do something about it. Isn’t air pollution merely a matter for the factory with the belching smokestack, or the apartment building with a smoky incinerator?
    Actually, there are some things we can all do to reduce air pollution:
    • Make it a point to know air pollution dangers, and seek from elected representatives legislation to control these hazards.
    • An important source of air pollution is the exhaust pipe on the family auto. Keep the engine in good order. Have the exhaust system inspected regularly. This will not only reduce air pollution, it also will save money on gasoline.
    • Keep your home furnace in good working order. Have it checked annually, both for your safety and for the sake of the community.
    • Leaves, trash, and rubbish should not be burned in metropolitan areas. Arrange for the proper agency to haul them away to a proper disposal point.
    Prevention of air pollution is a matter than must be met by the whole community. Proper laws are required where voluntary actions are inadequate. Tight enforcement of these laws is essential.
    We can anticipate that air pollution will continue to be much in the news in the years ahead. The problem will be solved much sooner if all of us become aware that it is serious, and that all of us are involved in its ultimate solution.
  • What does decomposing flesh do to the environment?
    On its own, I believe decomposition generally produces CO2. So if you must self-destruct, I guess you should mulch yourself into the soil to fuel some new plant growth in compensation.

    More seriously:
    An issue that is beginning to get some press, in regards to global warming, is how greenhouse gasses fit into the picture.

    One side of the argument is saying that greenhouse gasses cause global warming and we need to reduce CO2emissions. The other side says that increased greenhouse gasses are a result of global warming and not a cause of it
    Where the heck did this one come from? There's a reason CO2 (and others) were named greenhouse gasses in the first place; they trap reflected heat and radiate it back towards the surface. What study or research has suggested otherwise?
  • I did read somewhere that there is a debate as to whether or not global warming creates more CO2. In other words, is CO2 the cause or the effect. The data showed that atmospheric CO2 levels don't coordinate with human's output of CO2 - whereas they do coordinate much more with the global temperature.

    I'll have to try to remember where I read that.
  • edited March 2007
    Let's say everyone does decide, for whatever reason, that global warming exists and is caused by CO2.

    Why is everyone so focused on eliminating the cause of global warming (primarily CO2 generation) and not treating the symptoms (the presence of excessive CO2)?

    Sure, it'd be nice if we emitted less CO2. However, the realities of chemistry mean that to eliminate CO2 production in industry will take a ridiculous amount of time, money, and effort.

    But here's something quick and easy, not to mention aesthetically pleasing: plant trees. That's right, plant fucking trees. They take CO2 out of the air and produce breathable oxygen! Everyone loves oxygen!

    And if you don't have the room, the soil, the sunlight, or the seeds to plant trees, then simply make your own CO2 eliminating device by harnessing a miracle of nature: chlorophyll! Using this ancient, natural technology, we could process hitherto unheard-of amounts of CO2 into harmless, helpful (fire-causing, toxic) oxygen!

    Of course, too much oxygen could be just as problematic as too much CO2, in different ways. We wouldn't want to fuck with our atmosphere without knowing what the effect would be.

    But doesn't that apply to global warming in the first place? Anyone calling for a solution at this stage is ignoring the much greater need for increased scientific understanding of the issue. We need to know definitively if it exists, exactly what is causing it, and exactly how to fix the situation without harmful side effects. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

    Nevertheless, the need may be so great as to demand action before we understand the problem. Replacing gas-burning cars with hybrids and/or alternative energy vehicles is a great idea--more because of energy independence than because of environmental problems. Other than that, the logistics of retooling every industrial process in the world is so daunting that no one wants to go ahead and do it without knowing if it's even necessary.

    So why not just plant trees? It won't hurt, and it might help. Plus, they're pretty. Everyone loves trees. Take the billions of dollars it will cost to even begin to combat global warming and just plant a metric fuck-ton of trees, everywhere we can find room for the fucking things. Then we can all feel happy and safe and go on generating CO2...which, by the way, we humans do without ever burning a single fossil fuel.
    Post edited by kenjura on
  • edited March 2007
    To preface this let me say that I am in no way ''green'' nor do I advocate their approach on how to handle things. I don't believe in a lot of the items Greenpeace champions for. Just watch the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode on the subject.

    That said. A large majority of the scientific community agrees with global warming or global climate change. A few conservative Republicans and evangelicals disagree with said scientific community. You be the judge.
    Post edited by LiquidTim on
  • That said. A large majority of the scientific community agrees with global warming or global climate change.
    I don't think that anyone is disputing this - after all, it's what happens when you come out of an ice age. I think the disagreement is on how much humans are causing global warming.
  • Interestingly planting trees in northern climes can have the opposite effect and actually heat up the earth due to the leaves capturing heat from sunlight during the day. Although the emission of CO2 does trap solar radiation it is CH4 and NOX that are far more effective 'greenhouse gases'. Most of the scientific community from what I've read agree that climate change is real it is the role of humans that is the question, whether we are the cause [in my opinion unlikely due to evidence of cooling and heating trends over eons captured in ice cores] or accelerating the trend of [for lack of a better phrase] global warming.

    The excessive CO2 in the atmosphere will take thousands of years to break down or be absorbed by the ocean stopping the cause is easier as if someone devised a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere we would continue to burn fossil fuels. As a species we are not going to change our ways unless we have to. Also we would not need to change industrial process very much as the majority of greenhouse emissions come from cars and power plants. Personally I would think the best way to get rid of fossil fueled cars would be the same way 4 star petrol was removed from the market, phase out cars running on that technology replace them with something cheaper then increase taxation on the old vehicles making it better to own a hydrogen / hybrid / electric whatever is most convenient although it's unlikely to be hydrogen due to it's instability and the fact it requires more energy to extract than you get out from it.

    A small side note greenpeace and mass media have no idea what the hell they are talking about most of the time. The best example I have is that a greenpeace [using Ryms phrase here] dirty hippie was telling passers by that cooling towers pumped greenhouse gases and pollutants into the atmosphere. All these people do is confuse the subject making it difficult for the scientific community to be heard.
  • edited July 2007
    But here's something quick and easy, not to mention aesthetically pleasing: plant trees. That's right, plant fucking trees. They take CO2 out of the air and produce breathable oxygen! Everyone loves oxygen!
    I am not in any way opposing your idea, but you simply can't plant trees fast enough for them to replace the enormous amounts of forest that is being cut down in South America every day. The rain forest is the world's biggest "lung", and it is retracting fast. And even if we had kept the world's forests in balance for the last hundred years, they would still not be enough to absorb the excessive amounts of fossil fuels we have pumped into the air as CO2 and NOX in the same period.
    Interestingly planting trees in northern climes can have the opposite effect and actually heat up the earth due to the leaves capturing heat from sunlight during the day.
    WTF? I find that very hard to believe. If the sun didn't have trees to hit, it would hit vegetation beneath instead, which would basically capture the same amount of heat.
    Although the emission of CO2 does trap solar radiation it is CH4 and NOX that are far more effective 'greenhouse gases'. Most of the scientific community from what I've read agree that climate change is real it is the role of humans that is the question, whether we are the cause [in my opinion unlikely due to evidence of cooling and heating trends over eons captured in ice cores] or accelerating the trend of [for lack of a better phrase] global warming.
    It is true that other gases are involved, I'll come back to that. CO2 is important because there is so much of it compared to the others. Some people have problems understanding how important the CO2 is for the climate. If we didn't have CO2 or other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, the heat from the sun would radiate right out of the atmosphere again, making Earth one large ice cube unsuitable for any life. If Earth had a lot of greenhouse gases, our climate would be as on Venus. The balance of greenhouse gases is essential for life on earth. CO2 is the most important climate regulator even though it's only 383 ppm (0.000383) of Earth's atmosphere. Even small variations can have fatal consequences. This is very real.

    There are a few scientists claiming the observed climate changes are not caused by humans. However, unlike what many skeptics claim, most climate scientists agree that much or most of these changes are caused by humans! They disagree on details!
    The excessive CO2 in the atmosphere will take thousands of years to break down or be absorbed by the ocean stopping the cause is easier as if someone devised a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere we would continue to burn fossil fuels. As a species we are not going to change our ways unless we have to. (...)
    I am convinced that the most effective way to make people change their ways is to hurt their wallets. Triple the price on all fossil fuel, and you would see a dramatic change of attitude.
    A small side note greenpeace and mass media have no idea what the hell they are talking about most of the time. The best example I have is that a greenpeace [using Ryms phrase here] dirty hippie was telling passers by that cooling towers pumped greenhouse gases and pollutants into the atmosphere. All these people do is confuse the subject making it difficult for the scientific community to be heard.
    It is possible that you misunderstood what the dirty hippie was saying, or he could have given a poor retelling of some real science. If the cooling towers use the heat pump principle, they are probably full of highly potent greenhouse gas (some thousands times more effective than CO2). Gas leaks in cooling towers represent a potential climate hazard. So does the air condition in your car.

    I'm sorry for the long post, but I felt it was necessary. Please vote for politicians who have the balls to do something about the climate change!
    Post edited by navelfluff on
  • edited July 2007
    In actuality, what the Greenpeace bloke was saying was that a cooling tower IS a smoke stack, rather than that it possibly releases CFC's as part of the chilling process. Further, nearly all cooling towers I have seen use natural draft methods rather than heat pump principles, and it was one of these towers he was using in his example. I'm sorry that I didn't explain this completely before, as it was very late when I was posting.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • Then the Greenpeace bloke was an ass. I'm not very familiar with cooling towers since I live in a country where cooling is almost never necessary.
  • I am convinced that the most effective way to make people change their ways is to hurt their wallets. Triple the price on all fossil fuel, and you would see a dramatic change of attitude.
    What about businesses that need gas/diesel to run? The example I use is the construction company. There's no "mass transportation" equivalent for digging dirt. You need heavy machinery. Heavy machinery that runs on fossil fuels. They serve the public good, too, as most of them work for municipalities, states, or even the federal government. You like roads, plumbing, running water, yes? Tripling fuel prices would certainly curtail fixing old systems and putting new ones in place.
  • We would certainly have to rethink the whole machinery of the society. But that's the whole point, isn't it? We need to rethink and reorganize to make changes that have an impact. Some businesses won't survive. That's bad for the people involved in the short run, but better for everyone in the long run. I don't think the problems you mention will be that dramatic, and I'm pretty sure human ingenuity will find solutions when the old ways don't work as well as they used to.

    By the way, here in Norway gasoline costs about $8.50 per gallon at the moment. We could probably double that price without breaking too many eggs.
  • edited July 2007
    I am not in any way opposing your idea, but you simply can't plant trees fast enough for them to replace the enormous amounts of forest that is being cut down in South America every day. The rain forest is the world's biggest "lung", and it is retracting fast. And even if we had kept the world's forests in balance for the last hundred years, they would still not be enough to absorb the excessive amounts of fossil fuels we have pumped into the air as CO2 and NOX in the same period.
    ------------
    Actually, the Tiga forest in northern Russia produces 30% of the worlds oxygen, while the Amazon Rain forest produces only 20%. The average American household produces 20 tons of C02 each year. A large tree can take 2000-5000 pounds out per year. If each American household planted 5-10 trees, in about 10 or so years, it could actually make a large difference.
    =============

    WTF? I find that very hard to believe. If the sun didn't have trees to hit, it would hit vegetation beneath instead, which would basically capture the same amount of heat.
    ---------------------
    Time Magazine said that trees take in more heat in the north and make things worse. Don't know if that's true, but Time did say it.
    Post edited by Mr. Eric on
  • These are two decent films; one from each side of the argument. Both with scientists (and their science) backing them up, one with Al Gore schmaltz.

    The Great Global Warming Swindle
    An Inconvenient Truth

    My $0.02: Regardless of whether our environment needs us to do anything differently . . . being more energy efficient makes micro-economic sense. Spending less energy means spending less money. Fixing your leaky faucet may cost you $20 this month, but it'll save you money in the long run. We can create similar efficiencies elsewhere.

    The problem is it doesn't make macro-economic sense. If we spend more and more money on oil each year, it artificially raises our measures of economic growth because we're spending more money. For some reason our measures of economic growth are linked to spending money. If someone gets sick and it costs $80k, that's really good for the economy. 5mpg SUVs are better for the economy than 50mpg cars. The government (having control over the macro-economic policies) has little reason to encourage bad-for-growth policies. Big-business, providing most of the rest of our growth, also acts towards macro growth.

    This means that any push for energy reform will inherently fail if left up to big-business and government policies unless we change growth metrics themselves (doubtful). We need bottom-up reform on this issue. We need a meme change towards energy efficiency. It isn't looking hopeful but mass-marketing the idea of global warming may be a way to get it moving along. I'm not sure I like it, I'm not sure it's right, but it seems to be doing the job to get the masses moving in one direction.
  • Paying $20 to fix your leaky pipe always benefits you. Leaving the pipe unfixed only benefits someone else if you pay for your water. I have a well, I don't pay for my water unless you count the electricity I use to pump it.

    Economies grow when people spend money, plain and simple. However, if you spend less on gasoline than you are free to spend more money elsewhere. If gasoline/diesel costs less than the cost to move things over a distance also drops, which leads to lower prices.
  • Economies grow when people spend money, plain and simple.
    False. Economies grow when people invest money. Buy a man a fish....
  • Economies grow when rich people invest money.
    Corrected that for you . . . but that's another thread.
    Economies grow when people spend money, plain and simple. However, if you spend less on gasoline than you are free to spend more money elsewhere.
    You're basically reiterating what I'm saying. On the micro-economic level, it makes sense to be more energy efficient because you get more for your resources. On the macro-economic level, using our current metrics of growth (mainly the GDP), it doesn't make sense to encourage people to save money. These two viewpoints are at odds.

    Because of this dissonance, we cannot rely on our government policies and big-business offerings to provide energy efficiency . . . especially when they have a marketing machine working to solidify the American Energy Dream (read SUVs, air conditioning, I could go on). The solution to this is to counter-market, or even guerrilla-market against this meme. I think raising awareness of 'global warming' where caused by humans or not, is an OK start.
  • Economies grow when people spend money, plain and simple.
    False. Economies grow when people invest money. Buy a man a fish....
    Spending money is a form of investing.

    When I buy stock I spend money to own a piece of a company hoping that I can later resell that piece at a profit. When I buy lunch I invest a portion of my money into a local business and in exchange I get a commodity that will quickly go bad if I do not eat it, freeze it or resell it.

    Just because the lunch has a short lifespan of value does not mean it is not a form of investing. That lunch may have been made with some very rare herbs and spices and I may know of a buyer who would like that lunch but he is unable to get to the place of purchase. Being the entrepreneur that I am I buy the lunch and then resell it to him at a substantial markup.

    Even stocks can go bad. MCI anyone?
  • Even stocks can go bad. MCI anyone?
    OH OH OH ENRON!
  • edited July 2007
    When Mrs. HMTKSteve spends $4,000 on the credit card and then claims bankruptcy because Mr. HMTKSteve is unable to cover the bills, companies lose money. Spend, spend, spend, spend is not a philosophy that always makes money; in fact, it's a policy that leads to hyperinflation and economic collapse.

    Think of Monopoly. Sure, it's a broken game, Scrym hate it, blahbitty-blah-blah-blah, but it's an excellent example of why pure Keynsianism is faulted. If you spend all of your fiat money in the game, then when you have to pay rent, you are forced to a) lose, or b) mortgage a property. When you mortgage, you can no longer collect rent. To complete the syllogism, spending, therefore, does not equal investment; in fact, it can lead to the polar opposite result as investment.

    And just because investment has risk doesn't negate my statement. Spending, period, has risk. But whereas spending purely to consume does not generate new revenue, investing does. If all I do is eat apples, then only the orchard owner gets rich. If I eat one apple and plant the seeds from another, then more apple trees grow, which allows more people to enter the market and lowers the price of apples through competition so more people can consume them.

    I hate when people say spending drives the economy.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • Spend, spend, spend, spend is not a philosophy that always makes money; in fact, it's a policy that leads to hyperinflation and economic collapse.
    I'm not sure we'd be too far off arguing that America (when comparing the last six or seven years to the rest of the first world) is leaning towards hyperinflation and economic collapse. The bubble is bursting I think.

    GDP = consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports − imports)

    I'd be interested to know how much each of those parts are (in America). If investment really a huge part of the equation, then how much of it is contributed at the micro consumer level, and how much at the macro big-business level? As I mentioned, I couldn't find anything.
  • But spending does drive the economy! Spend like a drunken Congressman and expect your car economy to go over a bridge crash and drown the girl you picked up at that party burn...
  • GDP = consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports − imports)

    I'd be interested to know how much each of those parts are (in America). If investment really a huge part of the equation, then how much of it is contributed at the micro consumer level, and how much at the macro big-business level? As I mentioned, I couldn't find anything.
    I'm not quite sure how to break down the information you want, because it would be nearly impossible to have perfect information on the factors that really influence the American economy.

    However, I can say that this is a succinct and accurate summary of US commerce figures regarding the role of small businesses (less than 100 employees) and their contribution to GDP.
  • Spending less energy means spending less money.
    Except that energy efficient technology is more expensive than just buying the extra energy. As anyone who has bought a Prius how much money they've saved overall. You'll quickly see that a Prius makes no sense from a purely financial perspective.
    False. Economies grow when people invest money. Buy a man a fish....
    The only thing keeping our economy afloat is spending. If we were to start saving more, the economy would be in huge trouble.
  • The only thing keeping our economy afloat is spending. If we were to start saving more, the economy would be in huge trouble.
    That is why it is a good idea to make fossil fuel expensive: You spend more even though you use less. Simple, effective (and probably very unpopular).
  • Spending less energy means spending less money.
    Except that energy efficient technology is more expensive than just buying the extra energy. As anyone who has bought a Prius how much money they've saved overall. You'll quickly see that a Prius makes no sense from a purely financial perspective.
    That's a delightful if overused anecdote. I would like to offer my own. My car (regular old car) get's 40+ mpg (highest ever tracked with a stiff tail wind was over 49 mpg). It doesn't plug in. I save lots of money by driving that car over other cars . . . including a Prius.
  • edited July 2007
    My car (regular old car) get's 40+ mpg
    Wow... that's pretty impressive. Is it a Geo Metro?

    I just bought a new car (picking it up on Saturday), and it seemed to me that fuel economy hasn't gotten much better in 10 or 15 years. The cars I looked at got 30-35 mpg on the highway. That was true when I looked at cars a many years ago. I guess the difference is that the engines are more powerful. Now it's very rare to see an engine with less than 100 hp. Even the Honda Fit and the Toyota Yaris have 109 or so. So it seems that everything has about 20 more horsepower and slightly better efficiency. The net result is that the cars get the same mileage.

    For example, the current Honda Accord the exact same mileage as my long-gone 1986 Honda Accord. Of course the new car is much heavier and has a more powerful engine. One thing to consider is that all of that safety gear really adds to the weight. We've basically legislated cars that are less fuel efficient. Of course more lives get saved.

    Now if they'd just bring over some of those European diesels, I'd be really happy. Diesel technology has come a long way.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • edited July 2007
    My car (regular old car) get's 40+ mpg
    Wow... that's pretty impressive. Is it a Geo Metro?
    It's a '98 Neon 5 speed with 99hp. Seriously, the thing is zippy as heck and as long as I keep it kept up, I get dang good gas mileage. I also drive an old Audi for fun but the Neon gets amazing gas mileage and I've been thinking about just driving it full time.

    In terms of the Diesel cars . . . we can get a lot of the VW and Audi diesels in the states. The VW TDIs are amazing and I'm seriously considering getting one. The thing about gas mileage is you can get it, you just need a more complicated engine. You had a good turbo and tuned supercharge to an engine, and believe it or not, it's more efficient.
    Post edited by cosmicenema on
Sign In or Register to comment.