Epic Anti-Global Warming Monologue

[Kakato]

Oh I don't know about that. University researchers publish more, for certain. The research a company like mine works on isn't published, because it's proprietary business information. Militaries doesn't publish much of their R&D, because it has national security implications.



I have no idea, but I wouldn't make specific claims about how many, or what proportion of the the total number of active researchers work in which sectors without some kind of evidence.



Yes, so what?

Considering there was no humans around at the time I think it shows,climate change is normal.

 

[CDNBear]

Considering there was no humans around at the time I think it shows,climate change is normal.

Yes even drastic climate shift is naturally occurring.

It's safe to say that man has had an affect on the climate.

Where I question the whole story is, just how much and how are we going to fix it. The methods used to determine it, are theories. The schemes proposed do nothing to actually combat it.

 

[Tonington]

Considering there was no humans around at the time I think it shows,climate change is normal.

Climate change is normal, again that is not at all controversial. In fact that's where many of the estimates of climate sensitivity have come from. The geologic record.

That doesn't mean that climate change can't be caused by humans. That's a logical fallacy. You're missing a premise.

The methods used to determine it, are theories.

The same geology that Kakato mentions also informs us of how much to expect, or rather what range we can expect.

 

[Kakato]

Climate change is normal, again that is not at all controversial. In fact that's where many of the estimates of climate sensitivity have come from. The geologic record.

That doesn't mean that climate change can't be caused by humans. That's a logical fallacy. You're missing a premise.



The same geology that Kakato mentions also informs us of how much to expect, or rather what range we can expect.

Well im of the belief that if you step on and kill one ant then you have changed the balance of nature.Every single thing you do has an impact on something or as Einstien would say,it's all relative.

 

[Tonington]

Every single thing you do has an impact on something

Yes, exactly. Cause and effect. Releasing those greenhouse gases from those ancient deposits of hydrocarbons will have the effect of warming our planet, and changing the climate.

 

[petros]

Climate change is normal, again that is not at all controversial. In fact that's where many of the estimates of climate sensitivity have come from. The geologic record.

That doesn't mean that climate change can't be caused by humans. That's a logical fallacy. You're missing a premise.



The same geology that Kakato mentions also informs us of how much to expect, or rather what range we can expect.

Sedimentary rocks are very accurate, it's ice cores that are iffy.

 

[CDNBear]

The same geology that Kakato mentions also informs us of how much to expect, or rather what range we can expect.

No doubt, but that doesn't negate the fact that the methodology used to determine our impact, is a theory.

It may be sound today, as many theories are, or have been. But it is still a theory.

I'm all for the big fix. But all I see is schemes and get fixed quick fads.

The same tendency to put the cart before the horse, the conservatives seem good at, is also employed by the proponents of AGW and green initiatives/schemes.

Environmental concerns have to be addressed, I can't stress that enough. But to do so, and to give it some teeth, there has to be drastic changes across the board. From legislating that businesses can not pass environment costs onto the customers. To applying the same energy and effort to all aspects of environmental deterioration. There has to be a major shift in everything from law to distribution, to consumption.

Simply buying carbon credits, or applying green taxes, does nothing. It's passing the buck onto someone else.

 

[captain morgan]

Yes, exactly. Cause and effect. Releasing those greenhouse gases from those ancient deposits of hydrocarbons will have the effect of warming our planet, and changing the climate.

This comment raises an interesting question. The (significant) deposition of those elements (CO2 et al) also had an effect of sequestering that material (for lack of a better word) thereby creating an imbalance at the time. The various global systems responded in fashion, so what's to say that the present release of these materials will not be handled/absorbed by the same systems that adjusted to the earlier sequestration ?

 

[Tonington]

No doubt, but that doesn't negate the fact that the methodology used to determine our impact, is a theory.

It may be sound today, as many theories are, or have been. But it is still a theory.

Yes, and theories only become theories after countless repetition, and consistent results are found with different methodology. A theory is robust.

It's a pet peeve of mine when people refer to theories in the diminished capacity of a police inspector developing a theory for who committed a crime. Theories are unlikely to be falsified because it is the result of many scientists results, with different methods, all arriving at the same conclusion. That's what makes them robust. The results don't depend on which method you choose. Of course that's not to say that some methods don't have better application to specific situations.

The germ theory of disease, will not be overturned. We know that microbes cause disease. We know many of the pathways they use biologically and biochemically to cause infection in host cells. We can use our knowledge to prevent disease, to treat disease, and even cure disease.

A theory. A damned good theory.

Simply buying carbon credits, or applying green taxes, does nothing. It's passing the buck onto someone else.

Applying taxes work, it passes the costs to users. Anytime you associate a cost with something that previously was free, it changes people's behaviours. Innovation is a response to those changes. In another thread I brought up Germany. They are innovating, and to boot they are developing high value manufacturing that will ensure they are world leaders far into the future.

It used to be that people saw opportunity in these situations.

Much like the Dutch disease debacle, it would be preferable if policy makers, innovators, business leaders etc. would debate the merits of solutions.

 

[petros]

This comment raises an interesting question. The (significant) deposition of those elements (CO2 et al) also had an effect of sequestering that material (for lack of a better word) thereby creating an imbalance at the time. The various global systems responded in fashion, so what's to say that the present release of these materials will not be handled/absorbed by the same systems that adjusted to the earlier sequestration ?

Low oxygen levels and H2S are a bigger threat to climate than CO2. Our O2 levels are stable and desulferization of fossil fuels is already a reality. We have already taken the biggest step.

"The recent dating of the Siberian trap volcanoes to be contemporaneous with
the end-Permian extinction suggests that they were the trigger for the
environmental events that caused the extinctions," says Lee R. Kump, professor
of geosciences. "But the warming caused by these volcanoes through carbon
dioxide emissions would not be large enough to cause mass extinctions by
itself."





That warming, however, could set off a series of events that led to mass
extinction. During the end-Permian extinction 95 percent of all species on Earth
became extinct, compared to only 75 percent during the K-T when a large asteroid
apparently caused the dinosaurs to disappear.





Volcanic carbon dioxide would cause atmospheric warming that would, in turn,
warm surface ocean water. Normally, the deep ocean gets its oxygen from the
atmosphere at the poles. Cold water there soaks up oxygen from the air and
because cold water is dense, it sinks and slowly moves equator-ward, taking
oxygen with it. The warmer the water, the less oxygen can dissolve and the
slower the water sinks and moves toward the equator.





“Warmer water slows the conveyer belt and brings less oxygen to the deep
oceans,” says Kump.





The constant rain of organic debris produced by marine plants and animals,
needs oxygen to decompose. With less oxygen, fewer organics are aerobically
consumed.





"Today, there are not enough organics in the oceans to go anoxic," says Kump.
"But in the Permian, if the warming from the volcanic carbon dioxide decreased
oceanic oxygen, especially if atmospheric oxygen levels were lower, the oceans
would be depleted of oxygen."





Once the oxygen is gone, the oceans become the realm of bacteria that obtain
their oxygen from sulfur oxide compounds. These bacteria strip oxygen from the
compounds and produce hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide kills aerobic
organisms.





Humans can smell hydrogen sulfide gas, the smell of rotten cabbage, in the
parts per trillion range. In the deeps of the Black Sea today, hydrogen sulfide
exists at about 200 parts per million. This is a toxic brew in which any
aerobic, oxygen-needing organism would die. For the Black Sea, the hydrogen
sulfide stays in the depths because our rich oxygen atmosphere mixes in the top
layer of water and controls the diffusion of hydrogen sulfide upwards.





In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and the levels
of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper levels of the oceans
could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide catastrophically. This would kill
most the oceanic plants and animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the
atmosphere would kill most terrestrial life.





"A hydrogen sulfide atmosphere fits the extinction better than one enriched
in carbon dioxide," says Kump. "Carbon dioxide would have a profound effect on
marine life, but terrestrial plants thrive on carbon dioxide, yet they are
included in the extinction."


Another piece in the puzzle surrounding this extinction is that hydrogen
sulfide gas destroys the ozone layer. Recently, Dr. Henk Visscher of Utrecht
University and his colleagues suggested that there are fossil spores from the
end-Permian that show deformities that researchers suspect were caused by ultra
violet light.





"These deformities fit the idea that the ozone layer was damaged, letting in
more ultra violet," says Kump.





Once this process is underway, methane produced in the ample swamps of this
time period has little in the atmosphere to destroy it. The atmosphere becomes
one of hydrogen sulfide, methane and ultra violet radiation.





The Penn State researcher and his colleagues are looking for biomarkers,
indications of photosynthetic sulfur bacteria in deep-sea sediments to
complement such biomarkers recently reported in shallow water sediments of this
age by Kliti Grice, Curtin University of Technology, Australia, and colleagues
in the Feb. 4 issue of the journal, Science. These bacteria live in places where
no oxygen exists, but there is some sunlight. They would have been in their
heyday in the end-Permian. Finding evidence of green sulfur bacteria would
provide evidence for hydrogen sulfide as the cause of the mass extinctions.

 

[captain morgan]

Applying taxes work, it passes the costs to users. Anytime you associate a cost with something that previously was free, it changes people's behaviours. Innovation is a response to those changes. In another thread I brought up Germany. They are innovating, and to boot they are developing high value manufacturing that will ensure they are world leaders far into the future.

It used to be that people saw opportunity in these situations.

The application of taxes has not worked in the past, we still have the same problems today that we had years ago. I will agree with the premise that people respond to 'money', but the answer is not always using it in a punitive fashion (ie taxes or fines).

At the point when a viable, economic option exists that will save money, folks will support it and abandon the alternatives (ie fossil fuels)

 

[Tonington]

The various global systems responded in fashion, so what's to say that the present release of these materials will not be handled/absorbed by the same systems that adjusted to the earlier sequestration ?

I wouldn't at all say that it won't be handled by the same systems and the same fashions. But, the systems that adjust to these changes are slow time scales. You're talking about geology here...millions and millions of years. I've used this example many times, but we're increasing the concentration in the atmosphere about 30 times faster than the last large marine extinction, which was associated with a large spike in the concentration of greenhouse gases.

It takes a very long time for the carbonate rocks to weather and buffer the ocean. A very very long time. The timescales simply aren't aligned. We work much faster than the slow processes of geology, except for the really big catastrophes which wouldn't be advantageous for us either.

 

[petros]

I wouldn't at all say that it won't be handled by the same systems and the same fashions. But, the systems that adjust to these changes are slow time scales. You're talking about geology here...millions and millions of years. I've used this example many times, but we're increasing the concentration in the atmosphere about 30 times faster than the last large marine extinction, which was associated with a large spike in the concentration of greenhouse gases.

It takes a very long time for the carbonate rocks to weather and buffer the ocean. A very very long time. The timescales simply aren't aligned. We work much faster than the slow processes of geology, except for the really big catastrophes which wouldn't be advantageous for us either.

Read the H2S article I posted. If you want dead marine life, H2S beats out carbon hands down.

 

[Tonington]

At the point when a viable, economic option exists that will save money, folks will support it and abandon the alternatives (ie fossil fuels)

But in the meantime nothing is done with the externality of pollution. That pollution will have costs and they are not being borne by the consumers.

 

[petros]

CO2 all by it's lonesome isn't an issue.

 

[Tonington]

Read the H2S article I posted. If you want dead marine life, H2S beats out carbon hands down.

Yes I know about H2S. It can be a problem on poorly managed fish farms. But I was responding specifically to CM's question about the carbon cycle.

If anyone wants to hear more, from an expert, they can listen to Richard Alley's lecture at the Amercan Geophysical Union meeting in 2009: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...sg=AFQjCNGbchGIH-Nh8O2Mf3EbPGCjiDKD3Q&cad=rjahttp://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

It's an hour long lecture, but well worth it if anyone is actually interested in the carbon cycle perspective in our current climate change.

 

[petros]

See above.

 

[CDNBear]

Yes, and theories only become theories after countless repetition, and consistent results are found with different methodology. A theory is robust.

While it can be supported.

Theories change as new evidence is found.

Applying taxes work, it passes the costs to users. Anytime you associate a cost with something that previously was free, it changes people's behaviours.

We aren't talking about plastic bags here Ton. We're talking about transportation, heating and industry.

Forcing green intiatives, will be past onto the ratepayers. Those that can change their life style can and will. Those that can't, will be made to suffer. The tax breaks do not offset the extra financial demand.

Innovation is a response to those changes.

It's a forced response, using extortion and coercion to almost literally force the constituency to pass that force onto gov't.

Cart before the horse.

In another thread I brought up Germany. They are innovating, and to boot they are developing high value manufacturing that will ensure they are world leaders far into the future.

Ya, about that...

EPA Lawsuit - Euro Carbon Trading Failure

Breakthrough Europe: The Failure of Emissions Trading: The Twilight of European Climate Leadership, Part II

Germany's Top Environmentalist Turns Climate Sceptic

You have your position, what I've read, seems to put a shadow on how good the German model is really doing.

It used to be that people saw opportunity in these situations.

You mean like carbon credit trading schemes?

Much like the Dutch disease debacle, it would be preferable if policy makers, innovators, business leaders etc. would debate the merits of solutions.

Amen to that.

I'm all for solution dude, but punitive measures, directed at the working class, are not the answer.

 

[captain morgan]

But in the meantime nothing is done with the externality of pollution. That pollution will have costs and they are not being borne by the consumers.

Fair enough, but taxing it won't change a thing

 

[mentalfloss]

Fair enough, but taxing it won't change a thing

It's existing legislation that needs to be enforced to make the polluter pay.