sceptic Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 When the ice caps finally melt and all the galaciers are gone, greenland is about 5 sq km of prime farm land.all of this due to excess farting by bovines, which is much more serious than car polution and the increase in polution from aeroplanes. What the hell are we going to put in our drinks to cool us down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 At the current rate of CO2 accumulation, we will hit 1000 ppm around 2150. At that point, the chemiclines in the oceans will invert and H2S producing microorganisms will suffocate the land surfaces....relegating us to dinosaur status so don't worry about it.....you might, however, want to mention this to your kids for your grandchildren's sake... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrTodd13 Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 530 million years ago, CO2 was at 7000ppm and the average global temp was 22c. 150 million years ago, CO2 was at 2000 ppm. If your statement were true then I don't see how we could have had the vibrant ecologies that were present in these eras. 150 million years ago, average global temp was 17c. 100 million years ago CO2 had fallen to 1000 ppm yet average temperature had risen to 22c. Raise the temperature and the gulf stream shuts down which decreases temps in the arctic which allows ice to accumulate which increases albedo which reduces temperatures. Today there was an article by a "mainstream" global warming proponent who was warning his peers that they were overstating their case and thereby diminishing their reputations and influence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 22, 2007 Report Share Posted January 22, 2007 How to make ice from fire: See "The Mosquito Coast". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 How to make ice from fire: See "The Mosquito Coast". One of the all time worst movies ever....really really bad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 How to make ice from fire: See "The Mosquito Coast". One of the all time worst movies ever....really really bad... I know. But the book wasn't all that bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 530 million years ago, CO2 was at 7000ppm and the average global temp was 22c. 150 million years ago, CO2 was at 2000 ppm. If your statement were true then I don't see how we could have had the vibrant ecologies that were present in these eras. 150 million years ago, average global temp was 17c. 100 million years ago CO2 had fallen to 1000 ppm yet average temperature had risen to 22c. Raise the temperature and the gulf stream shuts down which decreases temps in the arctic which allows ice to accumulate which increases albedo which reduces temperatures. Today there was an article by a "mainstream" global warming proponent who was warning his peers that they were overstating their case and thereby diminishing their reputations and influence. Mass extinctions coincide with all of these "spikes" in the atmospheric CO2 levels. Regardless of the source (volcanism, algae blooms etc) the net effect is the same. H2S is the net result and death for land animal occurs. Last time I looked, that included us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 hmmm CO2 breathing implants anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 hmmm CO2 breathing implants anyone? Those have been available for millions of years. Ask our friend Slothy what his experience is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrTodd13 Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 530 million years ago, CO2 was at 7000ppm and the average global temp was 22c. 150 million years ago, CO2 was at 2000 ppm. If your statement were true then I don't see how we could have had the vibrant ecologies that were present in these eras. 150 million years ago, average global temp was 17c. 100 million years ago CO2 had fallen to 1000 ppm yet average temperature had risen to 22c. Raise the temperature and the gulf stream shuts down which decreases temps in the arctic which allows ice to accumulate which increases albedo which reduces temperatures. Today there was an article by a "mainstream" global warming proponent who was warning his peers that they were overstating their case and thereby diminishing their reputations and influence. Mass extinctions coincide with all of these "spikes" in the atmospheric CO2 levels. Regardless of the source (volcanism, algae blooms etc) the net effect is the same. H2S is the net result and death for land animal occurs. Last time I looked, that included us. The point of the data I was showing is that on geologic timescales, CO2 has never been so low as it is now. From 100 million years ago back to 600 million years ago, CO2 has never been lower than 1000 ppm. It appears there has been a roughly linear decrease in CO2 from 6000 ppm 600 million years ago down to what it is today. Sure, the graph is not smooth, there are spikes and dips but your point seems to be that nothing can exist with CO2 this high due to something happening in the oceans and the data does not seem to bear this out. If your statement were true then there wouldn't be any animal life today because we've had consistently and much higher CO2 levels in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 The recent article in Scientific American about this topic might be of interest. It was last fall sometime. The things I read on the Stairmaster....they should call them scaremasters... :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 they should call them scaremasters... Naw, Bush and Cheney already got the copyright on that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 BTW what is the specific goal of those worried about global warming? Save the planet and kill off the economy or do they have something more helpful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 "BTW what is the specific goal of those worried about global warming? Save the planet and kill off the economy or do they have something more helpful?" Save the planet without killing off the economy. Failure to succumb to scare tactics of right wing hacks, who have consistently predicted economic disaster from environmental regulation, and who have been consistently been proven wrong. Peter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 ohh well that is not too specific but I vote for saving the planet too :)Even some right wing hacks vote for not killing off the grandkids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 "Even some right wing hacks vote for not killing off the grandkids." Very few in Congress (or the White House) feel (vote) this way. Why do you presume that environmental regulation will kill off the economy,when history shows it doesn't? You're not too specific :) Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 By definition a regulation has the power to kill off any industry. Government is the power to destroy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 "By definition a regulation has the power to kill off any industry. Government is the power to destroy." Whose definition? This is "drink the Kool Aid" stuff. Again, not too specific. We've had environmental regulations for a long time, and they haven't hurt. BTW, the economy performs better under Democratic presidents thanunder Republicans. You can look it up :) Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 The problem with logic and reason is that they are not common or usual. What should be normal is hardly ever typical. People are so used to defacating into the immediate environment and not suffering the consequences that they believe this to be a right and not a mistake. If by "the economy" you mean diverting cash from sensible and best for the majority endeavors to enriching a few avaricious and unscrupulous individuals.....then regulations seem to be the wrong way to go......their "drive" runs right over most of us (with the usual results). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 By definition a regulation has the power to kill off any industry. Government is the power to destroy. The real power of government is the right to strip personal freedoms - as in put you in jail for not paying taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Increasing taxes on poluters means (assuming that the overall tax burden is a seperate issue) less taxes on non-poluters. It will hurt some industries and benefit others. I don't see why it would hurt the economy as a whole. But it may depend what is understood by "the economy". If you mean the standard of living, and you think that less polution does not increase the standard of living, then it will hurt the "economy" because industries will be forced to produce in an "ineffective" way. But of course, the whole idea of enviromment protection is that the enviroment is worth protecting, hence the quotation marks. If you mean the GDP, I wouldn't expect it to matter much. In the short term, there could be some adverse effects of the transition to a new tax regime (whether more polution-targetting, less polution-targeting or in some third direction) and there could be a positive effect of moving some of the demand from imported fuels to domestically produced alternatives (wind turbines, more expensive but less gasoline-consuming cars etc). And then there're the administrative costs of the regulations and/or tax regime themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 The ice caps act as a "heat sink" to absorb the heat trapped by the greenhouse effect (to see why, see a textbook on thermodynamics). When/if the caps melt, the trapped heat won't have anywhere to go and will start warming up the atmosphere. Result: a rapid increase of the world's average temperature. On the other hand, it's true that CO2 concentration has been much higher than it is now and nothing much happened (except for a few mass extinctions...). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 One of the bigger "items" is the permafrost. It contains dead plant matter that is frozen. As it thaws out, the dead matter decays, using oxygen and increasing CO2 emission. There is one heck of a lot of permafrost in NA and in Siberia.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 "Increasing taxes on poluters means (assuming that the overall tax burden is a seperate issue) less taxes on non-poluters. It will hurt some industries and benefit others. I don't see why it would hurt the economy as a whole. But it may depend what is understood by "the economy". If you mean the standard of living, and you think that less polution does not increase the standard of living, then it will hurt the "economy" because industries will be forced to produce in an "ineffective" way. But of course, the whole idea of enviromment protection is that the enviroment is worth protecting, hence the quotation marks. If you mean the GDP, I wouldn't expect it to matter much. In the short term, there could be some adverse effects of the transition to a new tax regime (whether more polution-targetting, less polution-targeting or in some third direction) and there could be a positive effect of moving some of the demand from imported fuels to domestically produced alternatives (wind turbines, more expensive but less gasoline-consuming cars etc). And then there're the administrative costs of the regulations and/or tax regime themselves." Helene, this is WAY too sensible. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 BTW what is the specific goal of those worried about global warming? Save the planet and kill off the economy or do they have something more helpful? I've been quite clear about my thoughts on this subject the last twelve times we've discussed this: I'm strongly in favor of a carbon tax, coupled with an emissions trading scheme. I'm am skeptical about most of the alternative energy schemes that I've seen coming out of congress. Far too many of them look to be pork barrel projects. Simply put, I don't trust congress to be able to make intelligent decisions about the relative merits of bio-diesel compared to "clean" coal compared to wind / solar / nuclear / whatever. The problem that we are facing is that the CO2 emissions are a classic example of an externality. People don't bear most of the costs associated with burning fossil fuel. Taxing carbon emissions is simplest and the most direct way to address this problem. As a result, its also the least distortionary. Tax carbon and let the market make an intelligent decision how the economy should adjust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.