An Inconvenient Truth

[shooty08]

No. I think the amount of C02 man puts out, in combination with our other destructive habits, is destroying the ecosystem on earth that supports our life. Maybe if you actually read my post you would have understood that.

[Mister Sandman]

6. Actually more CO2 is evaporated and stored in the ocean.

9. Carbon tax wont fix anything. Other than line the pockets of the taxman.

10. So does cooling. Say for example Greenland melts due to this warming (which is happening). Europe will freeze.
hmm yah okay thats warming the globe.

[Thriller]

The main point that shooty is saying makes the assumption that co2 causes the earth's temperature to increase.



But when you actually look at the data, increases in co2 actually occur after increases in temperature. Now correlation does not equal causation but you would expect that if co2 was having the huge impact implied by shooty than temperature increase would follow behind co2 increase. But that is not the case.

Maybe our continued burning of fossil fuels will destitute our species but the information so far does not support the claim.

Don't get me wrong though i'm all for renewable engergy and less pollution, but i can't stand bad science either.

[[KMA]Avenger]

No. I think the amount of C02 man puts out, in combination with our other destructive habits, is destroying the ecosystem on earth that supports our life. Maybe if you actually read my post you would have understood that.

is that in response to my last on page 2?

if so, that post was aimed at Shooty

besides, as we all know, plants and trees breath CO2 so there is no way CO2 is harming the ecosystem.

The main point that shooty is saying makes the assumption that co2 causes the earth's temperature to increase.



But when you actually look at the data, increases in co2 actually occur after increases in temperature. Now correlation does not equal causation but you would expect that if co2 was having the huge impact implied by shooty than temperature increase would follow behind co2 increase. But that is not the case.

Maybe our continued burning of fossil fuels will destitute our species but the information so far does not support the claim.

Don't get me wrong though i'm all for renewable engergy and less pollution, but i can't stand bad science either.

great post.

[Thriller]

Why do you only ever say that when you agree with me?

[[KMA]Avenger]

what, "great post"?

well, on this occasion i wanted to mention the data and the chart but forgot (terrible at keeping knowledge in my head , which is why i kept it all on my PC...till it blew up.).

the reason i agree and the reason for the lag (just to show that i know about the chart and understand it all) is because of the oceans. temperature and environmental changes do make the oceans react by realising CO2 but because they are so vast it takes hundreds of years for the oceans to react so according to scientists, the ocean has a "memory" of climate changes as evidenced by the lag.

[Thriller]

what, "great post"?

well, on this occasion i wanted to mention the data and the chart but forgot (terrible at keeping knowledge in my head , which is why i kept it all on my PC...till it blew up.).

the reason i agree and the reason for the lag (just to show that i know about the chart and understand it all) is because of the oceans. temperature and environmental changes do make the oceans react by realising CO2 but because they are so vast it takes hundreds of years for the oceans to react so according to scientists, the ocean has a "memory" of climate changes as evidenced by the lag.

That's one hypothesis

[shooty08]

and science is all about hypothesis thinking isn't it? you have a hypothesis that doesn't agree with the data, you scrap it and come up with a new one.

I also wonder if that chart was made keeping in mind that Radiocarbon decay years aren't the same as actual years, just curious.

Yes. CO2 makes plants and such thrive.
However, some C02 absorbed by the oceans is changed into carbonic acid, and high acidity isn't good for a lot of living organisms either, with the exception of some of the extremophiles I mentioned earlier.

As the oceans warm( either from natural or anthropogenic increases in earth's temperature) they'll also be able to hold less of the dissolved gases, like O2, CO2, etc. etc.

The oceans contain somewhere between 80-90% of all life on earth...

[Ghoul]

Problem with the whole debate is that trying to blame a whole world problem on each individual means nothing gets done. It's like if I said to you- do a 100000 word PHD in a single day with proper research and consideration: not going to happen. The task is way too big; policy makers could however craft the issue to a more local context whereby they design it to ensure no pollution in your local area or whatever the 'clean' goal is and that is something people can do and achieve without having to be or do an "Atlas". Also whether they believe in Global Warming etc etc doesn't matter. Everyone wants clean air, water, land for the area in which they live

[shooty08]

good post ghoul. I agree, if we could get more people to act on the local level the world at large would be better off.

[Mister Sandman]

The few spoil it for the many.

Wether we took action at a local level in a capitalist world it isnt viable i.e profitable so...

it would be work in vain as companies will do as little as possible.


To 'fix' this issue all levels must take action,
World,
Corporate,
National,
Individual.

However, action which is taken is useless.
Carbon tax is a joke. Planting trees to offset carbon emissions is a cheap way around it.

There are extremists on both sides.

The real issue is not the environment, it is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

I see it as, the environment being like the arts
There are no votes in giving money to the arts - but there is alot of terrible publicity if you don't.

[stuff of legends]

Water vapor is a larger contributor to global warming then CO2 emissions.
The volcano in Iceland (correct me if im wrong) set back the worlds CO2 reduction another 3 or so years.
There is no point in trying to stop something that has no hard evidence, when most of it is speculation.
An inconvenient truth has flaws in it just like its counterpart the great global warming swindle, so i wouldn't bother banking on that for a supportive argument.
I see most of it as just pointless, more money for rubbish ideas, if you take a bit of time and review the source of the idea of global warming, and its origins, most of it is just money and grants for scientists.
If you were a scientist why not just say you are finding ways to stop global warming, boom 3 mill grant from your government. If your a car manufacturing company, ask for a bit of money from the government for research into reducing CO2 emissions from cars.

[shooty08]

The few spoil it for the many.

Wether we took action at a local level in a capitalist world it isnt viable i.e profitable so...

it would be work in vain as companies will do as little as possible.


To 'fix' this issue all levels must take action,
World,
Corporate,
National,
Individual.

However, action which is taken is useless.
Carbon tax is a joke. Planting trees to offset carbon emissions is a cheap way around it.

There are extremists on both sides.

The real issue is not the environment, it is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

I see it as, the environment being like the arts
There are no votes in giving money to the arts - but there is a lot of terrible publicity if you don't.

I'm not following... if you don't support the arts Europe will freeze over?!?!

Cutting down trees is part of how we got ourselves into this mess. And if its cheap, so much the better. Though I'm voting for rooftop gardens of bamboo, grows faster and we can make paper, cutting boards, etc. out of it too

[Mister Sandman]

I was just pointing out how government spending and any spending is not really used for the benefit of the environment, rather used for the benefit for themselves.

Thus, it is like expenditure to the arts. Serves no use except to appease the general population.

Planting trees is cheap yes, however, it doesnt fix the problem to any real extent. I was pointing out that the carbon tax can be set off i.e carbon credits by planting trees which do not have an long term solution (50+ years) and it isnt a immediate solution (0-5 years) For inevitably they will be cut down or bushfires ect will happen to the trees causing more CO2 will be added in to the atmosphere.

I am stating current action is useless/futile . To a thing which is or is not effect by humanity on a large extent.

We have to note that nature 'corrects' itself. As seen in history. Take chernobyl for instance. That area now has one of the highest amounts of wildlife and vegetation.

Look at the temp graphs there always has been corrections and variations, that are in a pattern. The last iceage was caused by global warming..... and that seems to be the pattern.

Iceage - heat up slowly.. variations of cooling and heating... starts snowballing - Iceage

And if you will note, it has mostly occured for N America - Europe . E Europe/asia to N. America..

While the Southern hemisphere endures drought and flood... drought and flood ...

Land mass plays a part in this,,,

[shooty08]

Land mass isn't as efficient at storing heat as water is, it absorbs it during the day then releases it at night. So it would make sense that the southern hemisphere wouldn't be frozen over as severely because its mostly ocean, compared to the northern hemisphere.