Global warming

[Mariner]

the denial movement will continue to move the goal posts until arctic beach becomes a hot property

At which point they will start claiming the benefits of warming outweigh problems caused...

 

[KimB]

At which point they will start claiming the benefits of warming outweigh problems caused...

That's not an uncommon thread already.

 

[hoho]

At which point they will start claiming the benefits of warming outweigh problems caused...

There is no warming!
The warming is not caused by humans!
The warming we caused is not all that bad!
The warming is kind of bad but it's too expensive to do anything about it!
The warming is bad and we can't do anything about it so why waste any resources on it!

 

[DarthShader]

Now, the debate is whether humans have caused any of the climate change we see today. I don't believe so, and the use of a tipping point of no return is used only as a scare tactic.

So you say we can drop an infinite amount of shit into the atmosphere and all will be fine?

 

[Grall]

Now, the debate is whether humans have caused any of the climate change we see today. I don't believe so, and the use of a tipping point of no return is used only as a scare tactic.

That's as ludicrous a standpoint as it is illogical. Mankind releases billions of tonnes of CO2, soot and other aerosols into the atmosphere each year. Simultaneously we're de-foresting this planet at a frantic rate. You're SERIOUSLY claiming this has no effect whatsoever on the environment, and in fact CAN'T have any effect whatsoever?

What's your evidence for that? Where's your studies, where's your proof?

You have none. NONE!

It's all just built on wishful hear no evil, see no evil and head-in-the-sand (head-up-your-ass more like it) thinking.

Show just one experiment involving a complex system where you change the parameters of that system and NOTHING happens as a result. There is no such case!

I believe that you can get the change you want by other means, without to resorting to scare tactics or name calling.

That's a total strawman.

The scare tactics are being used by the denialist side, screaming that people will lose their jobs, society will go bankrupt and so on by switching to a ecologically sustainable system for energy production and transportation.

 

[liolio]

There is no warming!
The warming is not caused by humans!
The warming we caused is not all that bad!
The warming is kind of bad but it's too expensive to do anything about it!
The warming is bad and we can't do anything about it so why waste any resources on it!

Actually whether or not the global warming is a consequence of human activities is imho completely irrelevant as we will have to deal with it anyway. It's possible there is nothing in our powers that we can do that would affect it positively, the only safe thing to do is prepare. Saving oil among other resources in finite quantity is a good place to start.

 

[Mize]

I just love the fact that Koch funded a climate-change denier to publish that existing data were wrong and/or fabricated and, instead, he concludes that global warming is real.

Priceless.

 

[KimB]

Actually whether or not the global warming is a consequence of human activities is imho completely irrelevant as we will have to deal with it anyway. It's possible there is nothing in our powers that we can do that would affect it positively, the only safe thing to do is prepare. Saving oil among other resources in finite quantity is a good place to start.

Well, no, it is relevant because the degree to which human activity impacts warming determines what we should do about it.

 

[hoho]

Well, no, it is relevant because the degree to which human activity impacts warming determines what we should do about it.

You know it is possible for humans to stop/slow down the global warming even if it is not caused by us.

 

[KimB]

You know it is possible for humans to stop/slow down the global warming even if it is not caused by us.

If it weren't caused by us, however, stopping the emissions of CO2 wouldn't do anything. We'd have to engage in active climate modification (which is significantly more dangerous).

As it stands, though, the #1 most important thing to do to reduce the increase in global warming is to get off of fossil fuels.

 

[Mize]

As it stands, though, the #1 most important thing to do to reduce the increase in global warming is to get off of fossil fuels.

Where it's possible...we're a long way from electrically powered jets.

 

[Squilliam]

Where it's possible...we're a long way from electrically powered jets.

Just one percent of the oil produced in a day has the equivalent energy of 2.5 Billion people working for 8 hours. It's funny that a reduction in fossil fuels would be a catastrophe for civilization. If the threat of peak oil were a country like Iran it'd have been bombed into the stone age by the U.S. by now.

 

[hoho]

If it weren't caused by us, however, stopping the emissions of CO2 wouldn't do anything.

Why not?

 

[KimB]

Where it's possible...we're a long way from electrically powered jets.

That's why we need biofuels to make up the difference. Anywhere fossil fuels can be used, so can biofuels, after all. It's just a matter of getting the production efficient and up to scale.

 

[KimB]

Why not?

Because if the warming isn't caused by our activity, then the release of CO2 into the atmosphere isn't causing the warming, which means stopping the release won't change anything.

 

[hoho]

That's why we need biofuels to make up the difference. Anywhere fossil fuels can be used, so can biofuels, after all. It's just a matter of getting the production efficient and up to scale.

Yeah, good luck with that. Currently it takes nearly as much fuel/energy to produce the biofuel than you get back from it but that isn't counting the massive damage it does to ecosystem.

Because if the warming isn't caused by our activity, then the release of CO2 into the atmosphere isn't causing the warming, which means stopping the release won't change anything.

... but it's pretty well known that some stuff released to atmosphere does heat up the planet.

 

[Mize]

That's why we need biofuels to make up the difference. Anywhere fossil fuels can be used, so can biofuels, after all. It's just a matter of getting the production efficient and up to scale.

As long as they aren't competitors for food production.
Brazil already has tested alcohol-powered jet engines...

 

[Mize]

Yeah, good luck with that. Currently it takes nearly as much fuel/energy to produce the biofuel than you get back from it but that isn't counting the massive damage it does to ecosystem.... but it's pretty well known that some stuff released to atmosphere does heat up the planet.

You clearly aren't familiar with ethanol production from sugar cane in Brazil. After startup the waste from the process is used to power the process. It's extremely efficient.

 

[hoho]

You clearly aren't familiar with ethanol production from sugar cane in Brazil. After startup the waste from the process is used to power the process. It's extremely efficient.

Any numbers on EROEI for the whole process?

Also, Brazil has pretty much perfect climate for it. Only a tiny fraction of people live close enough to that region for biofuels to be efficient.

 

[Mize]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

FYI, large swaths of the US Southeast are perfect for sugar cane. Corn lobby isn't keen on it though.