Why you should pay more attention to the environment

I was raised to believe that global warming was a myth. Modern conservatives are a bit more savvy than that; they'll grit their teeth and concede that global warming really is happening, but they claim it's a natural cycle.

Yet the science behind the greenhouse effect is quite straightforward - CO2 is transparent to light in the visible spectrum, but opaque to infrared light. Thus, visible light comes in, heats up the ground, but cannot be re-radiated away because the atmosphere absorbs it. Once a person understands this, the observed increase in global temperatures with increasing atmospheric CO2 is totally obvious.

We're not talking about something you learn in Sociology or Women's Lit, here; this is standard physics and chemistry. Energy in, minus energy out, equals change in internal energy. And the consequence is that, in those areas where the most CO2 was produced over the last 50 years, the temperature has risen the most:



This map, from Wikipedia, shows the 10-year average (2000–2009) global mean temperature anomaly relative to the 1951–1980 mean. Source: NASA Earth Observatory

But of course, this isn't the only problem from CO2. Many of you may not even have heard about the acidification of the ocean, but CO2 binds to OH- ions in the water, producing an excess of hydronium (H3O+) and decreasing the ocean's PH. This has a serious impact on things like the coral reefs, which provide homes to some 25% of marine biodiversity. Here is another map, also from Wikipedia, on oceanic acidification:


Estimated change in sea water pH caused by human created CO
2 between the 1700s and the 1990s, from the Global Ocean Data Analysis Project and the World Ocean Atlas

It is time to think seriously about reducing emissions on a large scale. Because it's already too late to return things to the temperatures they were a hundred years ago, or to stop the damage that has already been caused to the coral reefs - indeed, even if we cut down on our emissions by a factor of ten, we would still be adding to the atmospheric CO2. The carbon dioxide is there; it isn't going to just vanish. And unless we take strong steps to curb our CO2 production, we can expect much worse changes in the future than we have seen so far.

 

Ah; it seems that PoliticalForum.com isn't interested in the topic - it has slipped happily into the second page with only 30 views. This is disappointing, since it represents a topic that actually matters.

Since coming here, I've noticed that the left disperses a lot of its energy on irrelevant topics like "who has the money" (when even poor Americans are rich in global and historical terms; the average life expectancy is over 75 years) and "who are the evil racists / race baiters" (where the battles tend to be uphill; there's a reason Zimmerman was found not guilty).

Liberals, you are letting the conservatives choose the topics, and are just getting stomped for it. Here is a topic you should be all over and in their faces with. Because they don't have a leg to stand on. The conservative line on the environment is uneducated, short-sighted, and flatly wrong. Global warming and oceanic acidification, as caused by humans increasing atmospheric CO2, are no longer a matter for serious scientific debate:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations."

And they aren't matters to be ignored. Because long after we are all dead and gone, what we have done to the environment will remain, not only for our descendants, but for the entire world to cope with. This is not a situation that brooks halfhearted resolutions, but a clear, forthright attempt to deal with the problem head-on.

"But wait!" Many of you might say. "You always talk about being a libertarian sympathizer, whatever that means. Now you're showing your true colors, you statist!" But there is nothing un-libertarian about protecting an endangered public good. And the air is a classic public good - something which is "nonexclusive," meaning there is no way to subdivide it, and "jointly consumable," which means that it can be used by one person without diminishing availability to another. And it also can't be ruined by any one person, but society at large is doing its darndest to wreck and ruin the planet for humanity (and for, you know, the rest of the creatures on the planet most of us seem to ignore). So I don't believe that even libertarians in good conscience can oppose governmental action on the issue of CO2 emissions. The problem is clear, and a solution is necessary.

That is all I have to say.

 

Well, you probably won't get much discussion BECAUSE it's too late to turn back the clock, and because the runaway greenhouse effect has already started.

There are still policies we can enact to slow the expensive effects of a warming world, but many of the things we need to do now are already bundled with the going green movement. Unfortunately, the going green movement is suffering through a rough patch right now because President Obama invested in Solyndra which became a scandal and also when biofuels were found to cause pollution like oil-based fuel. Also Nuclear power, one of the favorite power sources of the green movement, is not popular right now because of the accident in Japan.

 

Republicans could care less about that. Remember, they are anti-science. They are not going to give up their way of life because of science facts. They live for the day, not for tomorrow. But for those who care; http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2635779n

 

I'm actually hoping for global warming to hurry up, because if it happens the way it did in that terrible movie The Day after Tomorrow, then it would be most of the blue states that get screwed over first, with only the red states left untouched.

I bet if it occured like that then we'd assure future Republican rule for at least the next 20 years - so bring it on. Buy a Hummer, spread some more CO2, and get the global warming party on baby

 

Here's the part that is really bad, but most revealing. This post will probably end up being the most important post from this forum, and yet, will largely be ignored by most people on here. What does that tell you?

 

I usually stay away from this argument because it quickly devolves into name calling and nonsense, but you seem like you actually want to discuss the issue, so I'll take you up on this.

It is not as straightforward as you make it seem. For example, you are neglecting that there may be other factors which balance or counteract CO2. Also keep in mind the CO2's warming ability is a system of diminishing returns; something that is not represented in your explanation.
A NASA study showed that once again, warming models were wrong about the real life effects vs the predicted effects:
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/
If it were as simple and obvious as you make it sound, it seems like someone would be able to make a somewhat accurate prediction based on the assumptions of the theory.

If what you say is true, it would appear from your picture that the most CO2 was produced at the north pole, with second place going to one section of the northern tip of Antarctica. I feel like that might not be correct.

The crux of the problem is that just showing a higher temperature and showing more PPM of CO2 without applying the scientific method to make accurate predictions and identify all relevant factors or mechanisms, is just correlation equals causation fallacy. I could just as easily say that as temperature goes up, CO2 goes up and show you that both levels are higher than at some previous point. Or I could say that pirates prevent global warming:
View attachment 20986

There will be changes to the climate regardless of what human beings do. There will be other ice ages and warming periods even if there are no human beings. Considering CO2 constitutes about .04% of the atmosphere, and is not the primary greenhouse gas (which is water vapor I believe), I really don't see this as an imminent danger that it is made out to be. The predictions consistently overestimate CO2's ability to warm the atmosphere, and considering that CO2 is believed to have been as high as 4000PPM in the past, I believe there must be other mechanisms involved than just the oversimplified CO2 wavelength explanation you gave at the start.

 

I posted the 60 minute CBS clip. Did you watch it? That is some pretty compelling evidence to me without being a scientist. The water temperatures are warming, krill are dying because of it, while they feed the Penguins for which their numbers have dropped in half because of that. They take ice core samples that are ten thousand years old and see major differences in those samples from recent years that are contaminated. Each decade our average temperature is increasing one degree. Whether this is fantasy or not, there is one thing for sure. If we do nothing, when could have done something, despite our beliefs, we would have certainly made a compelling case that we are no more intelligent than the Krill that are dying off, or the penguins that eat them.

 

Dethklok,

I am involved in environmental issues on a local level. I am not an internet activist. Even if I was, my view of you getting upset about liberals not going on the attack against the sponsored conservative majority here, is (as far as my opinion of their debate tactics go) like someone getting upset for people choosing to cross the road to avoid some methed out character, or a group of drunken frat boys or even worse a tavern jacket, baseball cap wearing white guy from harassing you. To me deciding to talk to one of these people is almost like deciding to hang out with some guy in his prison cell. Why the hell would I do that?

To actively participate here you have to consider that this site protects conservatives from having to take what they dish out and this bunch of conservatives will always go there.

The left wing site I used to go on was similar but not with as many accounts. The owners would look the other way when they had their minions attack you in the middle of a point you were making. You'd eventually respond as you do when you invest time into something and when you'd return, your posts were deleted and theirs remained. It would always kill the thread.
These sites, the owners, aren't going to let you make their site a platform that supports something they're against, no matter how nice they come across. You might as well be talking to machines.

Still I admire the people that won't cross the road to avoid debating this bunch of sponsored conservatives and they'll still enjoy themselves or just kick some as.s if necessary. Its a unique kind of resilience that there is probably a need for out there.
have fun

 

The fundamental problem is the fact that the human race is in a state of denial. The solutions are right before our eyes but it is better to pretend it's someone else's problem. Admitting the truth requires admitting some very disturbing choices that no one want's to make. Anyone who speaks out is attacked as a nut or worse. Politics is more important than reason.
As you say "Input minus output equals acccumulation." Basic physical law. No brains needed to understand. It applies to:

pollution
resorce consumption
deforestation
carbon dioxide generation
overpopulation
They're all related.

But it's easier to get mad and call those who try to show you the truth an atheist commie tree hugger who hates (insert country here).

 

Bravo

This actually isn't a bad stance to take for a Libertarian considering the fact that hurting the atmosphere can directly hurt other people.

Not to be misleading but the earth does have natural cooling and heating cycles, and what and how the earth recovers is only vaguely understood.

It is also true that the Earth has never seen a carbon footprint like we are making to our knowledge and we are in for some extremes.

Let me also point out that the largest entity producing mass carbon dioxide is the American military industrial complex followed by the meat industry if i am not mistaken.

I think a smaller Libertarian government would work wonders for the environment simply by scaling back intellectual property rights and other protectionist practices letting the market find new solutions that work without being shut down by major corporate lobbies. Also a government that didn't need to police the world wouldnt want so many tanks, jet fighters etc. If we let business models like tesla and other green solutions fail with no subsidies people would perfect the technology and make it affordable and attractive.

The fact of the matter is we are our government, we are our problem and we need to produce our solutions. We need to stop using the wealth we have to preserve society as it is and invest in profit we can use in the future.

 

Have you managed to sell all this to the Chinese, Indians, and Russians, yet?


Hussein Obama holds the key to overpopulation. All he needs to is beckon the officer who follows him around with the "football" (nuclear weapon launch authorizations) enter the right codes and bingo! no more overpopulation.

None of these problems would be the least but controversial if you can come up with a response that does not involve voluntary impoverishment of the US.

 

I can look outside and say the weather has changed , is it from man or from nature I do not know, I do know that it would be better to pick up your trash and drive less, buy local etc.

 

I would agree that global warming is a serious issue and that emissions need to be reduced.

The problem is that, while the First World might make some progress on this, no one's going to hold countries like China and India accountable for emissions. They're both in a period of industrializing, and a lot of the money made in the First World is dependent on that industrialization.

 

Denial is the easy way out for them. Most of those commie tree hugging haters haven't a clue about science. Nor do they have any interest in knowing. Their selective priorities of wealth and the good life as they see it, takes precedence. They choose not to fear what they do not know through willful ignorance, thereby never knowing what they should be fearing. It's called the easy way out. And if others get in their way, then they play the liberal, commie, tree hugger game to wipe what they choose not to hear away. They're called cowards.

 

Yep. More bare assertions with no actual hard science. Also, it contradicts what natgeo says on the issue:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121013-antarctica-sea-ice-record-high-science-global-warming/
Not that this matters because none of it conclusively links man made CO2 to the warming. This issue has all of the hallmarks of a political issue, and not a genuine existential threat.

Fair enough, but without the scientific method, there is no science.

Every animal on earth could die from heat related issues, but that still does not show causation.
I could point you to the science that shows CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That exists. There are experiments and a hypothesis that could not be falsified. I can not point you to the science that shows CO2 is a primary driver in global climate change because to my knowledge it does not exist. There is a ton of speculation, and models, and opinion pieces with scientists agreeing with each other, but there is no hard science. I don't care if penguins are dying, show me the science. Show me how a gas that only constitutes .04% of the atmosphere can be the sole driver of climate change.

Source? Do you realize how hot it would be if that were true?
The average temp has risen 1.74 degrees over the last CENTURY.
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years
If you look at the first graph, the average appears to have gone down for a while after 2000. Did the world produce less carbon in that time? It created more. Obviously there are other factors at work here that were not laid out by the simple chemistry of the OP.

Pascal's wager is not science, but I do find it humorous that you use a religious argument to defend AGW. Well played.

Just out of curiosity, what are you proposing to replace carbon based energy?

 

I'm one of those people who is basically right down the middle on this issue. Yes, we should focus on making better and more efficient green technology in order to help the planet and ourselves, but I also believe that we need to have a balance with the non-renewable energy sources. After all, there are scientists that are figuring out ways to minimize the carbon footprint they are making. Humanity needs a balanced energy plan; having too much of one side would only result in disaster.

 

I'm willing to pay more, but I'm NOT willing to use an electric car or use one of those crappy "energy saving" light bulbs.
No bans!! This includes "efficiency mandates" that are impractically high, trying to force your crappy "efficient" technology on us. My toilet does not properly flush thanks to you crazy people! Bring back the real toilets that actually flush!

 

We can run around wasting money on low return if any return carbon reduction, or we can clean lakes and rivers and put land into preserves etc... You all act like there is no trade off. The world is fine. If you don't believe it be the first person to give up their car and computer and electricity. Otherwise lets address real environmental issues, like mercury levels in waterways, Asian Carp takeover of the missippi, python takeover of the Everglades, discharges in the Indian river lagoon etc... But instead those ecosystems suffer while we spend hundreds of billions to get little results that aren't even measurable in any meaningful way. How many tons of carbon until the average temperature goes up one degree?

 

Good information, thanks.

My official position. Of course the climate is changing. It has been for 5 billion years. It will continue to change. CO2 levels have also fluctuated during that time. Is man contributing? Probably, who can say for sure?

Now we should be good stewards of the planet. I have no problem with that. However, many "environmentalists" don't really care about the planet. Take Barack Obama, for example. Global warming, er, climate change, er, whatever they are calling it this week, uses it as a political tool to pay off campaign contributors, punish non-contributors and accumulate more government power.

Now take Al Gore, for example- very concerned about the planet and rising seas. Rides around on a private jet and buys coastal property. Sorry, it all just rings hollow. And I will not support a scheme in which rich pigs like Al Gore get to continue polluting (you would be AMAZED at the fuel burn of jets, it's astronomical) while the rest of us make all the sacrifices.

When hacks like Gore and Obama start walking their talk, I'll start caring more. Sorry, but it's tough enough making it in a dwindling Obama economy without also putting the weight of the environment on my shoulders.

- - - Updated - - -

Amen, bring back the toilets that work, you know, like the ones Obama and Gore have. Nah, I don't buy the faux concern of the leftists. This is about control and taxation, not the environment. In other words, it's just like health care.

 

If you really believed in AGW, you'd be gung-ho for nuclear power - Fukushima be damned.

But the fact of the matter is the US could build nukes on every street corner, or "conserve" our way back to the technological level of colonial America and it would not begin to offset the emissions from nations like China, India, and Russia. So why bother.

And despite the OP, no one really nows if or how much human emissions contribute to any warming. The geological record is clear. The climate has warmed and cooled many times without any help at all from mankind. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the climate was cionsiderably warmer today but human emissions were insignificant.

But one thing is for sure: If the "remedy" has to be economic suicide, you simply are never going to sell the AGW notion even if the seawater is knee-deep in New York.

 

That is hilarious, coming from someone who wants to continue spending money we don't have to feed people who should be feeding themselves.

Pot, meet kettle.

ROFLMAO!!!!

 

Wow, you are saying that a compelling case has been made you are no more intelligent than krill. I think at this point I should say no more.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do that when you can maintain your current lifestyle and simply demand others make sacrifices? It's the American way, baby!

 

I'm all for it with nuclear power; the anti-nuclear people don't seem to grasp the idea that, like everything else, nuclear power plants have evolved to be a million times safer and more efficient then the days of Chernobyl and Three Mile. What the Fukushima incident only showed is that it's probably a smarter idea to build nuclear power plants inland, instead of on the coast where it's more susceptible to the wrath of Mother Nature.