Global Warming -- How to Talk to a Skeptic

[One Brow]

That shows one event, not a record of them. Temperature changed dramatically in the 20000 to 12000 year timeperiod on this graph.

1) The temperature change from 20000 to 12000 is much less rapid than the change from 1850 to 2000.
2) How can you have a 1960-1990 baseline when 1990 was warmer than 1960 by about half a degree C?
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/temp-anom-larg.jpg


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mass-extinctions-tied-to-past-climate-changes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

Climate (warming or cooling) is is a primary suspect in four of the six largest events, and extinction events are measured over hundreds of thousands of years, usually.

Do we have a list of the species that died out over that timeframe as a mass extinction, as that rise in temperature was far more dramatic than any time period since, I would expect there to have been mass extinctions over that time period.

We are living in a period of mass extinction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_extinction_event

 

[One Brow]

Is that any more sad than those who use the issue to further a political agenda that may not do anything to " solve the problem"?

Can you specify this agenda? Is it anything more than trying to address the problem?

I mean, you could say that any given thing "may not" do something. If I release a cup in mid-air, it "may not" fall (for example, if I'm in a free-fall environment).

 

[One Brow]

Someone straighten me out here. As water warms it has the capacity to hold less CO2, so it is sort of a feedback loop that as CO2 levels increase and cause the greenhouse effect the oceans warm and release more CO2. That's true, is it not? Not making a point really, just want to make sure I understand that aspect of things.

The oceans should store more CO2 as they warm. There are even proposals for taking advantage of this.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/SRCCS_Chapter6.pdf

However, there is both CO2 and methane trapped in permaforst and tundra. As the latter melt/warm, the former are released.

 

[♪alt13]

The worst case scenario

I'm not playing chicken little here. I'm just throwing this out as a starting point that everyone should agree that we avoid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/new-studies-of-permian-extinction-shed-light-on-the-great-dying.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

 

[mellow]

. The easiest way to get rid of a sin is to tax it. Tax pollution and let the market decide how best to avoid paying it. $5/gallon gasoline minimum price would be my preference.

That is where I get really worked up on this issue. $5 a gallon gas doesn't solve anything all it does is place an economic burden on the backs of the people who can't afford it and who are already conserving due to economics.

A 747 uses more gas to taxi down a runway (320 gallons) than I use in a year commuting to work. Taking off uses the equivalent of 8 SUVs year supply of fuel. Flying then uses even more. And there are over 1 million commercial flights every year. That's not counting all the private flights or military flights.

A professional baseball or football game with lighting uses enough electricity to run 93 houses in the USA for an entire year!

A cruise ship can use a gallon of gas to go 40 ft. That equates to 28,000 gallons an hour for the Freedom of the Seas ship.

I say go after the biggest contributors first, especially if this is a real crisis. Stop the entitled consumerism of the worlds rich before further impoverishing the poor. That's my preference.

 

[colton]

Is that any more sad than those who use the issue to further a political agenda that may not do anything to " solve the problem"?

That is also sad to me.

 

[One Brow]

We could build giant solar or nuclear powered "distilleries" in the pacific and send the steam through a pipeline over the Sierra Nevadas and plant billions of trees accross Nevada and western Utah. We could create a temperate Rain Forrest.

Do Nevada and western Utah have the appropriate soil?

I'm sure there are advantages to draining blood from your body occasionally, but I still try to avoid it.

 

[One Brow]

.

 

[franklin]

I like this idea but you have to phase it in and I would like to see a scale that didn't top at $5, but rather had a goal of making gasoline completely economically non viable for Transportation within say 25 years. (sooner or later peak oil will force this anyway).

That's way too radical for me and I don't see the point anyway because 1) rapid advancements in technology may make this unnecessary 2) marginal cost producers will get hammered when most the pump price goes to taxes instead of them, & production will peak in the medium term 3) $5/gallon is more than enough to make alternatives economically viable right now, so we'd be shrinking the fleet while also tightening CAFE standards (we've already tightened NOx to 2% of the initial standard in 197X).

Way too many unanticipated side effects to take drastic measures. Good policy needs to be implemented and changed over time as the environment adjusts away from its mandates.

 

[One Brow]

That is where I get really worked up on this issue. $5 a gallon gas doesn't solve anything all it does is place an economic burden on the backs of the people who can't afford it and who are already conserving due to economics.

As a goal, it solves nothing. As a consequence of paying for environmental destruction, with revenues going toward averting that destruction, it can mitigate quite a bit.

A 747 uses more gas to taxi down a runway (320 gallons) than I use in a year commuting to work. Taking off uses the equivalent of 8 SUVs year supply of fuel. Flying then uses even more. And there are over 1 million commercial flights every year. That's not counting all the private flights or military flights.

Should they be required to pay for the pollutants they add to the atmosphere?

I say go after the biggest contributors first, especially if this is a real crisis. Stop the entitled consumerism of the worlds rich before further impoverishing the poor. That's my preference.

I you tax all the petroleum, those who use the most will pay the most.

 

[franklin]

That is where I get really worked up on this issue. $5 a gallon gas doesn't solve anything all it does is place an economic burden on the backs of the people who can't afford it and who are already conserving due to economics.

A 747 uses more gas to taxi down a runway (320 gallons) than I use in a year commuting to work. Taking off uses the equivalent of 8 SUVs year supply of fuel. Flying then uses even more. And there are over 1 million commercial flights every year. That's not counting all the private flights or military flights.

A professional baseball or football game with lighting uses enough electricity to run 93 houses in the USA for an entire year!

A cruise ship can use a gallon of gas to go 40 ft. That equates to 28,000 gallons an hour for the Freedom of the Seas ship.

I say go after the biggest contributors first, especially if this is a real crisis. Stop the entitled consumerism of the worlds rich before further impoverishing the poor. That's my preference.

I would completely offset the tax increase with lowered payroll taxes and prebates to fixed income recipients. You could choose to lower your taxes by, say, using the payroll break as a subsidy to move closer to work, thus increasing your standard of living by freeing up wasted driving time.

It would also eliminate the need for ethanol, solar, etc. subsidies and we could spend that money on education or give you another token tax break.

It would also increase GDP immediately by lowering oil import volume and the price, which ultimately would lead to higher treasury revenue. Another tax break opportunity.

It would create jobs at home, reducing immediate need for welfare and h.c. subsidies. Tax break.

We would also be hitting the biggest source of pollution in the jaw, so we could relax some of these burdensome regulations on business -- effectively another tax break.

We would also reduce out health care costs associated with air pollution. Another tax break.



I'm cutting all y'all taxes up in here Mellow. It's market based, the only free meal around, and the right thing to do.

 

[♪alt13]

The oceans should store more CO2 as they warm. There are even proposals for taking advantage of this.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/SRCCS_Chapter6.pdf

However, there is both CO2 and methane trapped in permaforst and tundra. As the latter melt/warm, the former are released.

No. The link you provided is talking about pumping co2 into the deep depths of the ocean that should remain cold and are at extreme pressures. The upper ocean will warm and store less co2. the net storage for co2 in the ocean will if left alone be less than it is today.
https://www.rtcc.org/2012/01/24/warming-oceans-face-co2-tipping-point/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jan/12/sea-co2-climate-japan-environment
The ocean will absorb more Co2 than we previously thought it would under warmer conditions but again this is relative to our previous models not our current and past ocean co2 capacity.

Plankton may absorb more of the CO2 causing climate change than previously thought, according to new research

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=oceans-may-absorb-more-carbon-dioxide