Global Warming -- How to Talk to a Skeptic

[LogGrad98]

I agree that there will probably be not much effect on most of your life, which will probably be over in 100 years. However, it's not like we don't have a record of mass extinctions being associated with these temperature changes.

https://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather/

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

 

[Gameface]

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.

 

[♪alt13]

Its so dumb to focus on climate change. Just focus on air pollution and air quality. Its visible and easy to prove and there is no way anybody can argue it. People in Utah are suffering from air pollution and its creating huge health problems. If we clean up our air it will solve global warming.

Within the next 10 years these two things need to be the focus.

-Homes getting solar energy

-electric cars becoming cheaper and more common


A huge majority of pollution comes from electricity coal plants and from car exhaust. So by having a home on solar and someone charging their car from solar power solves both those issues.

I would just like to add that half of all the electricity that is produced from power plants is lost in transmission. You often hear exaggerated estimates for renewable energy because the assumption is that we would continue with a very large and centralized power grid.

 

[mellow]

It is sad to me that so many people view this as a political question rather than a scientific one--as if somehow you have to choose to "believe" or "not believe" in this based on faith in your chosen political party.

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"?

 

[Beantown]

CO2 does not cause hazy air or health problems. It's not really a pollutant except that it is a greenhouse gas. It is not harmful to our health unless there is so much of it that it starves us of oxygen.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious tard face. But anything man made that is spewing out C02 (car exhaust, electric coal plants, manufacturing plants, etc.) is also spewing out pollutant particles into the air. So the point being if we stop spewing pollutants then we aren't spewing C02.....get it?

Example...solar does not release C02 or pollutants.....electric coal plants spew both.

An electric car does not release C02 or pollutants but a gas engine releases both.

 

[franklin]

Thanks for pointing out the obvious tard face. But anything man made that is spewing out C02 (car exhaust, electric coal plants, manufacturing plants, etc.) is also spewing out pollutant particles into the air. So the point being if we stop spewing pollutants then we aren't spewing C02.....get it?

Example...solar does not release C02 or pollutants.....electric coal plants spew both.

An electric car does not release C02 or pollutants but a gas engine releases both.

Natural gas combustion doesn't spew out hardly any6particles into the air. That's why we switch from coal to nat gas during the winter inversion months.

 

[♪alt13]

It natural for species to die out, as 99.9% of all populations in the earth's history have no descendants living today. However, I prefer humans to not die out as a species, even though this is unnatural.

I agree that we can't can't keep climate static indefinitely, but slowing down the rate of change to what it was in the pre-industrial era would give better chances for our survival. CO2 levels have never risen this high, and never risen this quickly before.



Nothing is more severe than that natural. That's why we have created a society of artificial safeguards.

They haven't in the last 600,000 years is what I understand. I'm pretty sure they have however during the permian extinction event. 95% of all life on earth died out.

I do think though that there is no true substitute for oil and Natural gas. It is simply too cheap and too valuable. I believe that every drop of recoverable oil will eventually be burnt. The trick then will be to, as you said, slow down the rate of carbon emissions and also active mitigation.

I think there are some advantages to global warming if we have the forethought to act. For instance(let me put on my tin foil hat for a minute)

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.

 

[Beantown]

Natural gas combustion doesn't spew out hardly any6particles into the air. That's why we switch from coal to nat gas during the winter inversion months.

Yea natural gas is better. But it has huge environmental impacts when coming to extraction and still released carbon. So when comparing it to Solar or an electric car is still falls dramatically short.

 

[Gameface]

Thanks for pointing out the obvious tard face. But anything man made that is spewing out C02 (car exhaust, electric coal plants, manufacturing plants, etc.) is also spewing out pollutant particles into the air. So the point being if we stop spewing pollutants then we aren't spewing C02.....get it?

Example...solar does not release C02 or pollutants.....electric coal plants spew both.

An electric car does not release C02 or pollutants but a gas engine releases both.

Damn, I wasn't attacking you. I was pointing out the obvious that it seems is not so obvious all the time. CO2 is talked about as if it is a toxic pollutant. It isn't. It doesn't hurt O2 breathers and it benefits plants. The primary harm is in its greenhouse qualities.

 

[♪alt13]

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.

yes that is true.

I think the scariest scenario is one in which we have gotten well into that feed back loop, are beginning to take measures to try and cool the planet, and a natural disaster(mega volcano/ undersea pocket of methane) puts us over the edge much faster than we had anticipated. I know that it isn't terribly likely but we are talking about more than just our species. All of human culture every language silenced forever. We owe it to ourselves and the universe not to play dice with our existence.

 

[franklin]

Yea natural gas is better. But it has huge environmental impacts when coming to extraction and still released carbon. So when comparing it to Solar or an electric car is still falls dramatically short.

That's speculation, which isn't a good starting point for public policy. Neither is trying to force a square [solar panel pipe dream] peg into a round [economic] hole. We need to allow technology to outpace mandate, or it won't be advancement but forced, manipulated, and built on faulty assumptions. We need progress which takes time, not an end result reached tomorrow by dictate. Natural gas has already reduced pollution significantly and has more room to run. It's a pretty damn good intermediate.


For example, how dumb would we feel by forcing a heavy portion of expensive, inefficient PEV into our fleet only to watch Japan come out with a cheaper, higher efficiency hydrogen powered vehicle? Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai are coming to market with some early models.


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.

 

[♪alt13]

That's speculation, which isn't a good starting point for public policy. Neither is trying to force a square [solar panel pipe dream] peg into a round [economic] hole. We need to allow technology to outpace mandate, or it won't be advancement but forced, manipulated, and built on faulty assumptions. We need progress which takes time, not an end result reached tomorrow by dictate. Natural gas has already reduced pollution significantly and has more room to run. It's a pretty damn good intermediate.


For example, how dumb would we feel by forcing a heavy portion of expensive, inefficient PEV into our fleet only to watch Japan come out with a cheaper, higher efficiency hydrogen powered vehicle? Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai are coming to market with some early models.


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.

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).