Global Warming -- How to Talk to a Skeptic

[Deleted member 848]

Fixed.

Might? Seriously? Are you suggesting that changing climate causing species extinction, and ecological-destruction is something that hasn't had overwhelming amounts of published scientific proof?


No words.

 

[♪alt13]

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.

For many Cyprus and Juniper trees they are ideal. Forests create their own soil but it takes a few "pioneer" species for sure.

There are other species that would do just fine but I listed these because they acidify the currently alkaline soil. There are plants that can produce any deficiencies a soil may have.

 

[♪alt13]

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.

That's funny. I view $5 gas as too extreme in the short term. $5 gas would hurt many people badly right now. That's why I said that it needs to be phased in. 25 years while it may be aggressive is I think a fairly long adjustment period. I think something more along the lines of $7-$8 would be necessary if we wanted to discontinue gasoline for most transportation. If you decided to hit that $7 mark in 25 years it would be much less destructive to the economy than placing a $5 minimum right now. It would also give people time to use their vehicles that they have already invested many thousands of dollars in.

Assume that $7 mark is tied to the inflation rate.

 

[One Brow]

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.

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

Your links describe the ocean absorbing less CO2 because of a warmer surface, which is an effect I had not read about before. So, the capacity for holding CO2 will increase, but the absorption rate will decrease, if I understand this data correctly.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

There's no "might" about it. Species extinction from climate change is already being witnessed, a species that once depended on each other waking at the same time are now waking at different times, often because one is cued by temperature and the other by sun position or daylight level. Historically, climate change of the level we are started to experience is associated with mass extinctions.

What species are you talking about?

 

[Beantown]

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.

My bad, tard face comment retracted.

 

[Beantown]

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 agree natural gas is a good intermediate but the future is solar.

-Hydro electricity is not renewable if its using water as a source. Using water as energy could get dangerous

-Solar is getting very cheap. In probably 7-10 states its cheaper than the local utility.

 

[8]

What species are you talking about?

Well for one example, with the ice melting, the polar bear is in serious danger

 

[♪alt13]

Your links describe the ocean absorbing less CO2 because of a warmer surface, which is an effect I had not read about before. So, the capacity for holding CO2 will increase, but the absorption rate will decrease, if I understand this data correctly.

You'll have to explain to me better where you're coming from and exactly what you're referring to.

The water itself will(and I think this is what GF was talking about)hold less co2. This is why a warm soda goes flat so fast.

The phytoplankton which can increase in number in warmer waters is what I think you are referring to. However an increase in carrying capacity due to algal blooms is both short lived and often deadly to other marine life.

 

[UGLI baby]

How do I keep this thread from popping up on dat jazzfanz.com mobile app newsfeed thing?

TIA


dat jazzfanz.com mobile app doe

 

[franklin]

That's funny. I view $5 gas as too extreme in the short term. $5 gas would hurt many people badly right now. That's why I said that it needs to be phased in. 25 years while it may be aggressive is I think a fairly long adjustment period. I think something more along the lines of $7-$8 would be necessary if we wanted to discontinue gasoline for most transportation. If you decided to hit that $7 mark in 25 years it would be much less destructive to the economy than placing a $5 minimum right now. It would also give people time to use their vehicles that they have already invested many thousands of dollars in.

Assume that $7 mark is tied to the inflation rate.

I would phase it in, of course, and the $5 base is more of a target than anything (you can't actually set a base or our market based gas station system would no longer work). Between the tax prebates and shocking the futures market, it would be an immediate net savings to consumers.

An offset gas tax really is the only free meal we have.

 

[franklin]

How do I keep this thread from popping up on dat jazzfanz.com mobile app newsfeed thing?

TIA


dat jazzfanz.com mobile app doe

Are you the officer on thought patroll tonight?