Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[SuperFerret]

That sounds like it would be uncomfortable.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

But surprisingly enlightening.

 

[Carcharodon]

What about plankton though? Or cow farts? Or any other number of things that cause CO2 that are part of life's natural cycle? Volcanoes are hardly the #1 cause of CO2 emissions in nature. Human beings only produce about 1/20th the amount of CO2 emissions as what is produced naturally, so even if human beings stopped emitting CO2 gas altogether we wouldn't be able to have actual control over the climate unless we start limiting nature's CO2 emissions as well. I'd love to see how the government enforces cap and trade on plankton.

Overall, global warming enthusiasts seem to fall into one of two groups: those who know that it's a hoax but think it's a great way to scare people into following their agenda, and those who are naive enough to believe that human beings have the power to control the weather.

Plankton are a major factor in producing oxygen and sequestering carbon dioxide. In fact, phytoplankton are responsible for producing HALF of the atmospheric oxygen we inhale. You have it ass-backwards.

That's why ocean acidification is extremely scary.

 

[Carcharodon]

Another thing to remember: methane has carbon in it. The only difference between methane and carbon dioxide is that methane has 4 hydrogen atoms whereas CO2 has 2 oxygen atoms. Also, methane is classified as a greenhouse gas.

Methane is actually a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but the overall effect on warming is thought to be greater on the behalf of carbon dioxide by virtue of its atmospheric abundance.

 

[Carcharodon]

Human beings only produce about 1/20th the amount of CO2 emissions as what is produced naturally...

Source?

 

[SuperFerret]

It's a sad day on the Hype when you're expected to give sources for your posts.

 

[Carcharodon]

It's a sad day on the Hype when you're expected to give sources for your posts.

I just want to know where he got that number, that's all. I'm genuinely interested, given that it's counter to just about every figure I've been presented with.

 

[SuperFerret]

I'm just being a pain in the ass here. Don't you know me by now? 90% random mischief, 10% random insight.

 

[Carcharodon]

I know, but it seemed like something of a legitimate question (or, rather, observation) on your part. Worth a response at least.

 

[SuperFerret]

Nah, I know that good arguments require some kind of source to back them up, but then, this IS the Hype, so...

 

[Carcharodon]

Well, I certainly don't want to be a source-****e.

 

[Carcharodon]

Well with population control, we will naturally and inevitably wipe ourselves out. This is nothing new.

With gov't control, it is legally enforced new fangled ways to fail over a prolonged period of time. Resulting in more prolonged bad economics, famine and wars.

The first is a heart attack. The latter is like bleeding to death after some crazed lunatic slices you up 1000 ways and dumps 500 pounds of salt on you.

I'm sorry, but what exactly do you mean by "population control" outside of the context of government control? Are you talking about exceeding carrying capacity?

 

[Paradoxium]

Violence, war and famine.

But honestly, I think we are more likely to cull our populations by poor economics, leading to famine. Moreso than the environment. In the sense, this is likely to occur more immediately.

 

[Carcharodon]

It's funny to me that if anthropogenic climate change theory opponents are right (i.e., that the world is cooling and that CO2 has a negligible effect on global temperatures), then environmentally-induced famine may actually occur sooner than in the other scenario. However, whether such an outcome would precede economically induced famine, I have no clue.

 

[Paradoxium]

I think economically induced famine is the most likely and immediate scenario. For example, a combo of countries decoupling from the United States and some really bad unintended policy that gets instituted.

 

[Timstuff]

I read the figure on Wikipedia, and this is the source they cited for it:

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/

And plankton ARE a major source of greenhouse gasses, because not all plankton are phytoplankton. Phytoplankton are tiny plants that live in water, and while they do reduce greenhouse gas and provide us with oxygen, they are not the ones I am talking about. I'm talking about zooplankton, the tinly little sea critters who eat the phytoplankton. They are pumping out LOTS of methane.

 

[The Battousai]

From what I gather, you're assuming that: unless humans are producing more greenhouse gases than nature is, they aren't responsible for climate change.

Is that correct?

 

[Carcharodon]

I read the figure on Wikipedia, and this is the source they cited for it:

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/

And plankton ARE a major source of greenhouse gasses, because not all plankton are phytoplankton. Phytoplankton are tiny plants that live in water, and while they do reduce greenhouse gas and provide us with oxygen, they are not the ones I am talking about. I'm talking about zooplankton, the tinly little sea critters who eat the phytoplankton. They are pumping out LOTS of methane.

Phytoplankton FAR outnumber zooplankton in terms of biomass, and in terms of greenhouse gas emissions vs. greenhouse gas sequestering, the NET effect is an overall benefit. Technically every living organism is a source of greenhouse gasses, but if you don't look at the situation in terms of net production then you're not taking an honest look at the situation.

And this is the REALLY technical side of me (and this has absolutely no bearing on this discussion), but phytoplankton aren't actually plants. The more you know...

From the source you provided:

Pretty directly refutes the whole 1/20th claim in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. Soooo....I think whoever put that up there must have severely misinterpreted the graphic.

EDIT: I need to rephrase that. In terms of carbon dioxide emissions, if we're talking purely about how much is being put out TOTAL (or the GROSS production of CO2), then yes, 1/20 makes sense. But that, like the plankton scenario, isn't looking at the whole picture, and is highly misleading. We're talking about sources that are NET producers of CO2 (in this example), and humans pretty much take the cake on that front.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I think humans must have an effect on climate change. But to extreme levels where us and us alone can completely change the climate to a dangerous level? No.

Even if we all went back to the stone age climate change would still be happening.

 

[Carcharodon]

That's probably true (the stone age thing). Most scientists seem to think the damage has already been done.

 

[Carcharodon]

Can I ask a serious (and perhaps ignorant) question?

How is economically induced famine not an outcome of capitalism?

 

[Paradoxium]

Can I ask a serious (and perhaps ignorant) question?

How is economically induced famine not an outcome of capitalism?

It is quite possible for capitalism to result in that. It is by virtue of the fact humans are part of the system, and we are fallible. We are capable of mass irrationality.

But is even more likely if it is a more centralized control economy. As I have mentioned in the ice age thread, most "planners" lack necessary information (because there is an inherent overabundance) to properly manage something of such a big scale. Not without incurring unintended consequences. This is why it is smarter to break it down to a smaller level if you wish to govern. There has been historical examples of this failure (I think you already know what I am talking about).

America does not have much of a capitalist system anyways. The most basic requirement is a type of fair and honest currency to trade on. Even if you eliminate this, America is not the most "capitalistic" in the world, that goes to Hong Kong and Singapore.

At least if resources become scarce (capital and unemployment) in a capitalist-esque society, lots of people start to ration on their own, and avoid having a child. This is precisely what is happening right now. This is why money velocity is gridlocked and people are so much more thrifty. They are making the correct rational choice, but the government is hell bent on getting them spend despite their risk position.... see what I mean by economically induced?

We are likely to cull ourselves sooner with poor economics, than with horrible treatment of the environment.

 

[BlackLantern]

so should I buy a speedo or a parka?

 

[Paradoxium]

Do note as most modern societies today end up declining in populations. Look at Japan as a controlled sample. Same story with the most modern asian countries. If you really want to deplete the numbers, there is one easy and politically incorrect way to do it. Have greater restrictions on immigration. You do this, America's population will almost automatically decline. As for the cause, that is another issue.

 

[BlackLantern]

I saw a story on Current recently that Japan is going to see a dramatic population drop within the next 75-100 years...with a all time low in birthrates and very little immigration, the estimated population of Japan will drop from 140 million to about 50 or 60 million