Climate Change for Seth and Others

[Thales of Miletus]

Since the NDP thread started to diverge, and people here can't stand it when a thread drifts from topic, I have started this new thread.

Anyone that doesn't believe in climate change is out of their mind, is not too bright, or has financial motivation for denying.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 was at a 250 ppm level for the last 300,000 years. CO2 is now at 390 ppm. How is there any room for doubt?

Please don't respond with totally uninformed memes.

Such as;

The climate has always changed.

Man can't possibly change the climate.

God controls the weather.

It was hotter in the days of Dinosaurs.

Or the ultimate bullshit, Antarctic Ice is growing.

[speedog]

Cake, chocolate torte is good.

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by speedog
Cake, chocolate torte is good.

So go eat some then hang yourself.

[Darell_n]

Ok, the climate is changing. So what? Life goes on.

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by Darell_n
Ok, the climate is changing. So what? Life goes on.

So what?

Mass extinctions.

Crop failures.

Extremely high commodity costs.

Displacement of millions.

Possible Nuclear war over water.

All so oil and coal can enjoy their profits.

p.s. When the United States wants water, where do you think they are going to get it from?

Yeah, so what.

[oster]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus


So what?

Mass extinctions.

Crop failures.

Extremely high commodity costs.

Displacement of millions.

Possible Nuclear war over water.

All so oil and coal can enjoy their profits.

p.s. When the United States wants water, where do you think they are going to get it from?

Yeah, so what.

Totally!

[oster]

Global cooling in the 70's, global warming now...

Whatever, mass extinction, world is over populated anyway.

We already pay 200% for some commodities under supply management so whats another 200%.

Displacement? Hopefully the mass extinction takes care of that.

Nuclear war is long over due.

So what?

[Darell_n]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus


So what?

Mass extinctions.

Crop failures.

Extremely high commodity costs.

Displacement of millions.

Possible Nuclear war over water.

All so oil and coal can enjoy their profits.

p.s. When the United States wants water, where do you think they are going to get it from?

Yeah, so what.

People will adapt or they will die. Just like the last 10,000 years for us hairless monkeys and the 100s of millions of years before us.

[ZenOps]

Parts per million.

Lets quote that in the appropriate way, as a percentage. During the last few millenia of industrial carbon use the percent of carbon dioxide has increased from 0.025% to 0.039%

Why not quote parts per billion? Its more dramatic.

What is also a greenhouse gas? Naturally occuring Argon, which is 0.93%

From a purely scientific veiwpoint it does not make sense to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as is now. Since Argon is both a brown gas and inert (does not contribute to sustaining life, like plant life) Argon is what should be captured and removed from the atmosphere if the goal is to remove brown gases from the air. Carbon dioxide should be pumped into the air at even greater amounts, but also - Argon should be removed somehow.

As temperatures and carbon dioxide levels increase, plant life becomes sustainable at higher elevations (tree line) making more mountainous and high elevation regions into more fertile areas.

Which means Calgary will be a growers paradise.

[speedog]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus


So go eat some then hang yourself.

You're the best, ToMmy.

But really, don't you like cake.

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by oster
Global cooling in the 70's, global warming now...

In the 70's the issue was ozone depletion. A few articles speculated that the reduction of that GREENHOUSE GAS might cause a massive cool down.

Originally posted by oster
Whatever, mass extinction, world is over populated anyway.

Man isn't the only animal on the planet.

Originally posted by oster
We already pay 200% for some commodities under supply management so whats another 200%.

A lot of fucking money.

Originally posted by oster
Nuclear war is long over due.

Great summation of your POV.

Originally posted by ZenOps
Parts per million.
Lets quote that in the appropriate way, as a percentage. During the last few millenia of industrial carbon use the percent of carbon dioxide has increased from 0.025% to 0.039%

You don't seem to understand scientific principles or absorption bands. Without 250 ppm of CO2, an amount you call insignificant, the average temperature on Earth would be -21C.

Just because something is small, doesn't mean it can't affect you. Bullets are small, cyanide capsules are small.

Originally posted by ZenOps
What is also a greenhouse gas? Naturally occuring Argon, which is 0.93%

Argon is not a greenhouse gas. It is a monatomic molecule that is barely affected by IR.

Originally posted by ZenOps
As temperatures and carbon dioxide levels increase, plant life becomes sustainable at higher elevations (tree line) making more mountainous and high elevation regions into more fertile areas.

Which means Calgary will be a growers paradise.

Good grief.

[rx7_turbo2]

Keep at it Thales, beat that fucker, she aint dead yet!

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
Keep at it Thales, beat that fucker, she aint dead yet!

And you keep on doing your part. You know, blaming rape victims and criticizing charity organizations.

There are people like Terry Fox, and there are people like you. Some people run to make the world a better place, some people run their mouth.

[Nitro5]

I believe in man made climate change, but I'm also a realist. I don't believe Canada should destroy its economy for what would be a symbolic measure. Even if Canada reduced its carbon to 0 today its net effect on the overall CO2 levels would be insignificant.

Are the current Conservatives doing all they can the the environment? No, but they aren't the monsters you try to portray them as. We can do more for the environment, but carbon taxes are simply money grabs and punitive that have no effect on carbon output. Same with cap and trade. It's a money transfer scheme that will have a net effect of zero in carbon output. More can be done to encourage development of alternate energy, but the shift isn't instantaneous, but the market will push that way. It is already happening, my car I bought a few years ago is probably 100% more fuel efficient than my last. Will be replacing the wife's vehicle in a few years and probably will be even better. We are reaching a tipping point and technology does improve at an amazing rate.

Look back at the last turn off the century from the 1800s to the 1900s, vast majority of people didn't have plumbing, electricity and had horses and buggies.

Within 60 years we were in the moon. I'm sure by 2050 society will be unrecognizable from today.

I believe in the ingenuity of man and that we will adapt.

I find your rhetoric is over the top and it turns people off of the discussion. You ask for a discussion, but you really want is conformation. You dismiss out of hand off the top any opposing viewpoint. You speak down and lecture, not discuss and wonder why no one will engage you. Your mind is as closed as the people you mock.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus
And you keep on doing your part. You know, blaming rape victims and criticizing charity organizations.

Well that was random

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by Nitro5
I believe in man made climate change, but I'm also a realist. I don't believe Canada should destroy its economy for what would be a symbolic measure. Even if Canada reduced its carbon to 0 today its net effect on the overall CO2 levels would be insignificant.

Are the current Conservatives doing all they can the the environment? No, but they aren't the monsters you try to portray them as. We can do more for the environment, but carbon taxes are simply money grabs and punitive that have no effect on carbon output. Same with cap and trade. It's a money transfer scheme that will have a net effect of zero in carbon output. More can be done to encourage development of alternate energy, but the shift isn't instantaneous, but the market will push that way. It is already happening, my car I bought a few years ago is probably 100% more fuel efficient than my last. Will be replacing the wife's vehicle in a few years and probably will be even better. We are reaching a tipping point and technology does improve at an amazing rate.

Look back at the last turn off the century from the 1800s to the 1900s, vast majority of people didn't have plumbing, electricity and had horses and buggies.

Within 60 years we were in the moon. I'm sure by 2050 society will be unrecognizable from today.

I believe in the ingenuity of man and that we will adapt.

I find your rhetoric is over the top and it turns people off of the discussion. You ask for a discussion, but you really want is conformation. You dismiss out of hand off the top any opposing viewpoint. You speak down and lecture, not discuss and wonder why no one will engage you. Your mind is as closed as the people you mock.

I find that people have forgotten how to think. This is a result of no longer reading and a dependence on memes for information.

Deniers usually get mad when you challenge their beliefs, this is because they formed their opinions via emotional contagion instead of seeking knowledge.

You suggest that man will find a solution. What if he doesn't? What if man manages to push the CO2 levels to the same levels that existed during the age of the dinosaurs? When the average temperature on Earth was 50 C and Antarctica was covered by forests.

p.s. Yes it is already too late. It will take the CO2 already in the atmosphere 1000 years to be re-absorbed by the environment. Considering we are killing the oceans I don't think man has more than 75 years left.

That is not fear mongering, it is reality. You look at numbers, you draw lines, and it equals a conclusion.

It all depends on how the less civil nations react to starvation. I suspect Pakistan and North Korea would be launching nukes left and right.

[Nitro5]

If it's already too late and a for gone collusion why do you care to,sway people at all? I'd be busy making sure I will be prepared for the coming apocalypse, not engaging people in a pointless discussion.

[calgarygts]

Originally posted by Nitro5
I believe in man made climate change, but I'm also a realist. I don't believe Canada should destroy its economy for what would be a symbolic measure. Even if Canada reduced its carbon to 0 today its net effect on the overall CO2 levels would be insignificant.

Are the current Conservatives doing all they can the the environment? No, but they aren't the monsters you try to portray them as. We can do more for the environment, but carbon taxes are simply money grabs and punitive that have no effect on carbon output. Same with cap and trade. It's a money transfer scheme that will have a net effect of zero in carbon output. More can be done to encourage development of alternate energy, but the shift isn't instantaneous, but the market will push that way. It is already happening, my car I bought a few years ago is probably 100% more fuel efficient than my last. Will be replacing the wife's vehicle in a few years and probably will be even better. We are reaching a tipping point and technology does improve at an amazing rate.

Look back at the last turn off the century from the 1800s to the 1900s, vast majority of people didn't have plumbing, electricity and had horses and buggies.

Within 60 years we were in the moon. I'm sure by 2050 society will be unrecognizable from today.

I believe in the ingenuity of man and that we will adapt.

I find your rhetoric is over the top and it turns people off of the discussion. You ask for a discussion, but you really want is conformation. You dismiss out of hand off the top any opposing viewpoint. You speak down and lecture, not discuss and wonder why no one will engage you. Your mind is as closed as the people you mock.

I strongly disagree with your assessment of a carbon tax - it's not a money grab by any means but a way to use market forces to direct resources towards technology development. Incentives like a carbon tax need to be in place if we want to make a real shift to a more sustainable energy system - I think you're right that market forces and technology advances are the tools we will see changing the future of energy and greenhouse gas emissions/controls, but without a mechanism like carbon tax in place to get that ball rolling a little faster we won't be making those technological shifts quickly enough.

[Nitro5]

It's artificially inflating the cost of carbon fuel while not lowering the cost of alternate energy. For a shift to happen you need to reduce the cost of alternate energy so that is a cheap alternative to carbon fuels. Raising the cost of carbon fuels to the level of other sources won't cause a shift because all energy will be expensive.

[calgarygts]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus


I find that people have forgotten how to think. This is a result of no longer reading and a dependence on memes for information.

Deniers usually get mad when you challenge their beliefs, this is because they formed their opinions via emotional contagion instead of seeking knowledge.

You suggest that man will find a solution. What if he doesn't? What if man manages to push the CO2 levels to the same levels that existed during the age of the dinosaurs? When the average temperature on Earth was 50 C and Antarctica was covered by forests.

p.s. Yes it is already too late. It will take the CO2 already in the atmosphere 1000 years to be re-absorbed by the environment. Considering we are killing the oceans I don't think man has more than 75 years left.

That is not fear mongering, it is reality. You look at numbers, you draw lines, and it equals a conclusion.

It all depends on how the less civil nations react to starvation. I suspect Pakistan and North Korea would be launching nukes left and right.

You're being a bit dramatic here - for someone who's so worries about this issue you should be trying to persuade people to conserve more in their lives. There are a lot of ways that people can change their habits to have a relatively large impact on their energy use with a relatively low impact on their lives.

Also, do you not think if we actually started to see something as serious as food shortages causing mass deaths due to climate change that there wouldn't be a mad rush to implement CCS and reduce fossil fuel use? I think if we end up seeing drastic climate changes there will be enough pressure on our governments, regulators and industry players to make serious changes to our energy system.

By the way, you talk about the greed of oil and gas. How about stop using so much energy?