Global Warming Debate - Friendly

[jgvergo]

I actually wrote a blog about 5 years ago entitled (with tongue firmly in cheek) "My aquarium will save the world". I was into freshwater planted aquariums and had discovered the link between CO2 injection and explosive plant growth. I reasoned that if CO2 causes plant growth and plants use CO2 in photosynthesis, then the earth has a natural feedback mechanism that puts the brakes on the amount of CO2 in the air. Plus is has the benefit of growing stuff faster and bigger! Today, I saw this article on the topic.

 

[TaylorPilot]

This may be a real solution we can implement fairly quickly.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterde...americas-long-termenergy-future/#65e1ffda20c8

I also think electric cars could be a viable solution, but they will have to get away from lithium based batteries. They are showing promise using aluminum instead.

My idea for electric cars is to create a standard sized battery that would be used in all models. Using a model similar to how you exchange your propane tanks at Lowes or Wal-Mart. You would pull up to a station and an automated system would reach up pull out your dead battery, install a charged one, then put your dead one in their bank to be recharged to be given to another car. You would buy a car without a battery, then pay monthly fee to rent a battery from a company, and then be charged a flat rate for each change when you pull up to the station. It would only take a few minutes to swap out the battery, and you wouldn't even have to get out of your car or turn off your AC. It could even be an unmanned kiosk.

All of this would of course require a complete revamping of the electrical system to handle the much higher energy demands.

Whether you believe it is a catastrophic issue or not, I think everyone can agree less pollution is better than more. If we can make it even cheaper to live, then that is a bonus!

 

[Nemguy123]

Well electric cars and stopping the fossil fuels won't save the reefs it's too late there is nothing we can do to actually save the reefs other than try to preserve as many species as we can I'm schooling working on a degree in marine science focusing on inverts and coral reefs and from our impact they are most definitely dying and there's nothing we can really do to stop it maybe slow it down a bit but still they would have give or take 100 years left until most coral species are whipped out a lot of people are against taking from the reefs but I believe if we can preserve enough species one day when some finds a way to reverse the affects we've had on the ocean (Chemical treatment) can cot trillions of dollars:( but may make the ocean inhabitable for coral again and all is hobbyists and research labs can help to start re growing coral reefs so I may be a reef lover but I say that reefing is a good thing and may be one of the only ways to preserve what we are destroying because we will always be able to keep coral alive in tanks but soon our oceans won't be able to do what they have been doing for 100's of years but we can now we've figured out yet another one of mother natures mysteries so it's up to us reefers to keep these beautiful animals alive for as long as we can

 

[4FordFamily]

Do you think that these animals can adapt and evolve as conditions change?

That's a pretty grim outlook... :/

 

[Nemguy123]

If it was just temp then most likely they could adapt but with an increasing of the acidity of the ocean they can stop the dissolving of their skeleton unless they evolved to make their skeletons out of something that could not be dissolved by an acidic solution :/

 

[ReeferBob]

I actually wrote a blog about 5 years ago entitled (with tongue firmly in cheek) "My aquarium will save the world". I was into freshwater planted aquariums and had discovered the link between CO2 injection and explosive plant growth. I reasoned that if CO2 causes plant growth and plants use CO2 in photosynthesis, then the earth has a natural feedback mechanism that puts the brakes on the amount of CO2 in the air. Plus is has the benefit of growing stuff faster and bigger! Today, I saw this article on the topic.

This is a good article and it quotes Cato which I trust since they are non-partisan. The big problem is that most of the pro-manmade global warming crowd is so hyper-partisan that it is impossible to weed out the fact from the partisan opinions and interpretations. They could (and do) take any set of data points and interpret it to mean the end of the world. They have been doing that in fact since the 70s. Their partisan/creative interpretation of the data was wrong then and is proving to again be wrong now. I don't see how their governmentally backed funding can be for anything other than power/money/control reasons.

 

[Windy]

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

The Earth's CO2 levels have been rising by 2-3 ppm in the last decade and the rate of increase continues to trend upward. The CO2 levels were stable below 300 ppm for centuries before the start of the industrial revolution when they started to increase about 1 ppm per year and are now increasing more quickly. Our planets population has exploded over the last century and will most likely continue growing out of control. This will create an even greater demand for resources and more manufacturing. I don't see how it will get any better with so many people who continue ignoring the problems. If global outdoor CO2 levels approach 1000 ppm humans will start having cognitive problems. This is not way off in the future, but within the next couple generations lifetime.

I call BS. There is no scientific data linking C02 and global warming so why keep up the disinformation?

 

[TaylorPilot]

I actually wrote a blog about 5 years ago entitled (with tongue firmly in cheek) "My aquarium will save the world". I was into freshwater planted aquariums and had discovered the link between CO2 injection and explosive plant growth. I reasoned that if CO2 causes plant growth and plants use CO2 in photosynthesis, then the earth has a natural feedback mechanism that puts the brakes on the amount of CO2 in the air. Plus is has the benefit of growing stuff faster and bigger! Today, I saw this article on the topic.

This makes sense and has always been what I thought. It depends on what the limiting factor is here. I know they estimate 50-80% of CO2 absorption is done in the ocean, so if the growth limiting factor of these algaes is nutrient based, then it may not help. We know it isn't light that s limiting their growth on the surface of the ocean.

Another aspect that gives me hope is our tanks. We can add a single new damsel, which on a global scale is the equivalent of adding another Asia! LOL They increase the nutrient load a bit, then the bacteria and algae grows to reach and equilibrium. Honestly I would think that the Earth reacts to global changes faster than people think. It is constantly all day everyday converting CO2 to O2 at a rate that is close to 100%, so if you turn that down some, you should notice a drop fairly quick.

 

[DLuce510]

I hope I can add a pretty unbiased view point. Disclaimer: I build, repair,and maintain power plants for a living! My livelihood actually depends on fossil fuel and coal fired Boilers. That being said this is pure chemistry. The chemical properties of cO2 is that of trapping heat and lowering pH. There is no question that we produce excess cO2 then naturally occurs with out humans here proven by air pockets trapped deep in ice shelf. So undoubtedly humans have had a effect on the planet. The real question is to what extent, now thats what is debatable.
If cO2 was not a concern there would not have been the effort put forth in the mid 2000's to develop carbon capture and storage (ccs) for coal fired power plants by my trade.

 

[Nemguy123]

I call BS. There is no scientific data linking C02 and global warming so why keep up the disinformation?

There may not be but global warming and co2 emissions have a direct relationship as co2 levels have been rising since the dawn of the industrial revolution so have global temperatures both can be something bad but you can't just call bs without bring in some information or evidence that can clearly prove co2 is not related to a rise in global temp.

 

[Nemguy123]

I actually wrote a blog about 5 years ago entitled (with tongue firmly in cheek) "My aquarium will save the world". I was into freshwater planted aquariums and had discovered the link between CO2 injection and explosive plant growth. I reasoned that if CO2 causes plant growth and plants use CO2 in photosynthesis, then the earth has a natural feedback mechanism that puts the brakes on the amount of CO2 in the air. Plus is has the benefit of growing stuff faster and bigger! Today, I saw this article on the topic.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification here is a good article on oceanic acidification

 

[TaylorPilot]

There may not be but global warming and co2 emissions have a direct relationship as co2 levels have been rising since the dawn of the industrial revolution so have global temperatures both can be something bad but you can't just call bs without bring in some information or evidence that can clearly prove co2 is not related to a rise in global temp.

I think the argument, and it is a valid one, is the example of "the chicken or the egg". Are CO2 levels rising because the world is getting hotter, or is the world getting hotter because CO2 levels are rising. No one can answer that definitively. I do know that I have been hearing for years that Earth isn't the only planet in the solar system that is warming.

http://www.space.news/2015-10-06-en...eating-up-scientists-blame-solar-warming.html

The question is are we doing damage ourselves, and if so, how bad is it. No one knows. Everyone guesses, even informed ones, but they are still guesses. I remember in college all my Profs (mostly progressives) were convinced that by 2013 the icecaps were going to be gone!



This guy made a fortune of climate change.

Next question is how can we fix it. Well if we can't answer the first question how can we answer the second. My POV is that we should be good stewards of the world we live in and should strive to limit our impact on nature. But I don't think we should up end our economy or handicap ourselves so that we can't compete on a global economy with other countries who could care less and just keep pumping out CO2 while laughing all the way to the bank. I think there are solutions that would limit our output, but honestly America alone will have little to no impact, even if you believe the hard liners.

 

[Nemguy123]

I think the argument, and it is a valid one, is the example of "the chicken or the egg". Are CO2 levels rising because the world is getting hotter, or is the world getting hotter because CO2 levels are rising. No one can answer that definitively. I do know that I have been hearing for years that Earth isn't the only planet in the solar system that is warming.

http://www.space.news/2015-10-06-en...eating-up-scientists-blame-solar-warming.html

The question is are we doing damage ourselves, and if so, how bad is it. No one knows. Everyone guesses, even informed ones, but they are still guesses. I remember in college all my Profs (mostly progressives) were convinced that by 2013 the icecaps were going to be gone!


This guy made a fortune of climate change.

Next question is how can we fix it. Well if we can't answer the first question how can we answer the second. My POV is that we should be good stewards of the world we live in and should strive to limit our impact on nature. But I don't think we should up end our economy or handicap ourselves so that we can't compete on a global economy with other countries who could care less and just keep pumping out CO2 while laughing all the way to the bank. I think there are solutions that would limit our output, but honestly America alone will have little to no impact, even if you believe the hard liners.

I agree with you it's just a question that's so hard for us to answer but all it really comes down to is a lot of earths natural environments forests and reefs are in some way being negatively affected but as I said before this is only natural a lot people exclude humans as being natural and everything we do is artificial that's just dumb we are a species of animal that has killed off all other members in our family so that we are the only ones left and we dominated the planet and even though we can be influencing the environment it's only natural for us to do so. Just like the first autotrophs who had a bi product of o2 witch was at the time toxic to everything els caused the first mass extinction. It natural for a species to influence it's environment am I ok with it no because in my eyes the more species we cause to go extinct the less interesting and diverse the planet becomes.

 

[Tahoe61]

Politics and the topic are hard to separate, but political discussions never end well and are not permitted per the TOS:

Political discussions, statements, or rants are strictly prohibited.

Thread closed.