Global Warming Debate - Friendly

[TheEngineer]

Think about all the co2 that volcanos release. The volcanic gases that are expelled in the oceans. What happens when co2 is released in water? How does a Calcium reactor work? CO2 acidifies the water and dissolving all the calcium carbonate which increases alkalinity. The balance is already there. Coral bleaching isnt coral die off. And a recent report from florida shows dead reefs reviving. The planet is finding it's balance for humans. So for now the planet heats up, evaporates water and expels it back in the form of rain, storms, floods etc etc. The balance is there, we just need to untuck our tails from between our legs and accept it.

I disagree nearly entirely. Our houses are great little samples of this. My house has high CO2 and my tank pH is low. Why isn't my rock work dissolving fast enough to cover the change? Simple answer, time scale. Maybe given a few decades the rock would dissolve enough.

 

[reeferfoxx]

I disagree nearly entirely. Our houses are great little samples of this. My house has high CO2 and my tank pH is low. Why isn't my rock work dissolving fast enough to cover the change? Simple answer, time scale. Maybe given a few decades the rock would dissolve enough.

I misread that!

 

[reeferfoxx]

I disagree nearly entirely. Our houses are great little samples of this. My house has high CO2 and my tank pH is low. Why isn't my rock work dissolving fast enough to cover the change? Simple answer, time scale. Maybe given a few decades the rock would dissolve enough.

Your right. You just answered yourself for me. Time scale.

In a sense, you agree just not in the time scale a calcium reactor has. I'm sure the florida reef systems won't regrow over night. If they did, we wouldn't be here beating a dead horse.

 

[TheEngineer]

Your right. You just answered yourself for me. Time scale.

In a sense, you agree just not in the time scale a calcium reactor has. I'm sure the florida reef systems won't regrow over night. If they did, we wouldn't be here beating a dead horse.

Ha! Ok. The problem is compounded by the fact that the CO2 continues to be added. What's the buffering capacity of the ocean? (That's rhetorical :)) Whats the pH required to get calcium to dissolve? It's under 7 I think. Ever had your tank that low?

 

[Untamedrose]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm

 

[Live Water]

This is easy, have one child, at most two. Over population is the source of most of the world's problems. Higher population=lower quality of life.

 

[reeferfoxx]

Ha! Ok. The problem is compounded by the fact that the CO2 continues to be added. What's the buffering capacity of the ocean? (That's rhetorical :)) Whats the pH required to get calcium to dissolve? It's under 7 I think. Ever had your tank that low?

yeah, it was 6.8ish once. lol.. once. Listen, what happens in high co2 areas of the ocean? What thrives in those areas?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm

This ^!! Only thing, I didn't see them talk about aquatic plants and how they come about. They help absorb the excess co2.

 

[reeferfoxx]

 

[4FordFamily]

This is fascinating and admittedly most of this is far over my head, but I know enough to at least comprehend the base assertions.

Thanks for your participation folks. Let's continue to keep this civil.

I welcome more literature as I wouldn't know where to find it and what to trust - and even those who heavily vet this stuff would probably make mistakes if following the money on either side of this discussion.

For me, (although it's too complex to know for certain as mentioned) I want to know how much of our warming (or change in climate these days) is truly due to humans. Then, I want to know what even the most extreme changes might do to the marginal amount we impact this. I'm guessing since the worlds worst polluters are not "playing" so to speak, that this amount is little bit I am more than open to conjecture (since this is far too complex to map out with any certainty --- as the data has showed thus far we are far off from predictions even 8 years ago as of now).

Again, we as humans are absolutely destroying our planet at an alarming rate -- I would just like to see us think critically about how to better reduce this impact and maximize our positive impact.

Anyone know of any new technologies or ideas that seem promising?

I seem to remember seeing something that was in the ocean (some "machinery") that cleaned or filtered something mass scale but i haven't heard more from it. This has been about a year. Surely those of you knowledgable on these topics can share some neat advancements to those of us more laymen on the subject?

 

[jgvergo]

I don't get too much into the particulars because it's just a diluted messy debate now-a-days that can go on forever like a monopoly game. I figure, if we believe them and implement all these environmental/green policies and it turns out they were wrong, what's the result? We've cleaned things up and certainly no harm done. If we do nothing and they are right, will the harm be reversible? Do we really need proof of anything to stop some of the practices that are going on. We're not doing well with the numbers we have now, just wait until the numbers climb.

Renee,if it turns out they are wrong, the result is massive. The costs of fighting global warming are 100's of billions of dollars (estimates for some suggested policies run into the trillions). That is money that is pulled out of the economy and mostly wasted. It could go towards jobs, education, innovation, you name it.

 

[Untamedrose]

Renee,if it turns out they are wrong, the result is massive. The costs of fighting global warming are 100's of billions of dollars (estimates for some suggested policies run into the trillions). That is money that is pulled out of the economy and mostly wasted. It could go towards jobs, education, innovation, you name it.

And if it turns out they are right? Even only part right?

 

[reeferfoxx]

Doing our part to reduce CO2 emissions should be sought after. At the cost of tax payers money? No.

 

[Defiant Arms]

Renee,if it turns out they are wrong, the result is massive. The costs of fighting global warming are 100's of billions of dollars (estimates for some suggested policies run into the trillions). That is money that is pulled out of the economy and mostly wasted. It could go towards jobs, education, innovation, you name it.

And if it turns out they are right? Even only part right?

one could argue that if those trillions of dollars were put towards the correct types of jobs little tommy whose dream of becoming a scientist could have a better chance at becoming one and figuring out a solution for "global warming" instead of working two jobs to barely break even paying bills

 

[TylerS]

I took a course in school last fall (Mechanical Engineering grad school) which covered energy solutions for the global society. It covered the energy demands of society and several ways to meet those demands. The first half of the course covered fossil fuel energy generation, while the second half of the course covered non-fossil fuel based sources.

Global warming, or human induced climate change, was covered over a few lectures as well. Human induced climate change is a more accurate term, as global earth temperatures have always fluctuated over time.

To understand global warming you need to understand energy balance. In a system if energy in is not equal to energy out then one of the possibilities is that it heats up. In this case the system is earth, there's a human induced energy imbalance, and it's heating up.

Here's a simplified version.
1. The sun's energy hits the earth (energy in) and the earth radiates that energy back out into space (energy out).
2. The suns energy passes through the atmosphere primarily at short wavelengths.
3. The earth radiates that energy back into space at primarily longer wavelengths.
4. CO2 absorbs longer wavelengths of light. It blocks the energy out and retains it at earth.
5. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are increasing due to humans burning fossil fuels.
6. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere the energy out is less while energy in remains the same. The result is a buildup of energy at earth in the form of heat/higher temperatures.

Each one of these statements are relatively easy to prove and well documented, and this is essentially what scientists are stating when they say human induced climate change is real, and why so many of them agree with the science.

One way to observe this phenomenon is to monitor temperatures in outer space. If more energy is being retained at earths surface then the temperatures in outer space would be reducing in addition to earth warming. This has actually been observed.

 

[Untamedrose]

one could argue that if those trillions of dollars were put towards the correct types of jobs little tommy whose dream of becoming a scientist could have a better chance at becoming one and figuring out a solution for "global warming" instead of working two jobs to barely break even paying bills

One could argue we could do the same and drop the silly war on terrorism. there is your trillions to spend right there.

 

[Defiant Arms]

One could argue we could do the same and drop the silly war on terrorism. there is your trillions to spend right there.

But the war actually creates jobs and helps the economy....

 

[Untamedrose]

But the war actually creates jobs and helps the economy....

And the 22 vets a day committing suicide, not to mention all the civilian causalities on the side of the globe. Decreases the population, better for the earth! It's a win win win! (Facepalm)

 

[Defiant Arms]

I didn't say it didn't have down sides at all but we were talking about money not the negative effects wars have. FYI I am sitting in Afghanistan typing this so i don't need to be lectured on wars and the casualties...

 

[sundog101]

I didn't say it didn't have down sides at all but we were talking about money not the negative effects wars have. FYI I am sitting in Afghanistan typing this so i don't need to be lectured on wars and the casualties...

 

[DLHDesign]

The costs of fighting global warming are 100's of billions of dollars (estimates for some suggested policies run into the trillions). That is money that is pulled out of the economy and mostly wasted. It could go towards jobs, education, innovation, you name it.

I'm sorry; I don't understand this point of view? How does putting money into a business sector pull money out of the economy? It's not like we have methods to turn money directly into solar panels; someone has to make those panels (jobs created), and they have to be knowledgeable enough to do so (education), and someone else is working to make them better (innovation). Beyond this, companies exist that transport the panels (which supports the infrastructure by creating demand), and places exist where solar power is helping those in need (social obligation). I'm not saying that solar (or other such things) are some kind of technological savior to all our woes (they are not), but I don't understand the opinion that they result in money being "mostly wasted". Could you (or someone else in agreement with this position) please explain the thinking behind this opinion so that I might better understand it?

Note that I can't make an argument that investments in renewable energy (or other things that might be labeled as tools to "fight global warming") are always a good trade off. That's too big of a statement. But I'd be willing to bet that they are no more or less viable than other similar investments - be they in the public or private sector.