gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
Ratings
4,658 24 9
#21
Maybe we should just embrace the inevitable and start referring to this future event as "The Cleansing" (that sound rather appealing)!
But dammit, I have a kid who I dearly love and see much good in humanity, so let me hold onto my optimism no matter how the reality looks!
I know. I have a brother who is a top climate scientist and published author on the topic who is very optimistic. I keep telling him that driving a Prius isn't going to make a dent. We need serious population control to conserve resources and reduce pollution. Nobody talks about that because it's too controversial. Be fruitful and multiply ;)

We really need a geo-engineered solution to dissolve the CO2 in the atmosphere, but again most environmentalists are against ANY climate manipulation beyond what we are already doing with our CO2 emissions.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Ratings
2,859 9 10
#22
You can take the "lowest common denominator" approach of assuming China and other less developed countries will not improve their emissions which seems to put us on route for a dystopian future, and you can believe "therefore, why bother" which puts us in a race to that dystopian future. However, if we continue to see increases in extreme weather events (it has been reasonably quiet thus far this year, but I don't know squat about hurricanes et al) more people will get on board and the countries that have a mature system for reducing greenhouse emissions will have the technology that is in demand. But doing nothing seems unconscionable unless you really think global warming is totally bogus!

But remember our government is one of few that is actually not on board with taking action on climate change. Witness the commitment corporations (especially the auto industry) has made to eliminating the combustion engine. These are the same companies that fought CAFE reductions for so many years, I don't think they would be so quick to change unless they have people who understand how to interpret the science of global warming and think it is the future of their industry (or maybe I should say humanity).

Please don't use you distaste for "the Green New Deal" as motivation to ignore the problem!
I am not advocating we ignore the problem, nor am I a denier of the effects human activity has had on global temperature. I'm simply not buying the argument that we should turn the US economy upside down to try and achieve some of these poorly conceived objectives, since we do not have enough impact to make the significant difference everyone discusses. I also think the dismissal of nuclear technology by the same Green Deal promoters is an example of short-sightedness and lack of understanding of technology development. Living in the southwest as I do, I see numerous examples of the environmental damage done by large-scale wind and solar installations, not to mention the the inevitable power distribution problems (see WSJ's recent article on Clean Line, it is enlightening). I think the Green Deals are nothing more than a combination of creating excitement to get votes, and a general lack of technical understanding. I want to reduce carbon emissions too, but I want intelligently thought-out proposals, not campaign slogans. Or really dumb ideas like Bill de Blasio has for NYC. Of course, our current President and his administration has some equally dumb ideas, like the rollback of fuel economy standards, softening coal plant emission limits, and trying to keep the cost of fossil fuels artificially low. In the political arena there's little intelligence to be found on this topic.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Warlord
Ratings
5,222 22 9
#23
I am not advocating we ignore the problem, nor am I a denier of the effects human activity has had on global temperature. I'm simply not buying the argument that we should turn the US economy upside down to try and achieve some of these poorly conceived objectives, since we do not have enough impact to make the significant difference everyone discusses. I also think the dismissal of nuclear technology by the same Green Deal promoters is an example of short-sightedness and lack of understanding of technology development. Living in the southwest as I do, I see numerous examples of the environmental damage done by large-scale wind and solar installations, not to mention the the inevitable power distribution problems (see WSJ's recent article on Clean Line, it is enlightening). I think the Green Deals are nothing more than a combination of creating excitement to get votes, and a general lack of technical understanding. I want to reduce carbon emissions too, but I want intelligently thought-out proposals, not campaign slogans. Or really dumb ideas like Bill de Blasio has for NYC. Of course, our current President and his administration has some equally dumb ideas, like the rollback of fuel economy standards, softening coal plant emission limits, and trying to keep the cost of fossil fuels artificially low. In the political arena there's little intelligence to be found on this topic.
I do believe the Carbon tax/credit system is an intelligent solution to the issue that does not turn our economy upside down!
 
davidscott

davidscott

Senior Audioholic
Ratings
316
#24
Don't rule out a full-on "cleansing"!
While if we are only talking climate change, I'd expect there may even be some cold blooded animals survive, you can't rule out the possibility of a total nuclear war over what limited resources are remaining in the years before the temperature wipes us out.
"When all you have is nuclear bombs everywhere else starts to look like a target!"
To all of those other species, "Never underestimate us (or our stupidity)!"
I don't know - it will take a whole lot of nukes to end all life on the planet. I'm not sure we have that capability yet. Something, somewhere will probably survive and start the process anew. Of course when the sun starts dying and expands past the orbit of mars our planet will definitely be checking out.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Warlord
Ratings
5,222 22 9
#25
I don't know - it will take a whole lot of nukes to end all life on the planet. I'm not sure we have that capability yet. Something, somewhere will probably survive and start the process anew. Of course when the sun starts dying and expands past the orbit of mars our planet will definitely be checking out.
Yeah, I know, roaches are likely to survive nuclear war, but I'm enjoying using "cleansing" in this context!
OTOH, hey, mutant roaches, cool!
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Spartan
Ratings
5,036 11 6
#26
Fortunately, no one asked the day before Apollo13 launched if NASA could say with absolute certainty that the calculations to land and retrieve the lunar module were accurate!
(they turned out to be good enough, but the assumptions were definitely there)
Did you mean Apollo 11 or 13?

Apollo 11, launched July 16, 1969, was the first mission to set down on the moon. It was successful, landing on the moon July 20. The crew were Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin.

Apollo 13, launched April 11, 1970, was the intended to be the 3rd mission to the moon. While traveling to the moon, an oxygen tank exploded, damaging a number of critical systems including electric power, cabin heat, potable water, and (oddly enough for this thread) the critical carbon dioxide removal system. Makeshift repairs were done, and Apollo 13 returned to Earth six days later. The crew were Jim Lovell, John Swigert, and Fred Haise. (Tom Hanks was not on board!)

Buzz Aldrin is worth noting because of his famous response in 2002 to a provocative moon landing conspiracy theorist and denier named Bart Sibrel. With a film crew in tow, Sibrel attempted to get Aldrin to swear on a bible that the moon landings were not faked. After a brief confrontation, Sibrel followed Aldrin despite being told to leave him alone, and called him "thief, liar and coward". The 72-year-old Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw, which was caught on camera by Sibrel's film crew. Aldrin stated that he had acted to defend himself and his stepdaughter. Witnesses stated that Sibrel had aggressively poked Aldrin with a bible. Additional mitigating factors were that Sibrel sustained no visible injury, did not seek medical attention, and that Aldrin had no criminal record. The police declined to press charges against Aldrin.

Where's Buzz Aldrin now? We need him again to deal with the Global Warming Deniers.
 
Last edited:
markw

markw

Audioholic Overlord
Ratings
3,820 7 162
#27
I remember Apollo 11 well. A bunch of young airmen were gathered around an ancient B & W console TV in a room in the barracks in Eglin AFB as they did their thing. I was one of them. We all cheered as they took their first steps on the moon. A day I'll never forget.

As for global warming, we're already doing out part. Go after China; India and the rest before gouging us for political gain.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Warlord
Ratings
5,222 22 9
#28
Did you mean Apollo 11 or 13?

Apollo 11, launched July 16, 1969, was the first mission to set down on the moon. It was successful, landing on the moon July 20. The crew were Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin.

Apollo 13, launched April 11, 1970, was the intended to be the 3rd mission to the moon. While traveling to the moon, an oxygen tank exploded, damaging a number of critical systems including electric power, cabin heat, potable water, and (oddly enough for this thread) the critical carbon dioxide removal system. Makeshift repairs were done, and Apollo 13 returned to Earth six days later. The crew were Jim Lovell, John Swigert, and Fred Haise. (Tom Hanks was not on board!)

Buzz Aldrin is worth noting because of his famous response in 2002 to a provocative moon landing conspiracy theorist and denier named Bart Sibrel. With a film crew in tow, Sibrel attempted to get Aldrin to swear on a bible that the moon landings were not faked. After a brief confrontation, Sibrel followed Aldrin despite being told to leave him alone, and called him "thief, liar and coward". The 72-year-old Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw, which was caught on camera by Sibrel's film crew. Aldrin stated that he had acted to defend himself and his stepdaughter. Witnesses stated that Sibrel had aggressively poked Aldrin with a bible. Additional mitigating factors were that Sibrel sustained no visible injury, did not seek medical attention, and that Aldrin had no criminal record. The police declined to press charges against Aldrin.

Where's Buzz Aldrin now? We need him again to deal with the Global Warming Deniers.
DOH!
Yes, Apollo 11!
Thanks for the correction!
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Warlord
Ratings
5,222 22 9
#29
As for global warming, we're already doing out part. Go after China; India and the rest before gouging us for political gain.
That is not in the least true.
Using 2017 population data,
The population of the USA was 327.5 million and we generate 15% of the greenhouse gasses!
The population of China was 1.386 billion (over four times as large) and they generate 30% of greenhouse gasses!
So on a per capita basis, we generate twice as much!
You may want to argue that it is more about commercial production, but I don't think there is any question but that China produces over twice as much product as we do!
So the only reason we produce less greenhouse gasses is because we are not as big!
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Audioholic Slumlord
Ratings
2,130 5 6
#30
[QUOTE="herbu, post: 1322940, member: 56644"
2. Through history, which happens first: Increased temperature or Increased CO2 levels?


So, past data (prior to the industrial age) indicates an increase in temperature would cause an increase in CO2!
After the industrial age (where man started significantly increasing the CO2 levels) the CO2 increase causes the temperature increase![/QUOTE]
Interesting. Historically speaking nature caused natural warming and cooling at a very long time span.
Post industrial, human caused CO2 increase and hence warming at a very rapid time scale compared to historical natural events.
 
Last edited:
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Audioholic Slumlord
Ratings
2,130 5 6
#31
Don't rule out a full-on "cleansing"!
...
Well, bacteria and other microbes will survive. And evolution starts again its long timescale.
But then, historical records will be lost and this will repeat in a few hundred million years from now.
 
herbu

herbu

Audioholic Samurai
Ratings
1,393 10 35
#33
[QUOTE="herbu, post: 1322940, member: 56644"
2. Through history, which happens first: Increased temperature or Increased CO2 levels?
Found your answer!

From NASA:

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11362

So, past data (prior to the industrial age) indicates an increase in temperature would cause an increase in CO2!
After the industrial age (where man started significantly increasing the CO2 levels) the CO2 increase causes the temperature increase![/QUOTE]
Thanks, Kurt! Exactly what I was wondering. And thanks to everyone for keeping this civil. I know it's tiptoeing on a landmine.

I asked the questions because I saw a guy say:
1. Thru history, normal temp fluctuations precede CO2 fluctuations. Warmer temps mean more vegetation which means more rotting vegetation which means more CO2. Made sense to me.

2. Man-made CO2 is a small fraction of overall CO2, and proposed green regulations will only decrease the small fraction by a small fraction, having negligible effect on the overall level.

The whole climate change, ("global warming"),issue is tough for me because it seems experts don't agree. How can a pedestrian understand? I'm not convinced what is causing the current climate trend, and if anything we can do will make a difference. I've seen huge amounts of $ spent on green initiatives with no effect other than making a few people rich. I've seen the projected decrease in CO2 due to some proposal explained as completely inconsequential to the overall levels, yet sure to cause significant cost and life-style impacts. To me, the question becomes how much intrusion is justified for an uncertain or even unlikely benefit? I don't know.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
Ratings
3,206 9 14
#34
I know. I have a brother who is a top climate scientist and published author on the topic who is very optimistic. I keep telling him that driving a Prius isn't going to make a dent. We need serious population control to conserve resources and reduce pollution. Nobody talks about that because it's too controversial. Be fruitful and multiply ;)

We really need a geo-engineered solution to dissolve the CO2 in the atmosphere, but again most environmentalists are against ANY climate manipulation beyond what we are already doing with our CO2 emissions.
Small groups can only make other people twitch- the planet and the animal kingdom don't give a rat's butt if humans survive and it could easily be argued that the planet and animals would be better off without us. I have said "It's time for another Ice Age" for over 30 years but that's a long way off, according to the averages.

WRT 'human effects on the climate'- does that include our agricultural activities? Look at the number of animals we breed for eggs, meat and other by-products- every one of them outputs CO2 and Methane, both greenhouse gases, in some way. The USDA indicated that the US had 94.4 Million cattle as of Jan 1, 2018 and they contribute a lot, although we wouldn't have as many if humans didn't need them.

Ask your brother about CO2 sequestration in sea water and how its cycle affects the temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans. You might also ask about the output from volcanoes- the average global temperature dropped significantly for two years after Mt Pinatubo erupted and Kilauea has been erupting constantly (to varying degrees) since the early 1980s, but I have read that the CO2 emitted by these kinds of events is mostly added to what the oceans store.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink

It's important to note that the greenhouse gases are generally in a layer close to the surface, not high in the atmosphere- I think this is why a lot of people immediately ignore the effects when they hear arguments for climate change.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
Ratings
3,206 9 14
#35
That is not in the least true.
Using 2017 population data,
The population of the USA was 327.5 million and we generate 15% of the greenhouse gasses!
The population of China was 1.386 billion (over four times as large) and they generate 30% of greenhouse gasses!
So on a per capita basis, we generate twice as much!
You may want to argue that it is more about commercial production, but I don't think there is any question but that China produces over twice as much product as we do!
So the only reason we produce less greenhouse gasses is because we are not as big!
Is the Chinese contribution only from industrial activity, or does it include all of the waste they produce and that of their agriculture? The sheer size of their country tells me that 30% is low since every square inch of green space emits greenhouse gases. OTOH, that green space also uses the carbon, so it's a balancing act- I would like to see where this would be if the rain forests around the equator hadn't been decimated.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Ratings
2,859 9 10
#36
I asked the questions because I saw a guy say:
1. Thru history, normal temp fluctuations precede CO2 fluctuations. Warmer temps mean more vegetation which means more rotting vegetation which means more CO2. Made sense to me.
If you think about it, this supposition couldn't be true, unless the amount of vegetation that has died but not yet fully decomposed is much greater than the amount of vegetation that is growing. If that were true there would soon be far less vegetation on the planet.

2. Man-made CO2 is a small fraction of overall CO2, and proposed green regulations will only decrease the small fraction by a small fraction, having negligible effect on the overall level.
This is provably untrue. The amount of carbon released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels and forests far exceeds natural sources. That's why the chart Kurt posted has the classic "hockey stick" shape.

The whole climate change, ("global warming"),issue is tough for me because it seems experts don't agree. How can a pedestrian understand? I'm not convinced what is causing the current climate trend, and if anything we can do will make a difference. I've seen huge amounts of $ spent on green initiatives with no effect other than making a few people rich. I've seen the projected decrease in CO2 due to some proposal explained as completely inconsequential to the overall levels, yet sure to cause significant cost and life-style impacts. To me, the question becomes how much intrusion is justified for an uncertain or even unlikely benefit? I don't know.
The "experts" that don't agree with the impact of humans on the atmosphere and global warming are usually those employed by or supported by companies or individuals who want to sell more fossil fuels. On the other hand, as I've already posted, I do agree that many so-called Green Deal proposals are the equivalent of pissing in the wind. They don't have environmental benefits commensurate with the costs to society.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Warlord
Ratings
5,222 22 9
#37
Is the Chinese contribution only from industrial activity, or does it include all of the waste they produce and that of their agriculture? The sheer size of their country tells me that 30% is low since every square inch of green space emits greenhouse gases. OTOH, that green space also uses the carbon, so it's a balancing act- I would like to see where this would be if the rain forests around the equator hadn't been decimated.
I agree that there are lots of questions I don't know the answer to!
I don't know which of those may have been answered, but do we really need to totally understand everything about climate change (aka global warming) before we can acknowledge that we need to do something when we are faced with the spike in greenhouse gasses below?


I certainly agree that it is good to thoroughly understand as much as we can so that we approach the issue as efficiently as possible, but if we apply that approach to life, we would never get anything done.
What we do know should be enough to recognize the need for action ASAP!
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Warlord
Ratings
5,222 22 9
#38
I asked the questions because I saw a guy say:
1. Thru history, normal temp fluctuations precede CO2 fluctuations. Warmer temps mean more vegetation which means more rotting vegetation which means more CO2. Made sense to me.
If you think about it, this supposition couldn't be true, unless the amount of vegetation that has died but not yet fully decomposed is much greater than the amount of vegetation that is growing. If that were true there would soon be far less vegetation on the planet.
Good call, Irv.
The NASA article says that an increase in temperature results in a release of CO2 from the oceans and this is the main reason CO2 has lagged after temperature prior to the industrial age.

The whole climate change, ("global warming"),issue is tough for me because it seems experts don't agree. How can a pedestrian understand? I'm not convinced what is causing the current climate trend, and if anything we can do will make a difference. I've seen huge amounts of $ spent on green initiatives with no effect other than making a few people rich. I've seen the projected decrease in CO2 due to some proposal explained as completely inconsequential to the overall levels, yet sure to cause significant cost and life-style impacts. To me, the question becomes how much intrusion is justified for an uncertain or even unlikely benefit? I don't know.
The fact is that 97% of the experts do agree! (and the ones that do not, often have a science background, but not in the specifics of climate change)
However, the 3% that do not are getting more exposure than their 3% should allow because key industries are paying to prominently place their disagreement in the political arena (as well as assuring the scientist a healthy paycheck as long as he stays the course).
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Warlord
Ratings
5,222 22 9
#39
Is the Chinese contribution only from industrial activity, or does it include all of the waste they produce and that of their agriculture? The sheer size of their country tells me that 30% is low since every square inch of green space emits greenhouse gases. OTOH, that green space also uses the carbon, so it's a balancing act- I would like to see where this would be if the rain forests around the equator hadn't been decimated.
I left my previous response as I think it is totally valid; however, I missed a major point!
I forgot that the 30% is thirty percent of the increase from the last 150 years!
So the effect of "green space" was presumably there before the 150 years and, thus, is not included in the 30% calculation.
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Samurai
Ratings
1,373 6 1
#40
To your point:

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

The major initiative I am aware of to solve global warming is the carbon tax/credit! That is not a tax you or I would pay directly to the government. It is a tax where it adds more expense when an item or service is not clean (like coal) and reduces expense when an item or service is clean (they sell their carbon credits to the other company). Obviously, the increased costs will be passed on to the customers in most cases and I am less optimistic that the savings will be passed on to the customers (but that is a discussion of business philosophy/ethics, not CO2). It seems like a pretty good system for our Capitalist Society which allows the market to grow in a predictable way (as the program is phased in).

You can take the "lowest common denominator" approach of assuming China and other less developed countries will not improve their emissions which seems to put us on route for a dystopian future, and you can believe "therefore, why bother" which puts us in a race to that dystopian future. However, if we continue to see increases in extreme weather events (it has been reasonably quiet thus far this year, but I don't know squat about hurricanes et al) more people will get on board and the countries that have a mature system for reducing greenhouse emissions will have the technology that is in demand. But doing nothing seems unconscionable unless you really think global warming is totally bogus!

But remember our government is one of few that is actually not on board with taking action on climate change. Witness the commitment corporations (especially the auto industry) has made to eliminating the combustion engine. These are the same companies that fought CAFE reductions for so many years, I don't think they would be so quick to change unless they have people who understand how to interpret the science of global warming and think it is the future of their industry (or maybe I should say humanity).

Please don't use you distaste for "the Green New Deal" as motivation to ignore the problem!
I figure this chart may help when it comes to "what" is producing the co2 in the US at least. I was curious, and this helped spell it out.

Source.



I wonder if the cow farts are included in Industry or Agriculture?
 

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis