|
heavyblinker -> RE: "Inconvenient Sequel" hits theatres July 28th (4/10/2017 1:21:45 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: InfoMan
We've been able to remove CO2 from atmospheric conditions since the 1960's. they are called CO2 Scrubbers, and industrial level ones are attached to Coal and Natural Gas Plants already significantly reducing the emissions of those power plants while not reducing the productivity of them.
If we where to produce dedicated CO2 Scrubbing Facilities it is entirely plausible we could undo the 'CO2' based damage we as humans have already done.
I don't think Scrubbers remove CO2 from the atmosphere, just from emissions at the source.
quote:
ORIGINAL: InfoMan
Problem is - there isn't a very strong connection between Human CO2 emissions and Global Warming scientifically... Politically and Socially global warming has been our fault since 1964 when President LB Johnson said so in so many words. But scientifically, we cannot specifically say that CO2 emissions are the core cause of global warming... so spending enough money that could bankrupt a first world country just to try and fix it... only to find out in 5 years time that the true cause of global warming was something else entirely is not worth the risk nor the headache.
I'm pretty sure we can, in fact, say that CO2 emissions are the best explanation we have for the current warming trend.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
quote:
ORIGINAL: InfoMan
And while we have scientists that say that CO2 emissions are the cause - you have to remember that the planet produces something like 800 gigatons of CO2 annually... and of that 800 gigatons, we only account for something like 30 gigatons of it.
So it isn't just CO2 Emissions, or specifically just Our CO2 emissions.
The difference is that the 'natural' emissions (the emissions in nature not triggered by the additional warming) are part of a natural cycle within a climate that has been stable for about 7,000 years. The reason human emissions are driving warming is because they are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and it is not being removed by the natural cycle.
quote:
ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ongoing research is just now starting to ask the question of CO2 Sinks... things which naturally absorb the CO2 emissions. If there was something inhibiting the sinks more CO2 would stay suspended in the air. So ultimately we don't really know.
So wait... you're prepared to accept that CO2 sinks could be inhibited, causing more CO2 to enter the atmosphere, driving climate change?
So why is it so difficult to accept that when humans actively pump CO2 that used to be buried in fossil fuels beneath the ground, it could be driving climate change?
quote:
It actually isn't a scientific consensus, it is a political consensus that is veiled in science.
The actuality of it is when looking at some 1000 peer reviewed studies about climate change and global warming - 95% to 99% of them come to the conclusion that global warming is happening and that humans are contributing.
that does not mean that 97% of all scientists agree to the root causes of global warming, nor the degree to which is our responsibility.
Ummm... so you agree that the consensus exists, even if there isn't agreement over the extent to which human activity is driving the warming, right?
I'm pretty sure that in the realm of politics, there is no consensus. The right has glommed onto a lot of fraudsters and oil company shills who will tell the people that climate change is good for them, that it doesn't exist, that it isn't being driven by humans. They care even less about the science than the prophets of doom/clathrate gun people.
The left is all about wind and solar and saving the planet, or at the very least switching to lower emissions fuel sources. I'm not saying that the left is immune to hysteria, but of the two I still think being cautious makes far more sense especially since we're dealing with a 'mysteriously' destabilized climate that will affect quality of life in the future. If we aren't the primary cause, then we can still minimize our role.
Every time I hear about someone being aggressively opposed to wind farms or solar or developing cleaner energy, I shake my head. So what if we find out that human emissions aren't the primary cause? The consensus is that we're at least a contributing factor, which means removing ourselves from the equation isn't totally meaningless... and if we get solar powered cars out of the deal, is that really a bad thing? Why do certain people insist that it's going to be an economic disaster when green energy creates jobs, promotes innovation and yes, will almost certainly at least slow down the pace of climate change? The faster it goes, the less likely we are to find a solution.
quote:
Of which - yes it is actually fairly apt to compare it to primitive superstition as prominent people that where trusted - the shaman, the priest, the oracle - spoke of the causes of catastrophes that befell them, and methods on how to prevent it, and they where widely adopted with out question... Much like how you're doing right now.
It isn't a scientist that is telling you of global warming...
it is a President, a Comedian, an Activist.
prominent people we trust in society.
Oh come on... unless you're a climatologist yourself, you're in the same boat as everyone else. 9 times out of 10, people who pull out the sheeple argument do it because someone doesn't agree with them. So you've arrived at expert status because you've read a handful of articles online? Why do you automatically jump to the conclusion that I'm just accepting whatever you think I'm accepting because it's 'cool' or because of politics? Do you even know what my position is?
I get that you're reluctant to go all the way to 'we're all gonna die', but the idea that the only people who accept AGW theory are politicians, comedians and activists is totally dishonest... as is the idea that absolutely every scientist who agrees that humans are the primary cause of climate change is either politically motivated or believes that climate change in the future is going to be apocalyptic.
You must admit that there is always a point where questioning a consensus is totally pointless-- look at the anti-vaxxers, the flat earthers, second hand smoke denialists, AIDS denialists, creationists. Each of these 'movements' uses similar tactics to the climate change deniers.
This analogy doesn't hold for every consensus view-- I'm just saying that it happens and the idea that we should always be questioning everything is something that also needs to be questioned. As much as you want to believe that it's all a conspiracy to hurt people and force us to pay carbon taxes and ruin the economy, you also need to be aware that there are people who want to create doubt in order to stall actions that they know will hurt their bottom lines.
|
|
|
|
