This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Natural pollution vs human pollution
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Sweetscot
Let's not forget that not only do we ADD to the emissions we are the ones stripping huge masses of forrest that would normally help turn that CO2 into O2. Human impact is twofold. I don't really know whether humans are "causing" anything, but I'm pretty sure we aren't helping...and no I have 0 data to back up my own beliefs so take what you will.
Post by
MyTie
I'm more than willing to look at data. My mind is far from decided. I'm going to be skeptical as hell of everything presented, though.
So to be clear, the first fundamental bit of data that you're looking for is the idea that CO2 results in an increase in air temperature?
Give me DATA. I don't need data that we produce pollutants. I need data supporting CAUSATION of global warming.
Take a fish tank with a ball inside. Shine a hot light at it. Measure temperature.
Fill the fish tank with carbon dioxide. Shine a hot light at it. Measure temperature. Compare.
There are basic scientific principles that are at work here. I don't think there is anyone in the scientific community who is attempting to argue that excessive atmospheric CO2 doesn't cause an increase in atmospheric temperature. The debate between the 'liberals' and 'conservatives', as you refer to them, is around whether the human-generated component of that is significant or not. That's a big difference from arguing over whether the causation actually occurs in the first place.
I'm not going to fill a fish bowl with CO2. Let's just look at studies already completed. To what degree is current human activity impacting the planet's environment, and to what degree will that cause a change in the planet's environment, and to what degree is that negative?Let's not forget that not only do we ADD to the emissions we are the ones stripping huge masses of forrest that would normally help turn that CO2 into O2. Human impact is twofold. I don't really know whether humans are "causing" anything, but I'm pretty sure we aren't helping...and no I have 0 data to back up my own beliefs so take what you will.
I'm as against the cutting of old growth forest as I am against cutting no forest at all. When forest isn't cut, and isn't allowed to burn, we end up with massive massive forest fires that produce gigantic amounts of pollutants, and devastate large swaths of ecosystems. I'm for smart logging, and allowing some forest fires. There is a balance between 'never cut a tree down' and 'cut everything down'. In the past we cut down huge forests, and ended up devastating ecosystems. Now we have gone the other way and are just letting it all burn. (by us i mean the US. other places have other problems)
Post by
Adamsm
That's an interesting way of seeing it MyTie; of course, forest fires predate us as well, and are used as a way for new growth to rise up and help fix a forest......particularly some pine species that actually need fire to cause their cones to open up and let the seeds germinate. Most of the time that the forest fire start causing problems is when elaborate mansions of wood are built right on the back of said forest....can't really blame them for deciding to just destroying those monstrosities.
Post by
MyTie
That's an interesting way of seeing it MyTie; of course, forest fires predate us as well, and are used as a way for new growth to rise up and help fix a forest......particularly some pine species that actually need fire to cause their cones to open up and let the seeds germinate. Most of the time that the forest fire start causing problems is when elaborate mansions of wood are built right on the back of said forest....can't really blame them for deciding to just destroying those monstrosities.
Uhm... no. Modern forest fighting has gotten effective enough to prevent many many forest fires. Due to this, underbrush has gotten thick in many areas. Finally, when a forest fire gets out of control, it burns many times larger than it would have if it has just been allowed to burn in the first place, in a number of smaller forest fires. Logging could solve this problem, because when an area is responsibly logged, the brush is cleared and burned. Natural forest fires are still needed, but stopping ALL forest fires, combined with stopping ALL logging, is provided the needed fuel for massive massive fires that produce more pollutants than you can imagine.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
To what degree is current human activity impacting the planet's environment, and to what degree will that cause a change in the planet's environment, and to what degree is that negative?
You're missing my argument from the outset. The issue of 'what degree' isn't as necessary a piece of data, because if there is ANY impact, then I think we should be trying to minimise that. The 'what degree' issue is only relevant if people are coming to the table of 'how much should we spend to try to minimise our impact', rather than the broader issue of 'should we be minimising in the first place'.
As for forest fire fighting, a lot of brush is usually cleared pre-summer in order to fight fires in advance. Burn off the dangerous stuff in the cool winter/spring periods, so that there's no fuel left for fires in the summer.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
To what degree is current human activity impacting the planet's environment, and to what degree will that cause a change in the planet's environment, and to what degree is that negative?
You're missing my argument from the outset. The issue of 'what degree' isn't as necessary a piece of data, because if there is ANY impact, then I think we should be trying to minimise that. The 'what degree' issue is only relevant if people are coming to the table of 'how much should we spend to try to minimise our impact', rather than the broader issue of 'should we be minimising in the first place'.
As for forest fire fighting, a lot of brush is usually cleared pre-summer in order to fight fires in advance. Burn off the dangerous stuff in the cool winter/spring periods, so that there's no fuel left for fires in the summer.
You're wrong. Just, straight out, wrong. I don't mean that as a belittlement. I find your noble character and 'do something' attitude something to be admired. However, you are being naive. We DO and always will have an impact on our environment, unless we stopped breathing, and then our corpses would still be releasing gasses through decomposition. There IS a point of acceptable human impact on environment, and that line should be studied and defined, and not just for economic purposes. If we have an impact on our environment, but that impact doesn't cause an adversely negative consequence, then there is no reason to minimize that impact. I'm not saying that is the case, but that seems like something one would want to know.
If your argument is for absolute human non impact on the environment, then you are advocating the extinction of humanity. If you maintain that your position is ZERO impact, then I'll accept that as your position, but I find it one that makes little sense. I'm surprised that you don't care to find the degree of impact, and the degree of the effects of that impact. We need to know these things to find a common sense approach to environmentalism. It makes more sense than an extreme and 'total' view, at least, to me.
Post by
Squishalot
If we have an impact on our environment, but that impact doesn't cause an adversely negative consequence, then there is no reason to minimize that impact. I'm not saying that is the case, but that seems like something one would want to know.
There is plenty of evidence for adversely negative consequences - if nothing else, the raw materials inside the earth's crust are being drilled out. There is less evidence for the 'what degree' of adversely negative consequence. Your 'if' statement is meaningless to me, because our impact does cause adversely negative consequences.
I'm surprised that you don't care to find the degree of impact, and the degree of the effects of that impact.
The
'what degree' issue is only relevant if people are coming to the table of 'how much should we spend to try to minimise our impact'
, rather than the broader issue of 'should we be minimising in the first place'.
Again - the 'what degree' of impact is only relevant once you get people accepting that we're having negative consequences in the first place, and looking to act. "What degree" is meaningless if a person doesn't think that there's a negative consequence in the first place.
And yes, my ideal position is a net zero consequence.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
And yes, my ideal position is a net zero consequence.Since you aren't willing to tolerate any impact on the environment at all, then you don't tolerate human action of any kind. If you advocate a net zero consequence, then you advocate the end of humanity.
This kind of 'zero tolerance' extreme environmentalism is what makes me question climate change opinions in the first place. I feel the same way about people who say that humans DON'T have an impact on the environment at all. Both positions are ridiculous. Squishy here isn't even willing to discuss acceptable human impact. If we exist, we must be reduce our actions, regardless of any facts. It's so difficult to find a level headed common sense view, substantiated by evidence.
Post by
Squishalot
Since you aren't willing to
tolerate any impact on the environment at all
, then you don't tolerate human action of any kind. If you advocate a net zero consequence, then you advocate the end of humanity.
Please explain where I said that. You don't like it when people put words in your mouth. Don't put words in mine.
If you advocate a net zero consequence, then you advocate the end of humanity.
Net zero, as in, negative consequences weighed off against positive consequences. What part of 'net' don't you understand?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
Since you aren't willing to
tolerate any impact on the environment at all
Please explain where I said that. You don't like it when people put words in your mouth. Don't put words in mine.my ideal position is a net zero consequence.
If you are willing to tolerate some impact on the environment, then we are back to my question of how much.
Post by
Squishalot
If you are willing to tolerate some impact on the environment, then we are back to my question of how much.
I already answered that:
And yes, my ideal position is a net zero consequence.
Net zero, as in, negative consequences weighed off against positive consequences
Post by
MyTie
If you are willing to tolerate some impact on the environment, then we are back to my question of how much.
I already answered that:
And yes, my ideal position is a net zero consequence.
Net zero, as in, negative consequences weighed off against positive consequences
So, where there are 'no negative consequences that are outweighed by positive consequences'. I see. That sounds very nice. I disagree. If I have to displace a squirrel from tree A to tree B in order to build a bridge between two major industrial strongholds, I'll do it. I don't buy your absolute.
Post by
Squishalot
I think you're missing a negative in your quote, but close enough.
Your example isn't quite right though. Are there net negative consequences by displacing a squirrel from tree A to tree B? Unless you're going to turn into a biologist on me, I don't think there are any material net negative consequences - all consequences of the squirrel's existence in one tree is equally offset by its existence in the other tree. Now, if you were to kill the squirrel because it's in tree A, that's an entirely different story.
Now, I never said that that's what I would personally do, right at this point in time (being the selfish person that I am). I said that that would be the ideal position, if we could thrive in such a way that didn't negatively impact the environment.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
To go back to the questions asked on the last page - yes, that JGR paper is talking about the geographic sensitivity to emissions.
As far as MyTie's comments regarding estimates of magma production - mid ocean ridge volcanism is not like continental volcanism (in fact they are caused by completely different processes). Ocean ridge volcanism is caused by decompression melting of the upper mantle as the plates are pulled apart. Because you have to produce enough magma to fill the gap as the plates move apart (and only that much magma), the volume produced is equivalent to the distance the plates move apart multimplied by the thickness of the crust at the ridge. Those are things we can measure - the first by GPS, the second by seismic reflection.
Yes the numbers for gas volume are then estimated, but as I pointed out even if you take the
extreme
possibilities in that calculation, you have a range of numbers between 0.01 and 0.22 giga tonnes per year of CO2. Compare that with 35 giga tonnes per year of human output. We haven't somehow missed 34.8 gigatonnes of mid ocean degassing (160 times the maximum estimate)
In terms of whether we could try capturing volcanic output - yes, we could try but it's only surface volcanoes, the engineering challenge would be immense, and a lot of equipment is at risk if the thing erupts. Not to mention the gas doesn't necessarily emanate just from the vent at the top, but also lots of other vents and fissures on and around the flanks of the volcano. Finally, you have to ask whetehr the cost of trying to mitigate volcanic release is in any way worth it when you realise how little emission it is in comparison to the anthropogenic input.
MyTie - maybe this will help you
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
Google + 10 seconds =
source that disputes your info
I do appreciate the reading though.
Post by
Squishalot
MyTie, the link you provided shows us that human production of CO2 is in too great a quantity for the land and ocean to reabsorb it. Using the bathtub analogy, irrespective of the quantities, it's like pouring in more water than the drain is letting out.
Post by
MyTie
MyTie, the link you provided shows us that human production of CO2 is in too great a quantity for the land and ocean to reabsorb it. Using the bathtub analogy, irrespective of the quantities, it's like pouring in more water than the drain is letting out.
That's entirely beside the point. Belelain said that humanity produces 35 gigatones of CO2, and that article says we produce 6 gigatones. I'm not saying that production of CO2 isn't a problem, or that our planet is able to cope with the problem, I'm just pointing toward inconsistencies. If we get conflicting reports about how many gigatones of CO2 we produce, varying from 6 to 35, then how are we so definitively measuring the earth's ability to cope, or as you said, the 'drain'? The earth can only handle X much pollution. Well, how much is X and show me where you get that information.
I have a bathtub in my bathroom. That bathtub's size is somewhere between 1 teaspoon and 1 million gallons, and there is an amount of water that is probably somewhere around 10 gallons, give or take 10 million gallons. I am putting water into that bathtub, and that water is probably somewhere between a drip and 500 trillion gallons. There is probably a drain in that bathtub, and that drain probably releases between a half a teaspoon and 38 zillion gallons of water. So, is my bathtub going to overflow?
Post by
Squishalot
The article says we produce 29 gigatonnes. I'm not sure where you got 6GT from. Edit: Wait, no, you only read the skeptic's argument, not what the science says. Why should we even bother reading what you're linking if you're not even going to read it yourself?
Although
our output of 29 gigatons of CO2
is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2.
I'm pretty happy with 29-35 GT as a fair and reasonable range - that's around 32GT, +/- 10%. Considering the degree of error when it comes to measuring things on a global, that seems entirely reasonable to me.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
I'm pretty happy with 29-35 GT as a fair and reasonable range - that's around 32GT, +/- 10%. Considering the degree of error when it comes to measuring things on a global, that seems entirely reasonable to me.
Ok. So what is limit on the earth's capability of coping with human CO2 production?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.