| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: 2.7 �� 10^12 metric tons (wikipedia)
Human production of carbon dioxide: about 8 x 10^9 metric tons / year, the majority of which (about 5 billion metric tons) is absorbed again by the environment (this page)
I'm sure a human can drink too much water. But I don't go around cautioning my students not to use the water cooler unless they're sure they're thirsty. Humans produce an insignificant amount of carbon dioxide, and we shouldn't re-arrange our economy because of paranoia. Why don't you suggest cutting our emissions of oxygen and water while you're at it? Oh... maybe because... no hollywood celebrities have lent their names to such a crusade yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: 2.7 �� 10^12 metric tons (wikipedia)
Human production of carbon dioxide: about 8 x 10^9 metric tons / year, the majority of which (about 5 billion metric tons) is absorbed again by the environment (this page)
I'm sure a human can drink too much water. But I don't go around cautioning my students not to use the water cooler unless they're sure they're thirsty. Humans produce an insignificant amount of carbon dioxide, and we shouldn't re-arrange our economy because of paranoia. Why don't you suggest cutting our emissions of oxygen and water while you're at it? Oh... maybe because... no hollywood celebrities have lent their names to such a crusade yet? |
More insults. Good job Joe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| joe_doufu wrote: |
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: 2.7 �� 10^12 metric tons (wikipedia)
Human production of carbon dioxide: about 8 x 10^9 metric tons / year, the majority of which (about 5 billion metric tons) is absorbed again by the environment (this page)
I'm sure a human can drink too much water. But I don't go around cautioning my students not to use the water cooler unless they're sure they're thirsty. Humans produce an insignificant amount of carbon dioxide, and we shouldn't re-arrange our economy because of paranoia. Why don't you suggest cutting our emissions of oxygen and water while you're at it? Oh... maybe because... no hollywood celebrities have lent their names to such a crusade yet? |
More insults. Good job Joe. |
Heh heh, I see that shut you up! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
not wanting to disturb your jolly discussion about hollywood celebrities and drinking water, but joe, do you see any relation between these?
Or maybe explain this dramatic loss in Ice cover since 1979?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Global warming is all the result of Koreans leaving the windows open with their on-dol cranked up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
terrible logic their joe and two points:
| Quote: |
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: 2.7 �� 10^12 metric tons (wikipedia)
Human production of carbon dioxide: about 8 x 10^9 metric tons / year |
So human imput almost 75% of the Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere? And you don't think that's an "unnatural" amount that should have some kind of effect?
Also:
| Quote: |
| Human production of carbon dioxide: about 8 x 10^9 metric tons / year, the majority of which (about 5 billion metric tons) is absorbed again by the environment |
sounds like you're implying that the environment SELECTIVELY absorbs ONLY human CO2. wow....cool.
And according to your numbers, the environment has the capacity to absorb about .18% of all the CO2 presently in the environment now.
Well, If that number is a constant, than over the course of one year, it may not apear to be too big of a problem. But compound that amount over a few decades and there tends to be a biiiit of a problem.
and if there seems to be no reductions in site, you know there's gonna be some problems.
rapier...one problem with your graph....the relative CO2 and global temps don't match up very well at around 1450. Also, the million year scales show a much bigger inconsistency (at least on the graphs i've seen) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
rapier...one problem with your graph....the relative CO2 and global temps don't match up very well at around 1450. Also, the million year scales show a much bigger inconsistency (at least on the graphs i've seen) |
Hmm.lets see what I can dig up..
http://www.stanford.edu/~weston/Environment/RapidClimateChange/GreenhouseGasses/GHGCarbonDioxide/GHGCarbonDioxide.htm
Linked to climate change, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an important indicator of the impact of our energy system on the environment. Over the past 400,000 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied from 180 to 300 parts per million volatile (ppmv) with the pre-industrial concentration at about 285 ppmv. The current concentration is 375.64 ppmv and accelerating. It is likely that the current concentration is unprecedented in at least the past 20 million years and the current rate of increase has not occured in at least the last 20,000 years.
Although eventual dissolution to the ocean would stabilise carbon levels, this does not take into account numerous factors...such as the extra carbon released by polar/tundra thaw, etc.
This chart matches Carbon with temperature quite closely..
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I better add that the science of global warming is still in its infancy and the multiplicity of factors are not well understood.
Gord previously suggested that solar activity is to blame for earths climate change, and so on.
My own view is that Humans have certainly ravaged the earths natural ecosystems and poisoned the air and water at an astonishing rate. How much of global warming is man made is unclear, but I would say its significant- considering the co-incidence of human carbon emmissions/ environmental degradation/population/damage to ecosystems/atmospheric pollution, temperature rises and erratic weather changes.
i think the natural operating systems of the earth are more finely balanced than we think. An increase of ocean temperature by 1 degree may not sound like much, but it has and is having a strong effect on the antarctic.
Skeptics point to pie-in the sky theories to absolve humanity from responsibilty- when the proof of our devastating impact on the natural world is all around. For someone to say that the wholescale removal of 70% of natural forest cover is of no consequence, is ridiculous to me, yet this is what people are saying..or that a rapid increase in carbon levels due to our emmisions will have no repercussions..just crazy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FWIW, I oppose the use of fossil fuels because of the limited supply. It's like capital and interest. The fossil fuels are our global capital, and can never be replenished. We shouldn't burn them unless the profit is being used to get us to that next level, where fossil fuel energy sources are obsolete. So I do oppose the burning of fossil fuels... but not because I'm struck impotent by the overwhelming fear of carbon dioxide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| we humans are not so significant as we think. the earth can survive anything we can throw at it |
You know you're absolutely right, nothing we does has any effect or consequence on our surroundings whatsoever, as this picture from space clearly shows.
| Quote: |
| the forests would grow back stronger than they are today, in less than a hundred years |
-but not if the landscape is transformed into a gullied and eroded sterile desert, on a huge scale all at once.Brazil recorded its highest ever levels of deforestation last year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rapier wrote: |
| Quote: |
| the forests would grow back stronger than they are today, in less than a hundred years |
-but not if the landscape is transformed into a gullied and eroded sterile desert, on a huge scale all at once.Brazil recorded its highest ever levels of deforestation last year. |
I really think you overestimate the human ability to destroy the Earth. I don't think we even have the ability to make a single room completely free of bacteria. You think we can sterilize an entire continent? I'm not saying that the exact same trees would grow back in the exact same places, but life has been able to fill in every gap that's appeared for hundreds of millions of years, and survived disasters we couldn't even imagine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| rapier wrote: |
| Quote: |
| the forests would grow back stronger than they are today, in less than a hundred years |
-but not if the landscape is transformed into a gullied and eroded sterile desert, on a huge scale all at once.Brazil recorded its highest ever levels of deforestation last year. |
I really think you overestimate the human ability to destroy the Earth. I don't think we even have the ability to make a single room completely free of bacteria. You think we can sterilize an entire continent? I'm not saying that the exact same trees would grow back in the exact same places, but life has been able to fill in every gap that's appeared for hundreds of millions of years, and survived disasters we couldn't even imagine. |
How does that make it right for us to wipe out many other species? They might take billions of years to evolve again. How is it OK to pollute and degrade life here on earth- making it intolerable for our children and grandchildren...
I'm not sure if you've been exposed to nature much but I think if you'd grown up with a healthy outdoor life, fishing, hunting, seeing a variety of birds and animals, swimming in clear rivers and so on..you'd want your children to have the same. Have you ever..nursed an injured bird back to health? even kept tadpoles in a jar? Our relationship to nature is a type of relationship to God himself.
So what you're saying is that its ok to self destruct and take down the majority of other lifeforms with us, because a few will survive. Diversity is not important to you, so long as something lives on- be it a handful of bugs or maybe just 100 species of tree, instead of 10.000.
Great outlook you have there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I really think you overestimate the human ability to destroy the Earth. I don't think we even have the ability to make a single room completely free of bacteria. You think we can sterilize an entire continent? I'm not saying that the exact same trees would grow back in the exact same places, but life has been able to fill in every gap that's appeared for hundreds of millions of years, and survived disasters we couldn't even imagine.
|
I WANT to think that it's just a matter of miscommunication between you two
I am completely baffled as why the argument of "life on earth being destroyed" is still being brought up.
Are you arguing THAT rapier?
I sorta figure that y'all were arguing about minimizing human impact and/OR making SURE the earth remains habitable for us humanoids.
As i see this:
1) rapier is arguing that humans have some (drastic?) impact on nature.
2) joe is arguing that humans couldn't "wipe out nature" if they tried.
Is that right? Cause if it is, i'm just hoping that we can pull you guys back to the same page.
As for CO2 not being pollution because "it's in the environment already"...that is a TERRIBLE argument.
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Atmosphere/Older/Atmospheric_Gases.html
So i guess that neon, argon, crypton ozone, PURE oxygen (which is infact DEADLY) and xenon aren't pollution because we breathe THOSE in on a daily basis too.
As you've mentioned, the earth IS in a constant state of change...HOWEVER it DEALS with that change by enacting any method it can to maintain equalibrium. Natures OLD method of dealing with CO2 build up was to increase plant dispursion and growth. With that as less of an option, we gotta wonder HOW we're going to deal.
Don't call the man nuts when he provides graphs that show that CO2 levels have SPIKED at near the same time frame as temperatures.
| Quote: |
| We live in a veritable ocean of carbon dioxide. |
I OCEAN of CO2 would be something like 2 or 3*10^5...i'd say that's an ocean.
human production ALONE (not counting all of nature's ways) is NEAR DOUBLE that...all told, there is about (as you say) 3*10^12. I'd say that is more like "a galaxy".
| Quote: |
| The "greenhouse effect" is a speculative theory |
I hear that from SO many of its detractors and yet i NEVER EVER EVER see any viable evidence to the contrary
| Quote: |
| So I do oppose the burning of fossil fuels... but not because I'm struck impotent by the overwhelming fear of carbon dioxide. |
Actually, you give a reasoning that JUSTIFIES the burning of fossil fuels but you don't really say WHY it needs justification.
If you aren't worried about CO2 production, or global warming, or GH theory, why WOULD you care about the burning of FFs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
the one thing that is a very curious thing to consider (when put into context):
Atmospheric methane has tripled over the last 150yrs yet forest cover has decreased by somewhere around half (some estimates say in the last 50yrs).
| Quote: |
| the earth can survive anything we can throw at it |
| Quote: |
| i betcha if we unleashed the worst disaster imaginable upon ourselves and nature, the forests would grow back stronger than they are today, in less than a hundred years. |
That is completely 100% true.
However, if humans wanted to LIVE on earth, then perhaps a little stewardship is necessary. I don't think that environmentalists (in a broad sense) are worried solely about nature, but about how many is able to survive on this planet. |
Most methane in the atmosphere is produced by bacteria in the soil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
