Climate Change

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

6 hours ago, florduh said:

True. Why do you suppose that is? Does it make sense that we are still using a fuel that once ran steam locomotives? That heated houses in the early 1820s?

 

Perhaps it's because we have been conditioned to accept propaganda from the fossil fuel industries to keep them relevant. Yes, we are a long way from actually using the new technologies we already have, but that is not so in many other countries. It looks a bit to me like the same political/business climate that prevents us from having universal healthcare like others do. This is not the time to be expanding our efforts in keeping the fossil fuel industry healthy when we could, like other countries, put our effort into developing the other energy sources we already have available. This is not the time to open up our federal lands to mining operations and expanding fracking. Yeah, we still have some coal but that doesn't mean we have to rely on it until every inch of America has been dug up.

 

This is probably true as with anything else in American politics. But the problem is a world wide problem which was reflected in my earlier post. There is really no use in entertaining the idea that the whole world will or even will be able to make the advances that the nine countries in your post made. There were actually 11 mentioned but two were the USA and China. Renewable resources is still just a drop in the hat for our two countries, especially China, even tho they did make those advancements. and we did get off topic in a big way. This isn't about whether we should or shouldn't advance clean fossil fuel tech. 

 

As it relates to the topic however I wish that clean renewable energy were the dominant source of energy. Maybe then we would be able to end the argument as to whether the bulk of climate change can be attributed to co2 emissions or if it's the earth going through a natural cycle. A lot of the points made in the video were very convincing. I'm hoping to be able to watch the full interview at work tonight. 

 

Dark Bishop

[florduh]

If we accept the premise that since we still have fossil fuels available as long as we're willing to dig up and pollute everywhere, that it was good enough for great great granddaddy and therefor good enough for us, that existing viable alternatives found in other countries and political climates aren't already in much usage here and so therefore can't be for the foreseeable future, then yeah, we're a long way from leaving fossil fuel behind. It's called a self fulfilling prophecy.

[LogicalFallacy]

26 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

As it relates to the topic however I wish that clean renewable energy were the dominant source of energy. Maybe then we would be able to end the argument as to whether the bulk of climate change can be attributed to co2 emissions or if it's the earth going through a natural cycle. A lot of the points made in the video were very convincing. I'm hoping to be able to watch the full interview at work tonight. 

 

Assume for a minute that no relationship between CO2 and temp rise can be found: The argument that it isn't is then used to justify using coal, and this I think is problematic as it misses the elephant which is air pollution and acid rain.

 

I seem to recall a documentary where geologists proposed that one of the mass extinctions was caused by volcanos setting off massive coal burn - of course releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and essentially burning the planet. They can see the difference between the underlying rock, and the reddish layer on top of it.

 

However on the subject of climate change and is it happening, and what causes it, the subject of coal is more an environmental topic than what is causing the warming. If it can be shown that CO2 does affect climate, coal is a factor, if it shown that CO2 has little effect, then coal is not a factor as far as global warming is concerned.

[LogicalFallacy]

@Joshpantera

 

Early in this discussion we both came to the conclusion/agreement that it's unlikely that even with the sea level rise predicted, that humanity would face a catastrophic or existential threat.

 

However we were thinking (Or I was) of just sea level rise, and an increase in the temperature of around 2-5 degrees. Assuming the ice caps do melt though, there could be a cascade effect on the entire climate system rendering what we know about current climate systems useless.

 

This was a "what if" thought that popped in my head. We think of sea level rise, and yep areas get flooded, but if too much ice melts off the poles what effect could this have beside sea level rise and temperature rise?

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

@Joshpantera

 

Early in this discussion we both came to the conclusion/agreement that it's unlikely that even with the sea level rise predicted, that humanity would face a catastrophic or existential threat.

 

However we were thinking (Or I was) of just sea level rise, and an increase in the temperature of around 2-5 degrees. Assuming the ice caps do melt though, there could be a cascade effect on the entire climate system rendering what we know about useless.

 

This was a what if thought that popped in my head. We think of sea level rise, and yep areas get flooded, but if too much ice melts off the poles what effect could this have beside sea level rise and temperature rise?

 

I'm not sure. But what if it greatly increases global greening due to the new exposed land mass? And then more natural carbon mining may occur with the introduction of new vegetation.