It's clear that carbon fuels release certain greenhouse gases and it makes sense that since humans have been burning them more and more in the last few centuries that levels have risen correspondingly. The part that I can't seem to find good data for is how it can responsibly be determined what our ecosystem (the earth) is capable of withstanding, the contributing factors which affect these levels, how this fits into the natural cycles of global warming and cooling, and the severity of consequences and benefits from allowing these levels to shift away from natural (non man-made) levels.

I mean, I'm all good with saving the environment but hesitate to knee jerk. For example what good will reducing man-made greenhouse gases be if it can't turn the tide completely? It seems as if man-made greenhouse gas emissions weren't seen as being manageable then these scientists would be shooting for complete elimination of rman made sources wouldn't they? Who exactly is setting the limits and what are the limits based on? I see the potential for great hanky panky built into this type of regulation if not based on good science. For example why focus on automotive emissions if eliminating massive deforestation is more effective should that turn out to be the case?

Just getting started on digging through this stuff. I appreciate the key word suggestion. This yields mounds of info to sift through.

 

Well, there are 191 countries who have signed and ratified a "treaty" agreeing to limit the amount of CO2 they are releasing into our atmosphere, somebody must have a plan (again, the US refuses to ratify)...


I firmly believe that through natural evolution that everything on this planet is balanced (before our interference), for example that there for every ailment (that we have not artificially caused) there is a natural remedy (if we haven't already wiped it off the face of the planet). For every prey there is a perfect predator (again if we haven't wiped it out or severely limited it's numbers), etc. This planet has it's own system of checks and balances that has naturally evolved and NOBODY can convince me for one iota of a second that dumping trillions of cubic feet of ANY single substance into the balance of the atmosphere will NOT have negative results...

 

this is a strange place to mention this, but it is a dang interesting something something that ties in with global warming, that is kinda shocking if it is true- why or what it means is outside of my understanding- what is being discovered is that it's not only earth that is warming.. it's happening throughout the solar system.. strange, huh?

the whole debate about global warming- though there is no doubt it's happening, is how much of it is being sensationalized for strategic gain by folks in positions to make gains.. that's the part that rubs me wrong- no, better said: it flat out pisses me off.. AND, it gives the ****** who want to contest it is even happening the sliver of doubt they need to continue their campaigns..

sorta like Micheal Moore... he had some truths to all his little documentaries, but he stepped off the righteous path and went off on his own little merry self righteous direction... he could have achieved a lot more had he stuck strictly to the truth.. gotta love it, huh?

 

As far as I know there aren't many people denying that humans are responsible for excess CO2. That hasn't been my point. What I'm questioning is how these scientists claim to know what's acceptable and what isn't. Are there good models for this or has this been a case of a knee jerk reaction to rising levels of CO2 which may not even be harmful in the grand scheme.

I am having problems pointing to a graph showing increased CO2 and then jumping to the conclusion that it is solely responsible for global warming that is out of the ordinary and whether this trend even exists at all. Of course, as I've stated, I don't know much about it.

Thanks for the data. I appreciate the numbers.

 

Well that can be looked at two ways....To me it makes sense to take extra precautions about such pollution ESPECIALLY BECAUSE we really DON'T have a full understanding of what is or isnt safe of how much damage we,ve already caused and long term effects of such damage..... If you had any brains you wouldnt just start taking drugs until they are fully tested for side effects both immediate and long term right? Look at past issues from the wide use of asbestos before the huge consequences were realized and it was too late for thousands.... here we are years later still trying to deal with the side effects.... Or hell look at Japans current situation with nuclear power plant melt down....I could go on all day where a little more preplanning and precautions would have gone a long way... Man has done some stupid things in the name of profit like wiping out entire species and blamed it on ignorance at the time...wiping are own out isnt so unthinkable.

Bottom line to say all this pollution is a nessary evil and we all need to have multiple cars in the driveway as well as telling ourselves it makes no difference to the worlds health if we do or dont take percautionary steps is foolish and only hurts ourselves.... just like cutting the cat off your truck and straight piping it so you can get more attention from others and you pass with a loud truck? really? If its already there and working leave it, removing it doesnt do anyone any good unless its plugged and if it is chances are you shouldnt be driving it that way because your burning too much oil. everyone like to pull the "I cant afford it" card when it comes to fixing these trucks right ... well I think if you can afford to throw so much gas into the tanks of these beasts than you can certainly afford fixing a blown plenum and a new cat.
This ethanol stuff is going to end up bosting the economy due to new engines and repairs to older engines from it...thats just the way it is.. Once upon a time Cable had no commercials because you were already paying for it. and federal taxes were a temporary measure to pay off the war of 1812.... We all know those days are gone too...It does no good crying over spilled milk.

 

I totally Agree.

 

Indeed, there are some pretty good models that have been progressively refined since the late 1980's in attempts to reduce uncertainty. The big question that remains is just how strong the CO2 feedback loop is. You might try googling CO2 feedback for more about that.

Lots o' googling might be helpful if you're really interested, but among the things that increased CO2 causes are reduced farm outputs, increased desertification of croplands, and along with rising sea levels the loss of coastal farmland (and cities). We've got nice solid science that tells us how much of an increase in CO2 will cause how much of a decrease in yields of this crop, that crop, and another crop. The science is a bit less solid about how much CO2 will cause how much sea level rise, how weather patterns will be affected, and so on -- that's where the uncertainties lie, but the eggheads are grinding away on it. It's not a question of whether or not it's happening or whether or not the anthropogenic factors are responsible, it's a matter of scale. The bad 5h17 will happen, but how bad at what level falls along a range from "pretty darn bad" to "freakin' catastrophic".

Off topic? Me? Naaahhhhh....

 

Thanks for humoring me fellas. Looks like I have a bit of reading to do on this subject.

 

Ironically the super Walmart in niagara falls doesnt carry it... They said to try autozone... It seems I have better luck finding things at regular walmarts than the "super walmarts"

 

Oh, I guess we are back to the original topic??? LOL...