I have doubts about carbon-based climate change

[MikeWaters]

1. In my line of work, I am very aware that complex systems are not easily explained. I find the answers that I have been provided to be glib.

2. As a former exotic plant enthusiast, I used to BUY tanks of carbon dioxide to make my plants grow better/faster. More CO2 is good for plants. I would think that there would be some kind of equilibrium that would take place. Again, this is a kind of lay person's worthless observation, but still...

3. Do we have any evidence or reason to believe that cutting carbon emissions but what is proposed will have any effect?

4. If cooling the planet is the most important issue, why not investigate non-carbon based ways of cooling the planet that are much cheaper? (See Steven Leavitt).

Having said all of that, I am not someone that has dedicated a lot of time to the issue. The only evidence I see is "Scientists say" or "Scientists believe" or "Scientists have put together a consensus statement" or "All reasonable scientists believe"....

What the hell--put the argument on the table, if it's that obvious, even Walmart people should be able to understand the argument.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What the hell--put the argument on the table, if it's that obvious, even Walmart people should be able to understand the argument.

Umm, okay -- what have you been missing. Here's the walmart explanation, at least as explained to me by my six-year old:

CO2 takes a while to leave our atmosphere. We've emitted a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, faster than CO2 can leave it, and so co2 has been building up in our atmosphere. And that causes a "greenhouse" effect. Do you know what a greenhouse is? It traps heat. That's what the layer of CO2 in our atmosphere is doing -- trapping heat and not letting it escape. Heat from the sun and stuff. So that makes the Earth get warmer in an artificial way -- a way that is not the product of natural events, but human-created events. If we emit CO2 at a rate that is less than the rate that CO2 leaves our atmosphere, then the level of CO2 in our atmosphere will decrease. And so there will be less CO2 in our atmosphere. And that will make the "greenhouse" effect go away eventually.

How do we know this? B/c we've proven: (1) the rate that CO2 leaves the atmosphere and the rate at which we're putting it there; (2) the amount of cO2 in the atmoshpere; (3) that the layer of CO2 traps heat.

[MikeWaters]

are you aware of how carbon is stored in solid/liquid form by nature?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

are you aware of how carbon is stored in solid/liquid form by nature?

Yes.

[MikeWaters]

If faster plant growth occurs because of increased carbon dioxide, then you can get increased carbon storage. No?

Just one example among many of how the simplistic view of greenhouse gas can be challenged.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If faster plant growth occurs because of increased carbon dioxide, then you can get increased carbon storage. No?

Just one example among many of how the simplistic view of greenhouse gas can be challenged.

But this could be offset by deforestation, no? Just one example among many of how simplistic responses of greenhouse gas skeptics can be challenged.

[Tex]

Interesting blog post.

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553

[MikeWaters]

When did we stop wringing our hands about acid rain and the ozone layer?

Oh yeah, when it became all the rage to talk about global warming.

It's the new secular liberal religion.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Levin

But this could be offset by deforestation, no? Just one example among many of how simplistic responses of greenhouse gas skeptics can be challenged.

So in your mind deforestation is a policy you encourage, or if we're looking for real examples of what we're seeking to encourage you exclude reforestation and replanting?

I'm skeptical of greenhouse skeptics because those who advocate responses all have vested interests. Plus we don't have good honest scientific debates on the topics.

Mike at least qualifies as a scientist. Neither you nor I qualify.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

So in your mind deforestation is a policy you encourage, or if we're looking for real examples of what we're seeking to encourage you exclude reforestation and replanting?

I'm skeptical of greenhouse skeptics because those who advocate responses all have vested interests. Plus we don't have good honest scientific debates on the topics.

Mike at least qualifies as a scientist. Neither you nor I qualify.

I don't follow you.

Mike has his crackpot idea that increased CO2 levels are soaked up by increased plant growth -- natural carbon storage. He says this is one of many easy responses to global warming caused by human generated CO2. I say deforestation destroys any such likely increase in natural carbon storage. Plus the way we deforest land is by fire -- releasing CO2.

The fact that Mike is a physician no more qualifies him to discuss global climate change than it does the mechanic next door. Your decade-long quest to shut down the "non-experts" on a generalist message board is hilarious. Nobody is an expert here.