Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max™]

I'm well aware of the facts, but you're looking at it from a rational point of view, expecting that nobody will push for irrational legislation and so forth. Obviously nobody would begin trying to do things like that, obviously nobody would elect a reality tv star, obviously nobody would fly a plane into a skyscraper, obviously nobody would shoot a president on live tv. I'd be quite happy to see something forbidding any consideration of natural respiration, is basically what I'm saying.

It isn't like this is something brand new to be alarmed about, I was shocked back in 2009 when something which we exhale and plants depend on was classed as a pollutant, just like I was uncomfortable when people started seriously talking about getting it classified as one.

Around 20 years ago it was weird to see it pop up like that:

Another pollutant generated from coal burning is carbon dioxide.
The carbon dioxide emissions from coal burning is larger than any
other energy sources such as, petroleum and liquefied natural gas.
In addition, analysts argue that increases in carbon dioxide will
contribute to global warming.  Besides carbon dioxide, sulfur
dioxide, which is believed to cause acid raid, is another pollutant
generated from coal burning.

Now it's normal to discuss CO2 as a pollutant without even specifying the source, or just talk about "carbon" as a catch-all. It took almost ten years to go from the first serious pushes for the EPA to do it before it happened, but it did. I thought it was absurd to imagine CO2 as a pollutant being taken seriously, just like it is absurd to imagine the more extreme routes which "fighting the good fight" against CO2 could take us down.

As it happens I've had almost this exact discussion about how alarming I found people slipping up and calling CO2 a pollutant was, and I've been told that it is absurd and it will never happen. I don't like being right about this shit, but "don't be ridiculous, Max" is little comfort at this point. You hear "we have to save the planet", I hear "we could save the planet if only people weren't such assholes... and there weren't so many of them either" and sit here wondering if it really is just me that's uncomfortable with this.

Here's a question: what do you think will happen to carbon taxes if we manage to cut all fossil fuel burning, switch all of our industries which involve CO2 emission, and so forth?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

"If we install regulations, people might install stupid regulations! The solution is to not regulate anything, and let the corporations fuck us all over."

yeaaaaah no

And CO2 is a pollutant (in this situation), adding it to the atmosphere from non-plant sources (fossil fuels etc.) has a harmful impact on the environment, that's what a pollutant is.

Max, I'm not sure what you disagree with, could you tell me at which step you stop agreeing?

1. The Earth's atmosphere keeps the planet much warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.
2. The main gases which contribute to this are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and water vapor. Collectively, these are called greenhouse gases (GHGs).
3. The ability of these gases to act as greenhouse gases can be shown in a laboratory.
4. The quantity of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution, and their concentration continues to do so.
5. The concentration of these gases has increased as a consequence of human activity.
6. The temperature of Earth's atmosphere has been increasing and continues to increase.
7. The increase in global temperature correlates with the increases of greenhouse gases.
8. The increase in temperature has been caused by the increase in greenhouse gases.

[Max™]

Even assuming that to be the case: what is going to happen to carbon taxes if we end up stopping fossil fuel/etc emissions?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Even assuming that to be the case: what is going to happen to carbon taxes if we end up stopping fossil fuel/etc emissions?

Unless there are other significant sources of CO2 emission, they would become irrelevant. Presumably they would be removed or "put on hold" until we find another way to wreck our spaceship.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

It isn't like this is something brand new to be alarmed about, I was shocked back in 2009 when something which we exhale and plants depend on was classed as a pollutant, just like I was uncomfortable when people started seriously talking about getting it classified as one.

CO2 is necessary, too much is bad. That's like saying "what do you mean, it's bad to dump 100 tons of sand onto the sandbox, it's necessary for the sandbox to have sand!"

Around 20 years ago it was weird to see it pop up like that:

Another pollutant generated from coal burning is carbon dioxide.
The carbon dioxide emissions from coal burning is larger than any
other energy sources such as, petroleum and liquefied natural gas.
In addition, analysts argue that increases in carbon dioxide will
contribute to global warming.  Besides carbon dioxide, sulfur
dioxide, which is believed to cause acid raid, is another pollutant
generated from coal burning.

Now it's normal to discuss CO2 as a pollutant without even specifying the source, or just talk about "carbon" as a catch-all.

Because the English language finds shortcuts... carbon is faster to say than "carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning".

It took almost ten years to go from the first serious pushes for the EPA to do it before it happened, but it did. I thought it was absurd to imagine CO2 as a pollutant being taken seriously, just like it is absurd to imagine the more extreme routes which "fighting the good fight" against CO2 could take us down.

Plenty of real things seem absurd...

As it happens I've had almost this exact discussion about how alarming I found people slipping up and calling CO2 a pollutant was, and I've been told that it is absurd and it will never happen. I don't like being right about this shit, but "don't be ridiculous, Max" is little comfort at this point. You hear "we have to save the planet", I hear "we could save the planet if only people weren't such assholes... and there weren't so many of them either" and sit here wondering if it really is just me that's uncomfortable with this.

Most "alarmists" don't support killing half the world, no... and people are shitting where they sleep, pardon my French. Isn't that assholey?

[Sergarr]

Even assuming that to be the case: what is going to happen to carbon taxes if we end up stopping fossil fuel/etc emissions?

They stop being relevant, duh.

Or do you expect the government to start taxing people's breathing? Actually, they already sort of do that - it's called "income tax", so I don't even see how that would be anything particularly new.

Also, fun stuff: water vapour is actually one of the strongest greenhouse gases, so it's technically a pollutant, too, but we can't quite get rid of it, so it stays untaxed.... for now.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Nooooooo another misconception!

Water vapor is one of the strongest GHGs, but it falls out of the air! (It's called "rain.") The amount of water vapor in the air is largely determined by the temperature of the air, which is affected by how much GHG is in the air. This is called a "positive feedback loop", because increasing the temperature 1C will bring more water vapor in, which will increase the temperature of the air even more.

Even if we put enough water vapor in the atmosphere to make a difference, it would fall out within a week or so. Water vapor is not a pollutant.

[TempAcc]

I'd be severaly disappointed and more than willing to pull out a sniper rifle and take out some key figures if the government actualy taxed people's breathing instead of a much more dangerous and prolific source of greenhouse gasses: livestock farts.

[Rockphed]

I'd be severaly disappointed and more than willing to pull out a sniper rifle and take out some key figures if the government actualy taxed people's breathing instead of a much more dangerous and prolific source of greenhouse gasses: livestock farts.

Political Assassination is not worthy of a free state.  I tell it to people on both sides of the political spectrum because it is true and I like my country being a free state.

Nooooooo another misconception!

Water vapor is one of the strongest GHGs, but it falls out of the air! (It's called "rain.") The amount of water vapor in the air is largely determined by the temperature of the air, which is affected by how much GHG is in the air. This is called a "positive feedback loop", because increasing the temperature 1C will bring more water vapor in, which will increase the temperature of the air even more.

Even if we put enough water vapor in the atmosphere to make a difference, it would fall out within a week or so. Water vapor is not a pollutant.

High levels of water vapor in the air also lead to increased albedo because it rises and forms clouds, so water vapor is not quite as much a positive feedback loop as people like to claim.  Albeit, clouds, with their brightness temperatures in the 50K range, are significantly warmer than deep space (brightness temperature 2.4K, so they keep things from cooling off as fast at night.  Generally, global temperature feedback loops are complex and not well understood.  Many of the global warming doomsday scenarios are predicated on everything going wrong in the right way.

[Criptfeind]

I'd be severaly disappointed and more than willing to pull out a sniper rifle and take out some key figures if the government actualy taxed people's breathing instead of a much more dangerous and prolific source of greenhouse gasses: livestock farts.

Political Assassination is not worthy of a free state.  I tell it to people on both sides of the political spectrum because it is true and I like my country being a free state.

Heh, although I obviously don't condone violence, and I'm pretty sure he was just joking none the less, I'm pretty sure you can't claim to be living in a free state when people have to pay to breath as in this joke scenario.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Nooooooo another misconception!

Water vapor is one of the strongest GHGs, but it falls out of the air! (It's called "rain.") The amount of water vapor in the air is largely determined by the temperature of the air, which is affected by how much GHG is in the air. This is called a "positive feedback loop", because increasing the temperature 1C will bring more water vapor in, which will increase the temperature of the air even more.

Even if we put enough water vapor in the atmosphere to make a difference, it would fall out within a week or so. Water vapor is not a pollutant.

High levels of water vapor in the air also lead to increased albedo because it rises and forms clouds, so water vapor is not quite as much a positive feedback loop as people like to claim.  Albeit, clouds, with their brightness temperatures in the 50K range, are significantly warmer than deep space (brightness temperature 2.4K, so they keep things from cooling off as fast at night.  Generally, global temperature feedback loops are complex and not well understood.

Of course! We don't have a full picture, there's still tons of science to do... but we can be very certain that CO2 has a positive correlation with temperature.

We don't know exactly how bad the situation is, but it's pretty bad nonetheless.

Many of the global warming doomsday scenarios are predicated on everything going wrong in the right way.

Before I type an angry rant, care to specify exactly which scenarios are "doomsday"?

[TempAcc]

I'd be severaly disappointed and more than willing to pull out a sniper rifle and take out some key figures if the government actualy taxed people's breathing instead of a much more dangerous and prolific source of greenhouse gasses: livestock farts.

Political Assassination is not worthy of a free state.  I tell it to people on both sides of the political spectrum because it is true and I like my country being a free state.

Heh, although I obviously don't condone violence, and I'm pretty sure he was just joking none the less, I'm pretty sure you can't claim to be living in a free state when people have to pay to breath as in this joke scenario.

Ironically, the only part of that comment that wasn't a joke was the thing about livestock farts. Livestock farts contribute pretty significantly to the accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

[smjjames]

I'd be severaly disappointed and more than willing to pull out a sniper rifle and take out some key figures if the government actualy taxed people's breathing instead of a much more dangerous and prolific source of greenhouse gasses: livestock farts.

Assassination isn't cool, come on man.

Edit: Also, in order for the water vapor to stay in the atmosphere and not fall back down, it would have to be so hot that the ocean boils, even at the pole, in the middle of winter. We'd likely be dead long before that happens anyway.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

So these "doomsday" scenarios... about them...

• Rising sea levels: as glaciers melt and the sea undergoes thermal expansion, there could be anywhere from 3.5 inches to 3 feet of sea level rise... unless the Greenland ice sheet melts, in which case there would be a further 23 foot increase in sea level. (The latter is unlikely if we stop things now, but if we continue... Miami, NYC, New Orleans, Venice, Tokyo, Mumbai, Shangai, all underwater. Say hello to the future.)
• More active weather systems: more energy in the atmosphere, more severe weather effects (storms, floods, heatwaves, hurricanes). Especially hurricanes - they depend on warm sea surface temperatures, which currently constrains them to certain areas. No more, if AGW goes unchecked.
• Disturbed rainfall patterns: floods and droughts, especially closer to the equator
• Ocean acidification: carbonic acid, this is the obvious result of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, even if you don't accept AGW
• Tipping points/feedback loops: if the northern permafrost melts, vast amounts of methane will be released. Remember the Permian mass extinction? This may have been the cause.

I'd be severaly disappointed and more than willing to pull out a sniper rifle and take out some key figures if the government actualy taxed people's breathing instead of a much more dangerous and prolific source of greenhouse gasses: livestock farts.

Assassination isn't cool, come on man.

Edit: Also, in order for the water vapor to stay in the atmosphere and not fall back down, it would have to be so hot that the ocean boils. We'd likely be dead long before that happens anyway.

...what? How much water vapor?

[smjjames]

I'd be severaly disappointed and more than willing to pull out a sniper rifle and take out some key figures if the government actualy taxed people's breathing instead of a much more dangerous and prolific source of greenhouse gasses: livestock farts.

Assassination isn't cool, come on man.

Edit: Also, in order for the water vapor to stay in the atmosphere and not fall back down, it would have to be so hot that the ocean boils. We'd likely be dead long before that happens anyway.

...what? How much water vapor?

I was just stating a scenario where that would happen. The only time Earth was ever in that situation was when it was newly formed, and after the Earth-Theia collision, I don't know if the oceans started forming before that, but it didn't take long after formation.