Environmentalism, right or wrong? Options

[*mipadi*]

certainly attempts to limit pollution can cause no harm.

right?

but isn't that just an assumption?

sure, mercury is bad and such. these things aren't good, and should be limited and controlled.
but things like carbon dioxide? it's iffy

sure, i understand combustion.

but let's think for a second.

we're burning fossil fuels, right?

that's made from dead animals.

now, years and years of animals have been dying, and the carbon in them is getting stored in a massive carbon sink.

right?

and then we humans come along, and in the past 200 years, open up that carbon sink and start releasing the carbon as carbon dioxide.

now. let's think. this is carbon that was from the atmosphere- that's where it came from. then us pesky animals came and stored it away as fossil fuels.

so obviously, carbon avalible must have been declining, right?

and we are carbon based life forms, are we not?

and plants need carbon dioxide. so what happens when there's more carbon dioxide? more plants can grow, causing more oxygen to be produced.

it's logically sound.

It's not logically sound, because you made one very big mistake: You assumed that if a compound contains an element, it has all the properties of that element. But a cursory study of chemistry shows that is not true.

Take the element oxygen. Combine two oxygen atoms, and you get O2, a nice gas that keeps us alive. Combine three atoms of oxygen, and you get O3, commonly known as ozone: a gas that is helpful because it blocks out harmful UV rays—until it forms on the surface of the earth, in which case it causes major respiratory problems and even death in high enough concentrations.

Take hydrogen, a dangerous, highly flammable gas. Combine four atoms of hydrogen and two atoms of oxygen, and what do you get? Two molecules of H2O, commonly called water, the building block of life and necessary for our survival. Combine two atoms of hydrogen and two atoms of oxygen, and what do you get? H2O2, or hydrogen peroxide, a potentially dangerous compound that is a liquid at room temperature.

So let's get back to carbon. Carbon is normally not a gas; it's normally found in the forms of say, diamons and graphite. Combine it with oxygen, and you get CO2, a gas that is dangerous to humans, and has properties very different from it's two basic elements, carbon and oxygen.

So no, your argument makes no sense because you are ignoring basic principles of chemistry. The cycle of carbon dioxide production and use does not work as simply as described, and yes, a buildup of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would have ill effects on the environment.

look, the point is, we don't know what's good for the environment

sure we know what's bad for the environment, like CFCs, and heavy metals in the water.

but how do we do what's good for the environment if we dont' even know what it is?

Justin, you act as though scientists are stupid, and no one is actually studying the environment, or effects on the environment, or anything of that nature. Yes, scientists disagree about some specifics of environmentalist policies (especially in global warming and natural forest fires), but scientists do understand how the environment works, and they do know a lot of things that are good and bad for it.

[sadolakced acid]

carbon is most prevalently found in carbon dioxide.

it makes its way into diamonds and graphite through plants.

i'm not ignoring basic chemestry- i'm assuming that there are living things on the earth, which form part of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide isn't locked up as such.

look, scientists can't even explan everything about cloud formation. the most powerful comptuers in teh world are weather simulators- and yet no one can create one that works. The can't even predict el nino- which is the most significate weather phenomenon that effects the world, as of now.

rather, it's specifics that scientists know. how clouds form, etc. things that can be tested.

but it's the big things and the things that involve the whole world- like global warming- that leave scientists puzzled.

why? you can't do experients. we've only got one earth.

all you can do is observe- except you don't know the initial conditions and you don't know the variables.

here's a mental excercise for you:

tell me what is definatively good for the enviroment.

and, if you care to try, tell me these general principles that govern weather. For instance- what causes el nino, and when's the next one coming?

[*mipadi*]

You're definitely in the minority if you're arguing that we don't need to limit—or can even increase—our CO2 emissions. There are not a significant number of scientists arguing that position.

Most of the "mistakes" in "environmentalism" you cited—extermination of wolves in Yellowstone, or preventation of forest fires—are also not done in the name of environmentalism. It's not environmentalists trying to stop forest fires to exterminate wolves in Yellowstone, so I'm not sure why you're using that as a reason to stop trying to maintain a healthy environment.

[sadolakced acid]

im not saying we dont' need a limit. i'm saying we need more research.

anyways, i noticed you didn't answer my question. please try.

[*mipadi*]

I'm not a meteorologist, Justin, and unlike most people in the Debate Forum, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in a field in which I am not. However, just because I don't know how El Niño works doesn't mean that no one has any idea; further, you're throwing up a straw man in order to detract from the real issue here. El Niño is a weather phenonemon, not a problem of environmentalism. I'm not seeing the connection you're trying to draw, other than making some point that makes no sense.

[sadolakced acid]

it's not a straw man.

el nino is part of the environment.

we don't understand el nino. sure, people research it. but according to wikipedia, there are six major theories, all viable.

the point i'm trying to make is:

how do you know what's good for the environment? You can't just assume- that's what they did with wolves and forest fires.

data is lacking. concrete evidence is lacking. theories are abundant. which one do you follow?

i'm not saying pollute away.

i'm saying, untill we understand the environment better, we should be wary of attempts to "save the environment". because the cure could be worse than the disease. we just don't know.

[demolished]

sadolakced acid, i wouldnt blame nature for global warming. people are using too much gas for resources.

sadly, there arent many rainforest out there. why would you want to abolish it? once it's abolish, it's gone. that's it. do you think it's going to grow back? No. Business people are going to use that property for $$$ and will cause more co2. it's going to hurt people who are so bonded so nature.

[*mipadi*]

it's not a straw man.

el nino is part of the environment.

we don't understand el nino. sure, people research it. but according to wikipedia, there are six major theories, all viable.

the point i'm trying to make is:

how do you know what's good for the environment? You can't just assume- that's what they did with wolves and forest fires.

data is lacking. concrete evidence is lacking. theories are abundant. which one do you follow?

i'm not saying pollute away.

i'm saying, untill we understand the environment better, we should be wary of attempts to "save the environment". because the cure could be worse than the disease. we just don't know.

Once again, I ask: How is reducing CO2 emissions going to hinder the environment? Just because scientists don't know how El Niño works, doesn't mean they don't understand how carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere. So I point out again: Cutting emissions isn't going to hurt the environment, but not cutting them might. I'd go with the safer bet.

[sadolakced acid]

and i ask:

how do you know that reducing CO2 emmissions will help the environment?
how do you know that reducing CO2 emmissions won't hurt the environment?

[*mipadi*]

and i ask:

how do you know that reducing CO2 emmissions will help the environment?
how do you know that reducing CO2 emmissions won't hurt the environment?

CO2 builds up in the atmosphere, creating a blanket that traps heat, like a greenhouse.

[marzipan]

and, if you care to try, tell me these general principles that govern weather. For instance- what causes el nino, and when's the next one coming?

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/el-nino-story.html

do some research or something if you want to learn more about it.

[sadolakced acid]

^ that's how el nino forms.

but what triggers it?


michael; this blanket that traps heat, it means the upper atmosphere should be heating up, right?

from wikipedia:

"Global warming refers to the observed increases in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades."

but that's not what's happening:

from this site (http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_temp_glbave.html)







you can see, the upper atmosphere is cooling.

the lower atmosphere is indeed warming- but it's the opposite of what global warming predicts. global warming says that the upper heats up, becuase of the excess carbon dioxide in it, then the lower heats up.

[*mipadi*]

you can see, the upper atmosphere is cooling.

the lower atmosphere is indeed warming- but it's the opposite of what global warming predicts. global warming says that the upper heats up, becuase of the excess carbon dioxide in it, then the lower heats up.

Uh, no, I believe the lower layers would heat up first.

[sadolakced acid]

really now?

mayhaps you could site a source...

[*mipadi*]

really now?

mayhaps you could site a source...

Justin, if the CO2 traps heat, why would it heat up the upper atmosphere first?

Think about it for more than ten seconds.

[sadolakced acid]

you're assuming things.

CO2 doesn't trap heat.

it absorbs radiation. from the sun. in the upper atmosphere first.

[*mipadi*]

you're assuming things.

CO2 doesn't trap heat.

it absorbs radiation. from the sun. in the upper atmosphere first.

It essentially traps heat, because thermal radiation from the surface, caused by light from the sun, can't get back out.

Read up on the greenhouse effect and global warming, and then come back when you have a handle on how it works, please.

[sadolakced acid]

mayhaps you should do the same.

CO2 is not a blanket. it's not insulated the heat from escaping. it's allowing the earth to absorb more thermal radiation from the sun than without it.

or, how about this, you explain global warming and the greenhouse effect to me.

[*mipadi*]

In a nutshell, solar engine from the sun is able to penetrate the earth's atmosphere. It heats the earth's surface, which then radiates it back out as heat energy in the infrared range. The atmosphere, however, blocks infrared energy, creating a barrier that traps much of this radiated energy. CO2, along with a number of other gases, essentially aids this effect.

[sadolakced acid]

generally right, but your description of it as a barrier is misleading.

the atmosphere isn't keeping the earth warm, like a simple blanket.

the atmosphere itself is warming, like an electric blanket, which in turn warms the earth.

which is why it's not logical that the upper atmosphere is cooling.

[*mipadi*]

The atmosphere blocks thermal radiation, which has a great effect on keeping the surface of the earth warm. My description was not inaccurate or misleading.

[sadolakced acid]

blocks?

like, it reflects heat back like the frosted glass of a greenhouse?

[*mipadi*]

I wouldn't use the word "reflect", but yes, it does radiate heat back.

It's like a greenhouse in that it traps heat. It doesn't truly function in precisely the same manner.

[*mipadi*]

Global Temperature Highest in Millennia

The planet's temperature has climbed to levels not seen in thousands of years, warming that has begun to affect plants and animals, researchers report in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The Earth has been warming at a rate of 0.36 degree Fahrenheit per decade for the last 30 years, according to the research team led by James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

That brings the overall temperature to the warmest in the current interglacial period, which began about 12,000 years ago.

Read more…

[think!IMAGINARIL...]

and i ask:

how do you know that reducing CO2 emmissions will help the environment?
how do you know that reducing CO2 emmissions won't hurt the environment?

Were these questions answered yet? I have my own opinions to add to it.

Reducing it greatly will harm the environment, but the CO2 levels right now are dangerous. Reducing CO2 levels by a lot will make the global temperature drop steeply.
Reducing it slowly will probably help the record-breaking temperatures to cool down a bit.

CO2 production from increased industrial activity (fossil fuel burning) and other human activities such as cement production and tropical deforestation has increased the CO2concentrations in the atmosphere. Measurements of carbon dioxide amounts from Mauna Loa observatory show that CO2 has increased from about 313 ppm (parts per million) in 1960 to about 375 ppm in 2005. The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the geological record of CO2 maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data (Hansen, J., Climatic Change, 68, 269, 2005 ISSN 0165-0009).

Because it is a greenhouse gas, elevated CO2 levels will increase global mean temperature. There has been an observed global average temperature increase of about 0.5oC since 1960 (Science 308, 1431, 2005), . Quantitative understanding of climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration remains elusive due to uncertainties in a variety of feedbacks, especially those related to clouds, but there is little doubt that a substantial portion of the warming in the last half century was caused by the incresase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

This probably answers the second one.
Directly from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

And I suggest you go watch An Inconvenient Truth (or read it). I thought it was a great documentary.