dave1949
Super Star Member
It would be useful to think of global warming/climate change in terms of what is really is: global carbon exchange. Carbon exchange is the root cause, climate change is one of the effects, a result.
Carbon has been taken from primarily underground/ocean bed locations where it was largely unable to interact with other elements and placed into the air and water where it will be very active. Carbon is a very "friendly" element, the opposite of being inert basically. It readily combines with many other elements. Humans, and 99.9% of the rest of the living things on the planet, are a carbon-based life form. That is thought to be no accident, it is attributed to carbon's chemical propensity to readily combine with other elements.
If one wishes to talk about the science of global warming, then the science that really matters is: what happens when massive amounts of carbon are exchanged from a locked-up to an available state? Then one can begin to trace where that carbon is going and what chemical reactions will ensue. Once those pathways are identified, one can study the impact that the chemical reactions will have.
That carbon exchange has to be accounted for one way or another, by one or many results. Denying that there will be carbon exchange results is the same as denying the chemistry of carbon, and that doesn't make any sense at all. I have yet to see a "denier" source admit this truth that they dance around trying to pretend carbon chemistry does not exist.
Saying that nothing humans can possibly do, such as extracting massive amounts of carbon, is going to make much difference is an argument of scale. Well, humans have already made numerous far-reaching changes to the planet on a large scale in other cases. Forest extent and fresh water and ocean resources are obvious examples of humans' ability to significantly alter the planet. There is nothing magical about carbon exchange on a massive scale that would rule out planet alteration, and we have already proven our capability.
The link below to the US Energy Information Administration will display global totals of coal, oil and natural gas consumption from 1980 through 2011 or 2013 depending on which is being displayed. The link is set to show global coal consumption 1980-2012. Annual global coal consumption went from 4.1 trillion tons in 1980 to 8.4 trillion tons in 2012.
You can look at the billions and trillions of tons and cubic feet of carbon-based fuels used just since 1980 by using the interactive web page to select the fuel, then click on "UPDATE". That does not account for the billions and trillions of carbon fuels consumed prior to 1980.
Think about it: billions and trillions of large carbon-based units. Most people cannot even conceive of what a billion or trillion of something is, let alone trillions of tons. I know I can't.
International Energy Statistics - EIA
Climate change is a long-term issue. It will take decades to play out until the results are known and can be written as history. Whatever those results may be, they will persist over the long-term also. Therein lies the danger of doing nothing while poo-pooing predictions.
Suppose you are traveling in a vehicle to an unfamiliar place. The weatherman is predicting flash floods, so the highway crews set out High Water warning signs in the usual places. Of course you don't know the usual places, you are a stranger to the area. You are traveling into the unknown.
It's dark and raining, but the roadway you can see, which is not very far, only as far as your headlights show, is not flooded as you approach a High Water sign. Does the High Water warning guarantee the road ahead is flooded? No. Could the road be flooded? Yes. If the road is flooded and you continue driving as normal, will you drown, have a minor accident, or plow though successfully? No way to know.
So, you continued driving as normal, there was no flooded road. You approach another High Water warning sign. Your recent experience tells you that at least one sign was nothing to worry about. Does this prove the road ahead is or is not flooded? No. (Incidentally, I had this experience and it wasn't until the fourth High Water sign that there really was a flooded road and a solid sheet of flood water came up over the hood of the car. I plowed through with great and stupid luck.
)
Climate change predictions present the same sort of conundrum but applied to a much more complex situation. Setting aside climate change, the normal pollution and extraction devastation from carbon fuels is enough to warrant a great reduction in their use. Add the (unknown if you wish, I prefer somewhat known) risks of climate change to that, and it would be reasonable to take some prudent actions. How many warning signs can we blow through with no risk?
Carbon has been taken from primarily underground/ocean bed locations where it was largely unable to interact with other elements and placed into the air and water where it will be very active. Carbon is a very "friendly" element, the opposite of being inert basically. It readily combines with many other elements. Humans, and 99.9% of the rest of the living things on the planet, are a carbon-based life form. That is thought to be no accident, it is attributed to carbon's chemical propensity to readily combine with other elements.
If one wishes to talk about the science of global warming, then the science that really matters is: what happens when massive amounts of carbon are exchanged from a locked-up to an available state? Then one can begin to trace where that carbon is going and what chemical reactions will ensue. Once those pathways are identified, one can study the impact that the chemical reactions will have.
That carbon exchange has to be accounted for one way or another, by one or many results. Denying that there will be carbon exchange results is the same as denying the chemistry of carbon, and that doesn't make any sense at all. I have yet to see a "denier" source admit this truth that they dance around trying to pretend carbon chemistry does not exist.
Saying that nothing humans can possibly do, such as extracting massive amounts of carbon, is going to make much difference is an argument of scale. Well, humans have already made numerous far-reaching changes to the planet on a large scale in other cases. Forest extent and fresh water and ocean resources are obvious examples of humans' ability to significantly alter the planet. There is nothing magical about carbon exchange on a massive scale that would rule out planet alteration, and we have already proven our capability.
The link below to the US Energy Information Administration will display global totals of coal, oil and natural gas consumption from 1980 through 2011 or 2013 depending on which is being displayed. The link is set to show global coal consumption 1980-2012. Annual global coal consumption went from 4.1 trillion tons in 1980 to 8.4 trillion tons in 2012.
You can look at the billions and trillions of tons and cubic feet of carbon-based fuels used just since 1980 by using the interactive web page to select the fuel, then click on "UPDATE". That does not account for the billions and trillions of carbon fuels consumed prior to 1980.
Think about it: billions and trillions of large carbon-based units. Most people cannot even conceive of what a billion or trillion of something is, let alone trillions of tons. I know I can't.
International Energy Statistics - EIA
Climate change is a long-term issue. It will take decades to play out until the results are known and can be written as history. Whatever those results may be, they will persist over the long-term also. Therein lies the danger of doing nothing while poo-pooing predictions.
Suppose you are traveling in a vehicle to an unfamiliar place. The weatherman is predicting flash floods, so the highway crews set out High Water warning signs in the usual places. Of course you don't know the usual places, you are a stranger to the area. You are traveling into the unknown.
It's dark and raining, but the roadway you can see, which is not very far, only as far as your headlights show, is not flooded as you approach a High Water sign. Does the High Water warning guarantee the road ahead is flooded? No. Could the road be flooded? Yes. If the road is flooded and you continue driving as normal, will you drown, have a minor accident, or plow though successfully? No way to know.
So, you continued driving as normal, there was no flooded road. You approach another High Water warning sign. Your recent experience tells you that at least one sign was nothing to worry about. Does this prove the road ahead is or is not flooded? No. (Incidentally, I had this experience and it wasn't until the fourth High Water sign that there really was a flooded road and a solid sheet of flood water came up over the hood of the car. I plowed through with great and stupid luck.
)Climate change predictions present the same sort of conundrum but applied to a much more complex situation. Setting aside climate change, the normal pollution and extraction devastation from carbon fuels is enough to warrant a great reduction in their use. Add the (unknown if you wish, I prefer somewhat known) risks of climate change to that, and it would be reasonable to take some prudent actions. How many warning signs can we blow through with no risk?
