Trump on Pollution

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Apparently he also doesnt want to roll back pollution regulations.

It's hard to wrap your head around it all. Nothing makes sense these days

 

[The Best JG]

Yawn... more theoretical stuff which has no place in the current energy discussion. You and I are just going around in circles.... while I agree that developing technology for FUTURE energy is good thing, we can't do what you're doing and ONLY look to the future while we're needing actual energy solutions in the mean time.

Also, energy being affordable is not a concept we've created as everything has a price; whether it's a cost in monetary units or a cost in energy units.

Well maybe we dont need to be driving f350s to work as a solo person, and have 6 tvs running simultaneously in a household. Time for energy brackets then? The more you consume, the more expensive it gets. Energy for essentials comes cheap, but once u start getting into super luxury energy u pay heavily for it, and this tax can fun R&D for technological energy advancements

How do you feel about that approach?

 

[usmctanker242]

Well maybe we dont need to be driving f350s to work as a solo person, and have 6 tvs running simultaneously in a household. Time for energy brackets then? The more you consume, the more expensive it gets. Energy for essentials comes cheap, but once u start getting into super luxury energy u pay heavily for it, and this tax can fun R&D for technological energy advancements

How do you feel about that approach?

Now you're getting weird... that's exactly the system we have in America where you're charged by the amount of energy you use in Kw/h. I keep the lights off in most of my house and I shiver in the winter and sweat in the summer to reduce those costs. Also, who are you to tell people how to utilize energy? Are you now some kind of energy czar who is going to determine who can / can not use energy? Where is the line going to be drawn and who is going to enforce it? You want to talk about creating a citizenry of peasants... this is how you do it.

If humanity wants to be SERIOUS about the effects of pollution / heat on the environment we need to reduce our numbers dramatically. There is no need for Earth to have 8,000,000,000+ people alive on the planet... but how do you fix this without some kind of authoritarian outlook? Humanity is a species which may be too egocentric and stupid to survive.

I'm not in agreement that technology is going to save humanity from itself when lack of resources and overpopulation destroy the species.

 

[waiguoren]

I gave up on trump the day he called climate change a chinese hoax bro. Dude is short sighted and gets fixated on nonsense. Yes the people in this thread know a lot more about his internal policies than me because im not american and dont give a fuck about US politics, im much more interested in science. i just hate him for being unconservative where it matters most, like the health of the planet. Lets pollute the shit out of it so we can compete with china or china will win. That was the message i got from him, its fucked up.

For the third time, you really need to tighten up your language.

Pollution is not the same as the greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect, the earth would be frozen solid and uninhabitable by humans. Throughout earth's history, atmospheric levels of water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane (the primary greenhouse gases) have varied tremendously. In particular, current atmospheric CO2 levels (about 400 ppm as measured at Mauna Loa) are not especially high when we compare to best estimates of the Cambrian period (on the order of 4500 ppm) during which life on earth flourished.

 

[King of Fists]

For the third time, you really need to tighten up your language.

Pollution is not the same as the greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect, the earth would be frozen solid and uninhabitable by humans. Throughout earth's history, atmospheric levels of water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane (the primary greenhouse gases) have varied tremendously. In particular, current atmospheric CO2 levels (about 400 ppm as measured at Mauna Loa) are not especially high when we compare to best estimates of the Cambrian period (on the order of 4500 ppm) during which life on earth flourished.

The pollution in the atmosphere causes an increase in the greenhouse effect, which is a bad thing (aka global warming).

I'd hope anyone commenting in a global warming thread would understand this basic fact.

 

[waiguoren]

The pollution in the atmosphere causes an increase in the greenhouse effect, which is a bad thing (aka global warming).

I'd hope anyone commenting in a global warming thread would understand this basic fact.

The primary, and most potent greenhouse gas is water vapor. Surely you do not think that water is a pollutant.

Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of animal respiration. Like water, it is necessary for plant life. Surely you do not think it is a pollutant.

 

[King of Fists]

The primary, and most potent greenhouse gas is water vapor. Surely you do not think that water is a pollutant.

Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of animal respiration. Like water, it is necessary for plant life. Surely you do not think it is a pollutant.

Serious question, do you know what constitutes pollution, and do you know why excessive carbon dioxide is worse for the environment than excessive water vapor?

 

[waiguoren]

excessive carbon dioxide is worse for the environment than excessive water vapor

Justify your claim.

Water is both the most abundant and most potent greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.

 

[King of Fists]

Justify your claim.

Water is both the most abundant and most potent greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.

Speed of chemical reactions -- water vapor stays in the atmosphere for hours, carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for 20-200 years, and even after that is only 65%-85% gone.

So if you release a large amount of water vapor into the atmosphere every day for a year, at the end of the year the greenhouse effect from the water vapor is the same as it was on day one, because everything you release is gone in a matter of hours. On the other hand if you do the same thing with carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect will be 364 times greater than it was on day 1, because none of it has decomposed and is all still present in the atmosphere.

 

[waiguoren]

Speed of chemical reactions -- water vapor stays in the atmosphere for hours, carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for 20-200 years, and even after that is only 65%-85% gone.

So if you release a large amount of water vapor into the atmosphere every day for a year, at the end of the year the greenhouse effect from the water vapor is the same as it was on day one, because everything you release is gone in a matter of hours. On the other hand if you do the same thing with carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect will be 364 times greater than it was on day 1, because none of it has decomposed and is all still present in the atmosphere.

There are inaccuracies in what you wrote (e.g., steady-state approximations of the warming effect of carbon dioxide emissions imply that the relationship is logarithmic, so the effect would be on the order of log(365), not 365), but at the end of the day you're having a different conversation from me.

My claim was that water vapor is the most abundant and potent greenhouse gas present in our atmosphere. It is incorrect to write, as you did, that carbon dioxide is more dangerous as a greenhouse gas than water vapor. In fact, the IPCC models which predict significant future global warming all rely on water vapor to amplify the warming effect of carbon dioxide. In the absence of water vapor, the warming effect of carbon dioxide is insignificant.

 

[The Best JG]

Damn u guys are pulling out some heavy science now, i love it! Cant even telll whos right anymore, sweet

 

[King of Fists]

There are inaccuracies in what you wrote (e.g., steady-state approximations of the warming effect of carbon dioxide emissions imply that the relationship is logarithmic, so the effect would be on the order of log(365), not 365), but at the end of the day you're having a different conversation from me.

My claim was that water vapor is the most abundant and potent greenhouse gas present in our atmosphere. It is incorrect to write, as you did, that carbon dioxide is more dangerous as a greenhouse gas than water vapor. In fact, the IPCC models which predict significant future global warming all rely on water vapor to amplify the warming effect of carbon dioxide. In the absence of water vapor, the warming effect of carbon dioxide is insignificant.

You're arguing semantics, that's like saying bad people aren't responsible for shootings, guns are responsible for shootings.

Yes, in the absence of water vapor, carbon dioxide has minimal impact. Please let me know how it works out for you living in a world with no water vapor.