The Pros and Cons of the Greenhouse Effect

Author: Conway ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 13
  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 226
    0
    2
    5
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    Some would say we are currently living through a mass extinction event, primarily driven by an unprecedented rise in the human population on every continent around the world.  Due in large part to the industrialization of economies increasingly open to global trade, an excessive amount of resources are presently available for a more uniform standard of living across nations.  On average there are between 4 and 5 acres of land for every person.  Given the current trajectory and given our capacity to produce things like shelter, food, and fresh water, it is said that many of today's children will experience the results of unsustainable population growth.

    The Greenhouse Effect is a result of gasses such as methane and carbon dioxide which retain energy from the sun and producing a higher surface temperature on earth relative to their concentration in the atmosphere.  Express your reasons to believe an increase in greenhouse gas concentration, a long term trend of rising sea levels, along with rising ocean and rising air temperatures, will tend to have a net-negative or net-positive effect on the standard of living for future generations.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,163
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Conway
    Well.  I unfirmly run with the idea that events are occurring as they are meant to. So what humans might obviously regard as a problem for humans , is in fact an inevitable consequence of the greater evolutionary process. Intelligence is key, and not necessarily the device that formulates and applies intelligence. Nonetheless, keeping the queens alive is currently of paramount importance, whereas the workers are dispensable and replaceable.
  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 226
    0
    2
    5
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    --> @TXHG
    As shown by my source, beef is just about the worst food around from a climate perspective.
    Your doomsday predictions are welcome here!  

  • TXHG
    TXHG avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 28
    0
    0
    2
    TXHG avatar
    TXHG
    --> @Conway
    To quote the full context of my post which was a reply to a different poster in a different thread:

    So your argument is that this is largely a natural cycle and man's influence on climate trends is negligible? Which judging by your response to Chris, you are largely assuming is based on Milankovitch cycles.

    That's a claim that is rather easy to disprove as we know what should be happening under a Milankovitch cycle and we're not seeing it.

    "Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago." [1] This isn't happening. We're warming. Not only that but "Not only is the planet undergoing one of the largest climate changes in the past 65 million years, scientists report that it's occurring at a rate 10 times faster than any change in that period." [2] So we're not only warming when we should be cooling, but we're doing so ten times faster than has been recorded in over a hundred Milankovitch cycles.

    We are in fact experiencing the exact opposite of what would be expected from a natural cycle - so claims that this is due to the natural cycle hold no weight.

    If you're not relying specifically on Milankovitch cycles but rather some other portion of earth's climate cycle you need to make that clear as your whole argument is very vague and lacking in specifics.

    To further address some other claims of yours.

    Beef production vs Rice

    You claim "rice paddies [cultivated wetlands] in combination with natural wetlands, rivers, lakes, and oceans emit more methane than do cows.". I'm not sure why you are comparing beef to a combination of rice AND all emissions from 70% of the earth's surface, but the truth is Beef emits more than 20 times more greenhouse gases per kilo than rice. [3] This lessens when you include the greater calorie per kg for beef, but it's still ten times worse. The total for rice is only higher because although it is far more efficient, there is also far far far more rice grown.

    As shown by my source, beef is just about the worst food around from a climate perspective.

    Forests
    You quote a source stating:

    "The United States lost an average of 384,350 hectares (949,750 acres) of forest each year between 1990 and 2010. A total of almost 4 million hectares (10 million acres) of timber is harvested each year, but most of that timber regenerates and remains classified as forested land..." and "In the United States, deforestation has been more than offset by reforestation between 1990 and 2010. The nation added 7,687,000 hectares (18,995,000 acres) of forested land during that period."

    You don't, however, make a larger argument on this point and by your own admission "400 years ago, the land mass that is now USA had 1B acres of forest" and that has declined by hundreds of millions of acres despite recent reversals. In addition, the total amount of deforestation is relevant on a GLOBAL level in terms of how the climate is affected and you make no argument about how that the loss of hundreds of million acres of US trees over the last 400 years is supposed to reverse the massive increase in carbon emissions.

    The Scientific Consensus

    You claim 'The "scientific community" is as diverse as is "Congress.' This is incorrect in terms of the consensus agreement of climate scientists on climate change.

    In fact an overwhelming majority of experts state that humans are causing global warming. Different studies find different amounts (even up to 100% for some) but it tends to be around 97% of experts [4].

    Vulcanism
    "Sure, but is it reasonable to assume that the age of massive vulcanism is passed? I live within the sure kill zone of the Yellowstone caldera, and it is overdue. So says the science."

    The volcano isn't overdue [5] and even if it was, it wouldn't be a case for the effects of all volcanos suddenly changing by orders of magnitude for the foreseeable future. You are the one that says that nature follows cycles. Why would these natural cycles suddenly change for no reason simply to suit your beliefs?

    Thoughts?
  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 61
    Forum posts: 1,891
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    But the cons outweigh the pros am I right.
  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 61
    Forum posts: 1,891
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    Is there any Pros at all? The fossil fuels industry has pros, greenhouse gases is a Con for me.
  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 226
    0
    2
    5
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    --> @TXHG
    If the worst we can come up with is postmodernism and vegans, that's no big deal.


  • TXHG
    TXHG avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 28
    0
    0
    2
    TXHG avatar
    TXHG
    --> @Conway @Intelligence_06
    You're both being rather vague. Can you clarify the points you're making and even what side of the debate you're on?
  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 226
    0
    2
    5
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    --> @TXHG
    The Greenhouse Effect is a result of gasses such as methane and carbon dioxide which retain energy from the sun and producing a higher surface temperature on earth relative to their concentration in the atmosphere.  Express your reasons to believe an increase in greenhouse gas concentration, a long term trend of rising sea levels, along with rising ocean and rising air temperatures, will tend to have a net-negative or net-positive effect on the standard of living for future generations.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,163
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    A nihilist would say that this has probably all happened before somewhere, and if the shit does eventually hit the fan, then what the f**K.

    Though maybe we are clever enough and will find the solution, as we were meant to do.
  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 226
    0
    2
    5
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    --> @zedvictor4
    A nihilist would say that this has probably all happened before somewhere
    Why? 

    And an analysis of history would contradict that line of thinking.  I think you'd conclude that if there has ever been a mass dump of greenhouse gas emissions on this scale it was probably prehistoric.  If you want to look into prehistoric evidence, we can make projections even further through careful examination of air pockets in ancient glaciers.

    Though maybe we are clever enough and will find the solution, as we were meant to do.
    A solution to what?
  • crossed
    crossed avatar
    Debates: 62
    Forum posts: 516
    2
    2
    6
    crossed avatar
    crossed
    They want to banned greenhouse's so when they pollute everything you can not grow food without it making you sick. Everything you eat has lead and mercury in it. apples peanuts orange's rice fruit juice's.lead and mercury is in everything.





  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,163
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Conway
    There's probably a lot more history than in the history books.

    Primarily a solution to the greenhouse gas problem....Though ultimately a solution and an end to our evolutionary purpose. 

    Our future will perhaps be someone or something else's history.