Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
Randito Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008 Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:34 am
|
|
|
091207usatoday global warming.91
|
Back to top |
|
|
drm Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:34 pm
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Joecreek Member
Joined: 07 Sep 2006 Posts: 114 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Joecreek
Member
|
Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:35 pm
|
|
|
The cartoon should say:
What if we transfer a trillion US dollars to other nations, slash domestic growth and employment while China and India's emissions increases add 100 times more CO2 than we reduced over the same time frame? And what if we did that on a supposition about future temperatures that was false? Eh, what's a trillion between friends. At least we'll feel virtuous.
|
Back to top |
|
|
gb Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010 Posts: 6310 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:41 pm
|
|
|
Joecreek wrote: | I haven't seen this addressed, although it is current. They are saying that the temperature record adjustments from which we make the statement of these being the hottest years on record and that more is coming.... are demonstrably false. |
Poppycock. Argument #100 read up, learn something:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
|
Back to top |
|
|
Randito Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008 Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:29 pm
|
|
|
Joecreek wrote: | What if we transfer a trillion US dollars to other nations, |
We are already sending 180 billion per year to other nations every year for imported oil. The trillion idea must be based on the "cap and trade" idea -- which I don't advocate.
Joecreek wrote: | China and India's emissions increases add 100 times more CO2 |
China has scalled way back on construction of new coal plants LINK
and is now heavily investing in solar. One example
India too is heavily investing in Solar Example
The current "oil and coal" energy policy has nothing to do with science, sound economic policy or building the future -- it has everything to do with campaign contributions and the disinformation campaigns that Exxon and other energy corporations have engaged into preserve their current business model.
But this head in the sand approach won't last forever -- solar power continues to drop in price -- LINK and soon it will not make economic sense to develop new oil fields -- particular expensive oils like shale and tar sands.
Demand for oil isn't meeting projections -- because of higher efficientcy vehicles, the growing number of electric vehicles and many other factors that allow our economy to move along with less oil than projected. LINK
As more folks by vehicles like the Tesla 3 or just jump on the bus -- demand for oil will remain soft and the price of gasoline will also remain at it's current remarkably cheap levels -- adjusted for inflation gasoline is about the same price as it was when I was in High School back in the '70s
|
Back to top |
|
|
drm Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:15 am
|
|
|
RandyHiker wrote: | The trillion idea must be based on the "cap and trade" idea -- which I don't advocate. |
I would assume it is based on the Green Climate Fund to assist other countries adapt to the greenhouse gases the US and other developed countries have been emitting for decades. Supposed to raise $100 billion by 2020, though these things never reach their goals.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Joecreek Member
Joined: 07 Sep 2006 Posts: 114 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Joecreek
Member
|
Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:52 pm
|
|
|
The US has CUT net emissions over the last decade. The cost of it is the increased cost of electricity, not just the subsidy to inefficient means of collection like solar and wind. Not to mention the lost opportunity cost to the economy of not having saved those dollars. Greens typically are ANTI natural gas because it's a carbon method. But natural gas is the epicenter of the real reduction in emissions. Anyhow, our embedded costs to our consumers and businesses is accelerating. We can't force consumers to buy American and we are making everything manufactured here more expensive. While others who already receive the offshoring of our work, do not harm themselves with similar restraint.
From the EPA's page on emissions, here's the CO2 global trend:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data#Trends
Rate of increase is steady, ours is a decrease. It's eaten and replaced by net growth. Europe has net increasing emissions despite massive expenditures:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/europes-co2-emissions-keep-rising-despite-1-2-trillion-in-green-subsidies/
The trend is clear. We can spend whatever we want and the globe's emissions will increase. We make our economy weaker as we make anything produced in the US ever more expensive. We can throw 2 even 3 trillion dollars at this problem and the outcome is fixed as a global system. It may make you feel better to punish yourself for having lived in the country that led the way to modernity but your sense of guilt is the only thing being cured with this current course of action. All that and we are anything but certain what will happen to temperatures or that the increase won't be manageable in it's modesty.
|
Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015 Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
Quote: | Where did you come up with 500 years? |
Extrapolating from the current trend of increasing carbon dioxide production, we will require many 100s of years to approach Mesozoic(>1000 ppm) carbon levels. That requires returning a large portion of ALL the fossil fuels on the planet to the atmosphere, and would be difficult and expensive even if we wanted to do such a thing. Note that even then, the planet would still support massive life. This is such a nonthreatening subject.
|
Back to top |
|
|
gb Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010 Posts: 6310 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:22 pm
|
|
|
Ignorance is bliss. We likely are way underestimating the ultimate effects of climate change in terms of threats to population, strife and wars, terrorism, and many other effects.
|
Back to top |
|
|
drm Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Fri Jul 28, 2017 11:48 am
|
|
|
The planet would support a lot of life at 1000ppm but that is way beyond anything that human beings have lived in. Keep in mind that rapid changes favor those species that evolve the fastest, which are those with the shortest generation times. Bacteria and insects.
There is some evidence that the last time the earth hit 1000ppm it change the chemistry of the oceans, driving much of the oxygen out and replacing with hydrogen sulfide. Living at or near the beach wouldn't be so much fun if it smelled like rotten eggs. And of course we would then lose ocean fish as a source of protein. While it would presumably take centuries to get to that level (stored carbon and methane could easily do it if we trigger that release) there is much to fear from it.
|
Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015 Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
With 100s of years of artificial intelligence research, genetically engineered viruses, and hopelessly idiotic politicians in charge of nuclear weapons... even sustained global warming is a pretty minor concern compared with other elements of our industrial society. Add to that a pretty reasonable threat of at least one mass starvation due to a VEI 6+/7- volcanic winter event in that timeframe... and the normal change/collapse/war of human civilizations inherent in our history, and you get a picture in which even sustained global warming is not very high on the list of threats.
And 100s of years of sustained global warming is unlikely, because we are likely to get cost effective solar/batteries and or fusion far before then, which will probably limit global warming to something utterly trivial.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Schenk Off Leash Man
Joined: 16 Apr 2012 Posts: 2372 | TRs | Pics Location: Traveling, with the bear, to the other side of the Mountain |
|
Schenk
Off Leash Man
|
Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:46 pm
|
|
|
Wars vs. climate change, which is more of a threat?
Comparing wars vs. climate change is like comparing a broken bone to incurable cancer and saying the cancer is no big deal because it will take longer to kill you.
Nature exists with a stark indifference to humans' situation.
Nature exists with a stark indifference to humans' situation.
|
Back to top |
|
|
drm Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:30 pm
|
|
|
Taken from a different thread:
thunderhead wrote: | If this was true, if there was a significant increase in strength of atmospheric eddies... we should see some evidence of it. We do not, at least not at the surface. There is no significant trend in frequency of surface storm parameters: high surface winds or low clouds... in the historical records of the worlds oldest airports. Additionally, there is no trend in precipitation patterns, nor in surface relative humidity. This is expected... as we have changed our atmospheres outgoing radiation by about a half percent, and the incoming solar radiation not at all... its unrealistic to expect major changes in storm strength with values that small. |
I'm not sure how you choose what to look for trends for, but I suggest atmospheric blocking. There have been peer reviewed studies that show an increase in them, as well as some studies that don't see a trend, And there also are trends for increased extreme rain events in the US due to same. As I understand it, with variations in what area is being studies and exactly what metric is used to define them. Blocking takes an existing weather event and makes it stick in one place for a longer time, which also lets it intensify.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Malachai Constant Member
Joined: 13 Jan 2002 Posts: 16092 | TRs | Pics Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny |
Schenk wrote: | Wars vs. climate change, which is more of a threat? |
We can and will have both according to the Pentagon, wars will inevitably follow from climate change.
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
|
Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015 Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
Quote: | I'm not sure how you choose what to look for trends for |
The most reliable long-term weather measurements that would be connected to storm intensity(airports have taken accurate and detailed records of wind and low clouds for a long time). Simply total the frequency of high side events per year, digging through the records of each long-term weather station. There is no detectable change in surface storm strength, based on wind or cloud variables.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|