Global warming still happening

[gropouce]

i won't never give targets to anyone, mate.
i do think we all can make more than we actually do. But i don't have a clue about how we can do this.

1. Ration gas to 10 gallons / car / week
2. Illegal to water lawns
3. Illegal to have air conditioning setting below 80 deg F
4. Stop coal mining.

this is for civilians only.
You may think about industries.

IMOO, you better :

1- Encourage people to buy cleaner cars
2- Encourage people to part with their old cars too polluting
3' Encourage car manufacturers to build cleaner cars
4-Encourage (sorry, I prefer to encourage rather than prohibit) an agriculture emits less CO2


(i say that, but i admit i have no idea if it could be effective or not)

 

[johnsonma]

It blows my mind how the lie that climate change models are inaccurate has been spouted so much it is accepted as gospel. Sure, they are not 100% but they are pretty damn good! They will never be 100% but they are still very accurate.

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

Here is study predicting a rapid change in the temperature of the earth.

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

There is a reason the U.S is one of the the only developed nations(if not the only) to refute climate change with no evidence. That is because it has become politicized and no longer pertains to reason and logic. Its disturbing that people would trust talking heads and rhetoric over scientific evidence and observation. When arguments are made that its too complex to understand or the process is not up to par when the evidence is overwhelming you know you have a problem. You are using the doubt that exists naturally in the scientific process to try and dismantle the entire argument and that is dishonest. It is the same tactic that creationists use against evolution and doesn't stand up to honest examination.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Lets
DO
something.
Operative word "DO" instead of "say" like johnsonma's post.

1. Ration gas to 10 gallons / car / week
2. Illegal to water lawns
3. Illegal to have air conditioning setting below 80 deg F
4. Stop coal mining.

This is a good start. And yet these measure won't come close to the changes Gropouce et al want the US to approach. No.4 is probably the largest job loss. But as Gropounce would say, C'est la vie.

But really; I could live with these changes in my life.

Yes, let's do things that we know will have significant negative effects on the standard of living of the country just because something bad might possibly happen because of global warming. That sounds pretty dumb, doesn't it? Let's look at your suggestions:

1. This will have fairly little net effect on fuel usage by private citizens as the average person as 10 gallons per week per car is about what most people use anyway. Most people put about 10,000-12,000 miles per year on their vehicles, which would be 192 to 230 miles per week. 19-23 miles/gallon is pretty typical for what most people get with their vehicles. However, you would be guaranteed to be setting up a huge black market and fuel theft situation as people don't always use the same amount of fuel each week (e.g. they take a car trip and use a week's allotment in a handful of hours) and also there are people who drive their vehicles 5000 miles per year and others who drive 35,000 miles/year. A hard and fast limit would simply not be practical unless you want a lot of organized and unorganized crime sprouting up, just like with Prohibition and the "War on Drugs."

2. Most people don't water their lawns. Lawn watering has little to nothing to do with CO2 global warming. Water usage is a different topic entirely.

3. This doesn't make a lot of sense because energy usage with HVAC use is more strongly correlated with outside temp, amount of insulation in the house, size of house, and efficiency of your HVAC system than it is desired inside temperature. Example: you use a lot less energy cooling a little tiny little one-bedroom apartment with a window unit to 72 F when it's 78 F outside vs. cooling a 10,000 square foot house to 80 F when it's 105 F outside. In addition, there are forms of actually useful base load energy generation make zero carbon dioxide, namely hydroelectric and nuclear. A/C electricity use when using those power sources makes zippo carbon dioxide. But I suppose it's not environmentalism unless we are made to feel our sacrifices, right?

4. Coal is a massive energy source which is available domestically. It is one of a handful of reliable base load energy generation methods and actually should be the one of the most palatable to the environmentalists. Nuclear, oil, gas, and hydroelectricity are the other reliable base load generation methods. Oil and gas are much more expensive than coal and oil is generally imported, "noo-cue-lar" is scary because it's radioactive, and hydroelectricity requires dams.

If you really wanted to "do something to protect the environment" you would have no children and convince all of the rest of the environmentalists to do likewise. More people require more resources to support or run in reverse, with fewer people each person can have a higher standard of living without increased total resource use.

this is for civilians only.
You may think about industries.

IMOO, you better :

1- Encourage people to buy cleaner cars
2- Encourage people to part with their old cars too polluting
3' Encourage car manufacturers to build cleaner cars
4-Encourage (sorry, I prefer to encourage rather than prohibit) an agriculture emits less CO2

Numbers 1 and 2- you do realize it takes a huge amount of energy and resources to make a new car vs. continuing to use one that is already manufactured, right?

Number 3- and if the Tier 4 diesel emissions are any indication, the emissions devices are pretty problematic past a certain point (that we've crossed- any time you require an active catalyst {which is what the DEF SCR is} you are sunk in this regard) and leads to a shorter lifespan of the entire machine. This takes a lot of resources to replace, see #1 and #2.

4. Yes, growing plants creates an enormous amount of CO2...

(i say that, but i admit i have no idea if it could be effective or not)

Yes, there you go, recommending things we all know cost money and have downsides with an upside of "no idea if it could be effective or not." You're very much in line with the global warming folks there, buddy.

It blows my mind how the lie that climate change models are inaccurate has been spouted so much it is accepted as gospel. Sure, they are not 100% but they are pretty damn good! They will never be 100% but they are still very accurate.

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

Here is study predicting a rapid change in the temperature of the earth.

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

There is a reason the U.S is one of the the only developed nations(if not the only) to refute climate change with no evidence. That is because it has become politicized and no longer pertains to reason and logic. Its disturbing that people would trust talking heads and rhetoric over scientific evidence and observation. When arguments are made that its too complex to understand or the process is not up to par when the evidence is overwhelming you know you have a problem. You are using the doubt that exists naturally in the scientific process to try and dismantle the entire argument and that is dishonest. It is the same tactic that creationists use against evolution and doesn't stand up to honest examination.

The issue is that you can actually run controlled trials to show that at least micro-evolution exists. It's simple to do and the fairly new existence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and viruses shows that very clearly. Those trials also show HOW the process of evolution in that specific case occured and what changes were made as well. It's a much different story with CO2 global warming as we can't do a controlled trial to elucidate the processes in question and thus there is a lot of guesswork and faith involved. The fact that there's a lot of guesswork and unknowns involved yet the CO2 global warming people are shouting "the sky is falling, it's settled science!" from the rooftops is what we are skeptical about. This would be like somebody in 1982 saying that the disease we now call AIDS is absolutely conclusively "settled science" linked to homosexuality as the only people who were known to have the disease at that time were gay. The medical community even called the disease Gay-Related Immune Deficiency at that time. It wasn't until a couple of years later that HIV was discovered and cases involving heterosexuals came to light as well. I think more time to get a better understanding of what's going on with global warming is very smart before we ardently jump to premature conclusions.

 

[johnsonma]

Here you go MU,

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/PGG/pubs/WullschlegerAndStrahl(2010).pdf

 

[MU_Engineer]

Here you go MU,

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/PGG/pubs/WullschlegerAndStrahl(2010).pdf

EDIT: Had to manually type parentheses in to get the article.

This four-year-old popular-press magazine article you linked to is solely about running small-scale growing tests on plants when the CO2 concentration, temperature, and rainfall are varied. (Ironically the plants grown in the higher-CO2 areas did better than the ones in low-CO2 areas.) This was a "what could happen if the predictions of global warming are in fact true" set of experiments. The article and the experiments contained therein had nothing to do with discussing any evidence behind CO2 global warming.

 

[gropouce]

this is for civilians only.
You may think about industries.

IMOO, you better :

1- Encourage people to buy cleaner cars
2- Encourage people to part with their old cars too polluting
3' Encourage car manufacturers to build cleaner cars
4-Encourage (sorry, I prefer to encourage rather than prohibit) an agriculture emits less CO2

Numbers 1 and 2- you do realize it takes a huge amount of energy and resources to make a new car vs. continuing to use one that is already manufactured, right?

Number 3- and if the Tier 4 diesel emissions are any indication, the emissions devices are pretty problematic past a certain point (that we've crossed- any time you require an active catalyst {which is what the DEF SCR is} you are sunk in this regard) and leads to a shorter lifespan of the entire machine. This takes a lot of resources to replace, see #1 and #2.

4. Yes, growing plants creates an enormous amount of CO2...

(i say that, but i admit i have no idea if it could be effective or not)

Yes, there you go, recommending things we all know cost money and have downsides with an upside of "no idea if it could be effective or not." You're very much in line with the global warming folks there, buddy.

I admit i'm not an expert, but i have AT LEAST some knowledge... do you ?

4. Yes, growing plants creates an enormous amount of CO2...

Yes it does. And FIY, agriculture is not only "growing plants"... and point is not only CO²... but greenhouse gazs
When you don't know, you'd better make some research before to talk

Numbers 1 and 2- you do realize it takes a huge amount of energy and resources to make a new car vs. continuing to use one that is already manufactured, right?

Resources and energy used to produced new cars will be used anyway unless you closes ALL factories in the country.
After that, the idea is to use them wisely and it looks like this is where it escapes you.

 

[johnsonma]

Here you go MU,

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/PGG/pubs/WullschlegerAndStrahl(2010).pdf

EDIT: Had to manually type parentheses in to get the article.

This four-year-old popular-press magazine article you linked to is solely about running small-scale growing tests on plants when the CO2 concentration, temperature, and rainfall are varied. (Ironically the plants grown in the higher-CO2 areas did better than the ones in low-CO2 areas.) This was a "what could happen if the predictions of global warming are in fact true" set of experiments. The article and the experiments contained therein had nothing to do with discussing any evidence behind CO2 global warming.

The main thing I was referencing was that there are small scale experiments taking place in controlled environments. Rising CO2 is not a prediction, it is a clearly measurable fact. Since we cannot control the entire climate the best we can do is these smaller scale representations. Probably should have elaborated a little bit more then what i did but I ended up getting busy right when i went to post that.

 

[musical marv]

How hard it is to test the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere? Not very hard. How hard is it to test the temperature of the ocean in many different places? Not very hard. How hard is it to determine conditions present many years ago? Not very hard with ice core samples among other evidence.

Why does the entire earth have to be a controlled experiment when it can be broken up into multiple experiments? Even if you don't believe the process is up to par, certainly you have to consider the empirical evidence to be pointing in a certain direction?

The fact that you just said that all that is behind the CO2 experiments is a perceived relation to temperature shows me that you haven't looked at the studies in depth. I guess its safe to say that you believe in the propaganda that the models are inaccurate?

Reminds me of the people who use to say lead naturally occurred in the environment and didn't harm us at all.

I definitely believe in Global Warming. This is no hoax but true.Look at the crazy weather we are experiencing all over the world.

 

[Assman]

I definitely believe in Global Warming. This is no hoax but true.Look at the crazy weather we are experiencing all over the world.

You must be a tree hugging liberal, oh yes, barry supporter...

 

[MU_Engineer]

The main thing I was referencing was that there are small scale experiments taking place in controlled environments.

These are small-scale experiments to test the purported effects of CO2 global warming as opposed to testing CO2 global warming itself. The three experiments listed dealt with CO2 concentratrions, temperature changes, and rainfall changes on vegetation production. They did not do anything to prove or disprove CO2 global warming.

Rising CO2 is not a prediction, it is a clearly measurable fact.

That is not being disputed, it's the global warming is due to human-mediated CO2 production and will cause massive disasters hypotheses. These experiments had nothing to do with the CO2 == global warming hypothesis and they actually shot themselves in the foot for higher CO2 == errmegerd absolutely certain massive crop failure as crops actually did much better with higher CO2 concentrations. (That should not be a surprise as CO2 is one of the major inputs into plant growth and also in past periods many millions of years ago when CO2 was "naturally" much higher than today there was much more vegetation covering the globe.)

Since we cannot control the entire climate the best we can do is these smaller scale representations. Probably should have elaborated a little bit more then what i did but I ended up getting busy right when i went to post that.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in being busy as this article in no way, shape, or form says what you think it does. It's a "what could happen if this were true" article rather than a "is this in fact true" article.

 

[johnsonma]

So an experiment that shows the effect of CO2 doesn't matter when mankind is releasing a very large amount of CO2? Along with this experiment we see a steady increase of the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere that can be correlated with mankind's contribution. I understand that is doesn't prove that climate change is happening but it still makes a point that contributes to the comprehensive understanding of climate change.

There are studies being released that show increases in CO2 actually deprives plants of nutrients. The rising sea level will lead to a massive disaster, this is unalienable.. What happens when Miami and New Orleans are under water? No only that but if the CO2 gives way to a runaway effect we will be looking at some very serious issues. We do have an example of this in Venus.

There was also the point in the evolution of our world where CO2 became abnormally high and lead to the greatest extinction event the planet had ever seen. Go figure...

Experiments aside, the observations and models show a very unpleasant picture. The experiments conducted on the various facets of climate change such as CO2 in the atmosphere and in plants also show a very troubled future. The sea level is rising, the temperature is going up. This is indisputable and yet people refuse to act for what are mostly selfish reasons.

 

[chunkymonster]

So an experiment that shows the effect of CO2 doesn't matter when mankind is releasing a very large amount of CO2? Along with this experiment we see a steady increase of the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere that can be correlated with mankind's contribution. I understand that is doesn't prove that climate change is happening but it still makes a point that contributes to the comprehensive understanding of climate change.

No doubt the studies and experiments are worthwhile and should continue. But what the experiments have been unable to conclude is anything more than a casual relationship of the effect the 4% CO2 emissions due to human activity compared to the 96% of naturally occurring CO2 emissions have on the environment. For some scientists and studies, 4% is statistically insignificant. And, while this is the question that these studies are trying to answer, the results leave too much to supposition and extrapolation.

What I completely disagree with is using the conclusions of a casual relationship between man made CO2 emissions and pushing a political agenda.

There are studies being released that show increases in CO2 actually deprives plants of nutrients.

After you posted the link to the experiment by Wullschleger and Strahl, I decided to some independent reading. I have to question the methodology of those studies; one increased the ozone levels by 20% and increased the temperature by 5 deg C, another deprives the plants of water while increasing the CO2 levels, another changes multiple variables like increasing CO2, increasing nitrogen in the soil, increases ozone, and also raises the temperature! Holy crap! In short, they took a plant that was used to growing in an existing climate and specific environment and then over one growing season completely changed the growing conditions and then make the conclusion that environmental changes and/or increased CO2 are detrimental to plants! Well duh! If you changes the environment that dramatically for any plant or tree it's going to have a detrimental effect! What these studies lack is the gradual changes to the environment that the plant would undergo if left to natural processes and not subject to experimental and artificially manipulated growing conditions. Because of the lack of generational growing seasons and affording the plant the natural ability to adapt to a changing environment and climate the results of those studies are in no way a predictor of future climate changes on plant life.

The rising sea level will lead to a massive disaster, this is unalienable.. What happens when Miami and New Orleans are under water?

So, over the 200+ years that it will take for the sea level to rise and flood out Miami, New Orleans, and other coastal cities it is expected that humans will ignore the water at their feet and not move away?

No only that but if the CO2 gives way to a runaway effect we will be looking at some very serious issues. We do have an example of this in Venus.

Really dude? Citing Venus as any indication of CO2 levels and global warming. The atmosphere of Venus has a completely different composition than the Earth; it is much heavier and thicker, Venus has a much higher atmospheric pressure. Because both Earth and Venus have a similar lapse rate, and because Venus has a higher atmospheric pressure (and you know what happens when you compress gas), the levels of CO2 have nothing to do with Venus being hotter. Venus is hotter because of the thicker atmosphere and it is constantly being heated due to it's proximity to the sun. And, if that isn't enough, consider Mars; Mars has a 95% CO2 in the atmosphere and it is colder than the Earth. Mars is colder despite the higher level of CO2 because the atmosphere of Mars is thinner than the Earth's.

There was also the point in the evolution of our world where CO2 became abnormally high and lead to the greatest extinction event the planet had ever seen. Go figure...

Ok...but was that extinction event due to human CO2 emissions? I believe the massive dust cloud blocking any sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface was more the cause of the mass extinction than CO2 levels reaching toxicity. So, not quite sure why you even interjected that...

Experiments aside, the observations and models show a very unpleasant picture. The experiments conducted on the various facets of climate change such as CO2 in the atmosphere and in plants also show a very troubled future. The sea level is rising, the temperature is going up. This is indisputable and yet people refuse to act for what are mostly selfish reasons.

One thing that always stands out to me whenever I read these studies or articles about climate change and/or AGW is the complete omission of the amount of time these changes to the climate and weather will take. To read the studies and articles, it would have me believe that the Earth's temperature is going to rise over night, the seas levels will rise at the next tide, and the Earth will become inhospitable to humans and animals alike within a matter of months or a few years. That drastic of a change is unrealistic to say the least. And, if the studies and experiments being used to draw the conclusions are anything like the aforementioned studies used to determine the effects of CO2 on plants and trees, I don't blame people for ignoring the sensationalism and hubris being spouted by what can only be perceived as a minority of climate change alarmists.

 

[MU_Engineer]

So an experiment that shows the effect of CO2 doesn't matter when mankind is releasing a very large amount of CO2? Along with this experiment we see a steady increase of the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere that can be correlated with mankind's contribution. I understand that is doesn't prove that climate change is happening but it still makes a point that contributes to the comprehensive understanding of climate change.

We were initially talking about a lack of experiments of showing the effects of CO2 on the climate itself. This experiment dealt with CO2 but it was NOT about the effect of CO2 on climate, it was about the effect of CO2 on plant growth. I'm not disputing CO2 levels are rising. That is fairly easy to determine with current technology and is independently repeatable to a good degree of accuracy. That determination does NOT require a controlled trial as it's simply a "did this occur?" question which can be answered by serial observations. The trials you linked to in that article also have NOTHING to do with investigating the causes of climate change, period. It at best provides answers to a different and potentially completely unrelated question, which is "how do plants fare with a higher CO2 concentration?"

There are studies being released that show increases in CO2 actually deprives plants of nutrients.

Apparently not this study, which showed plants had a significantly increased amount of biomass production. If I had to guess, I'd say that you will link to a study of growing something like corn which requires nitrogen fertilization and it finds that with higher CO2 concentrations (and thus more growth) you need more nitrogen to support the increased growth. Can I get a resounding "duh" please, because increased crop yields over the years due to other means (e.g. significantly reduced competition losses due to weeds with glyphosate-resistant cultivars) also required more fertilization?

The rising sea level will lead to a massive disaster, this is unalienable.

A rising sea level may very well lead to a massive disaster but the association between rising temps and significantly higher sea levels has also not been proven. This would require a controlled trial like CO2 global warming. In vitro experiments say there will be no change as the ice already displaces its weight in water due to Archimedes' Principle and the water level stays exactly the same when the ice melts. Go on, freeze some 0.9% saline (salinity of ocean water) and plop it in a container with thawed 0.9% saline. Mark the side of the container and then come back when the frozen saline melts. Betcha the water's still at the mark.

What happens when Miami and New Orleans are under water?

New Orleans already has a significant amount of the city under sea level. We know what would happen if the sea levels rose as Hurricane Katrina did just that. Its storm surge topped the levees which were used to maintain the sub-sea-level land and caused significant flooding of the sub-sea-level parts. A massive federal bailout paid for by those of us solidly on above-sea-level land to stupidly rebuild the sub-sea-level parts of New Orleans. That's what would happen.

No only that but if the CO2 gives way to a runaway effect we will be looking at some very serious issues. We do have an example of this in Venus.

I doubt this will happen as pretty well every natural process is involved in a negative feedback loop as far as we can tell. Even the exponential growth scenarios encounter this. For example bacteria multiply exponentially until they either run out of food and massively die off or they are poisoned by their own waste. Either way it is a negative feedback loop. Positive feedback loops are exceedingly rare in nature as they lead to a complete destruction of the system which caused them. One good one I can think of is childbirth. The fetus's head hitting the cervix in a term pregnant woman causes a release of the hormone oxytocin. Oxytocin causes stronger and more frequent uterine contractions which causes the fetus's head to hit the cervix more frequently and with more force, releasing more oxytocin. Can this process continue indefinitely? Of course not, the process collapses once the uterus contracts sufficiently hard enough to expel the fetus from the uterus. This is a significant simplification of the particular process but you get my point.

There was also the point in the evolution of our world where CO2 became abnormally high and lead to the greatest extinction event the planet had ever seen. Go figure...

The only extinction event that we have significant evidence of why it happened was the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event. That was strongly suggested to be caused by a large extraterrestrial object striking the earth in the Yucatan Peninsula area, as evidenced by the large crater there and the distribution of iridium in sediment layers at the time. Iridium is extremely rare on Earth but common in extraterrestrial objects like asteroids. The other major extinction events are not as well understood but it is certainly NOT due to human-released CO2 global warming as humans have only been around for a couple million years at the most and industrialized for a few hundred years. Perhaps if we are better able to understand those mass extinctions we will better be able to understand our current climate changes...

Experiments aside, the observations and models show a very unpleasant picture. The experiments conducted on the various facets of climate change such as CO2 in the atmosphere and in plants also show a very troubled future. The sea level is rising, the temperature is going up. This is indisputable and yet people refuse to act for what are mostly selfish reasons.

You obviously didn't even read all of your own studies as plants apparently thrive in higher CO2 environments. People refuse to act on the human-mediated CO2 global warming hypothesis as 1) it is far from "proven" and 2) implementing measures that may or may not work to any significant degree in changing CO2 global warming if it were in fact true as predicted absolutely WILL cause significant and well-known hardships to people. So in short, people aren't willing to sacrifice a significant known quantity in order to possibly get some unknown benefit in the future which is very uncertain to even occur. The people in this situation are rational, not selifsh.

 

[stillblue]

Apparently not this study, which showed plants had a significantly increased amount of biomass production.

If the rise in CO2 at the surface reaches that level we'd better mutate real fast to breath that air, we're concerned with the amount in the upper atmosphere and humans nor plants do a lot of breathing up there. To test this, go to your garage, close all the doors and sit in your car and start it up. If you don't die come back and let us know. I'd highly recommend that you don't attempt this because you will die.

Go on, freeze some 0.9% saline (salinity of ocean water) and plop it in a container with thawed 0.9% saline.

apples to oranges. 90% of the earths fresh water is found frozen in Antarctica. Fresh water ice does indeed float on salt water. Drop an fresh water ice cube from your freezer and put that in you salt water drink.

A massive federal bailout paid for by those of us solidly on above-sea-level land to stupidly rebuild the sub-sea-level parts of New Orleans. That's what would happen.

And you'd want to pay for that and SF LA and how about the entire nation of Bangladesh? They're going to need someplace to live. How big is your backyard, there's 300 million there that'll be washed out?

The only extinction event that we have significant evidence of why it happened was the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event. That was strongly suggested to be caused by a large extraterrestrial object striking the earth in the Yucatan Peninsula area, as evidenced by the large crater there and the distribution of iridium in sediment layers at the time. Iridium is extremely rare on Earth but common in extraterrestrial objects like asteroids.

It's good that you can accept scientific theory.

The other major extinction events are not as well understood but it is certainly NOT due to human-released CO2 global warming as humans have only been around for a couple million years at the most and industrialized for a few hundred years.

So how does that make it right for humans, who now have the ability to contribute to what mother nature produces and can handle or not, to do so and tip the balance. Let's say you invite 50 million people over for a beer party and they all piss in the Mississippi at the same time, aside from changing the color and aroma, the water level of the Mississippi will rise as well because mother nature can't deal with surprises she needs time to adjust.

If the climate change people are wrong we will have invested a lot of money in renewable energy resources and only get a cleaner environment for that sacrifice. If the climate change people are right and we follow the naysayers then cockroaches get their shot at ruling the world.

Again don't try the CO2 test, that was meant as a joke that I hope you understand.

 

[johnsonma]

Too many responses to answer all of them but I try to get the key points.

The study of climate change involves the effects and the causes to study one without the other would be inadvisable.

Plants increasing biomass versus the composition of the said biomass is different. Plants that offer little nutrition can still be big plants.

It is interesting when you say that rising temps have not been proven to be associates with rising sea levels. I wonder what your theory is? Keep in mind that it would have to be relegated to something not done by mankind because of the same implications that would have.

Your theory of melting ice only works for the north pole. Ice that melts that was previously on land will most certainly raise the sea level ( and it already has been) in places like Greenland and Antarctica. Why you would bring this up doesn't really make sense to me unless you thought all the ice in the world was already in water?

I agree with you that nature usually has negative feedback loops. Too bad the natural process of the climate is no longer natural. How can it not be a positive loop when we introduce CO2 but do not take it out? The climate can absorb a certain amount, this would make sense given that nature tends to have negative feedback loops. However, we have pushed it past its margins and thus completely changed the equation. Once the equations boundaries are shattered by man made interference it becomes easy to see how a positive loop can be initiated, just as it was initiated in Venus by the warming sun. CO2 is rising at a faster pace now that it has in the history of the planet. That should scare you but it doesn't for some reason. The Universe is not inherently hospitable, there is obviously a very small margin for earth like conditions.

The problem with people is there inability to look forward. Fixing the climate would take a little bit out of world GDP but compared to the consequences of not doing anything it is a really good deal. If you think sandy and katrina were expensive just wait.

@chunky

Venus use to have an earth like atmosphere when the sun was 30% cooler. This is why it is a great example to study. Of course it has a thicker atmosphere now...

I'm sure all those scientists are secretly in league with democrats, damn you figured it out.

 

[MU_Engineer]

If the rise in CO2 at the surface reaches that level we'd better mutate real fast to breath that air, we're concerned with the amount in the upper atmosphere and humans nor plants do a lot of breathing up there. To test this, go to your garage, close all the doors and sit in your car and start it up. If you don't die come back and let us know. I'd highly recommend that you don't attempt this because you will die.

Your garage would be full of carbon MONOXIDE which would kill you. The carbon dioxide your car would give off during that time period would be of little consequence to you. Humans do fine breathing in air with hundreds of times the carbon dioxide as is currently in the atmosphere.

And you'd want to pay for that and SF LA and how about the entire nation of Bangladesh? They're going to need someplace to live. How big is your backyard, there's 300 million there that'll be washed out?

People from coastal areas can move farther inland. California and Louisiana have a lot of empty undeveloped areas not terribly far from the major cities. New Orleans flooding from Hurricane Katrina and being rebuilt just proved that they just stupidly don't want to move to higher ground, not that they can't do so.

If the climate change people are wrong we will have invested a lot of money in renewable energy resources and only get a cleaner environment for that sacrifice.

What we would see is a lower standard of living for no benefit. It stinks for people who lived under idiot governments who pushed the CO2 global warming hype in that scenario because they were forced by the government to reduce their standard of living by only being allowed to purchase expensive "green" products and pay a lot more for energy, all because of a doomsday scenario that didn't play out. The real winners in that situation where the people who made and got the government to mandate their "green" products that they sold at a nice premium. We joke up here in wind farm country that the main thing the rarely ever moving windmills generate is federal subsidies for the windmill owners.

 

[gropouce]

http://9gag.com/gag/amXQQY6

 

[johnsonma]

People from coastal areas can move farther inland. California and Louisiana have a lot of empty undeveloped areas not terribly far from the major cities. New Orleans flooding from Hurricane Katrina and being rebuilt just proved that they just stupidly don't want to move to higher ground, not that they can't do so.
.

39% of Americans live on the coast. It will cost trillions of dollars to move all those people. Far more than it would cost to deal with climate change.

 

[chunkymonster]

People from coastal areas can move farther inland. California and Louisiana have a lot of empty undeveloped areas not terribly far from the major cities. New Orleans flooding from Hurricane Katrina and being rebuilt just proved that they just stupidly don't want to move to higher ground, not that they can't do so.
.

39% of Americans live on the coast. It will cost trillions of dollars to move all those people. Far more than it would cost to deal with climate change.

Where do we draw the line?

I agree with MU about the folks in New Orleans. This is where I (obviously) have little sympathy, if folks realized that the area they live in will be covered under feet of water, and they choose to continue to live there, it's the choice they made, not anyone else's responsibility to move them. Heck, when I bought my current home seven years ago, one of the first things I checked was the 100 year flood plain to determine if my house was in it.

Certainly the mass migration from flood areas would create great financial loss, and as devastating as it would be, on the flip side, it would actually be beneficial to the economy as it will cause a massive rebuilding of entire communities and/or cities. Think of the money in new construction and the thousands of jobs it would create! Not only that, but think of the thousands of jobs that would be created to clean up and remediate the flooded areas, because we certainly could not leave all those homes and businesses to rot leaching goodness knows what chemicals and other environmentally unfriendly compounds into the newly created ecosystems!

 

[stillblue]

MU I stand corrected on the carbon monoxide. But the point is moot, it's the upper atmosphere that is concerned.

People from coastal areas can move farther inland. California and Louisiana have a lot of empty undeveloped areas not terribly far from the major cities. New Orleans flooding from Hurricane Katrina and being rebuilt just proved that they just stupidly don't want to move to higher ground, not that they can't do so.

Which accomplishes what exactly? I can think of a few points. Enormous debt crushing the economy into oblivion. More land that helps feed or clean the air lost. And when you add in 300 million Bangladeshis that's going to really overload the system. And you're worried about money invested in renewable energy affecting the economy? Instead of billions spent it'll be trillions.

 

[chunkymonster]

MU I stand corrected on the carbon monoxide. But the point is moot, it's the upper atmosphere that is concerned.

What exactly about the upper atmosphere is of concern? The increased amount of CO2 that will supposedly lead to global warming? The more I read, the more I still have question CO2 being the cause of of AGW.

Consider this article from NASA; Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere

SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface...“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

When you read the article, you may be tempted to counter that the it has nothing to do with human activity increasing CO2 in the upper atmosphere because the findings were the result of NASA and SABER scientists observing a massive solar storm. But before you do, consider what the storm allowed NASA and SABER scientists to observe. Which was how CO2 and NO reacted together to regulate the earth's temperature. So, regardless of the catalyst, the result of the observation is that CO2 and NO serve as a form of thermostat for the earth's temperature. As an aside, the other point of the article is that coronal mass ejections seemingly have a far more significant and immediate impact on the earth's climate, as opposed to the casual relationship between CO2 and increased temperatures.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Which accomplishes what exactly? I can think of a few points. Enormous debt crushing the economy into oblivion. More land that helps feed or clean the air lost. And when you add in 300 million Bangladeshis that's going to really overload the system. And you're worried about money invested in renewable energy affecting the economy? Instead of billions spent it'll be trillions.

The places that are significantly prone to flooding (be it from a river, lake, or the ocean from a hurricane/tsunami) shouldn't be built there in the first place BECAUSE they will get destroyed sooner or later. They should relocate to higher/more inland ground which is nearly always pretty close by after things do get destroyed. I keep being amazed at how STUPID people are to rebuild exactly where their house/business got destroyed after a flood or hurricane. You have the perfect opportunity to move at that point since it costs the same to rebuild there vs. rebuild somewhere that won't be flooded/hit by a hurricane. "But we like the beachfront/riverfront/lakefront location and the government bails us out" is what I hear. Okay, then you can pay for the damage out of your own pocket if you choose to live somewhere you shouldn't. But that never happens, they get bailed out by us smarter individuals who live somewhere sane.

The same is also true with water usage for people choosing to live in the huge cities in the southwest U.S. They created their "water crisis" because THEY ARE TRYING TO LIVE IN A FRIGGING DESERT! Duh, there's no water, IT'S A DESERT! People aren't supposed to live there! There are plenty of other places in the country with plenty of water that they could live. But those places have humidity, winter, and clouds instead of being sunny and warm all of the time so they don't want to live there. Their answer is to make all of the rest of us with plenty of water buy toilets that take five flushes to flush down our morning dump (before it clogs and you "flush" the dump with a plunger and a 5 gallon bucket of water you filled from the tub faucet) and shower heads that barely even dribble because they are trying to live somewhere they shouldn't.

So maybe let's concentrate on having people not live in places that can't really support them instead of making the rest of our lives miserable so some people can make stupid choices. But that doesn't sit well with the "we want to regulate everything" political set so this obviously common-sense approach will never be adopted.

 

[stillblue]

So maybe let's concentrate on having people not live in places that can't really support them instead of making the rest of our lives miserable so some people can make stupid choices. But that doesn't sit well with the "we want to regulate everything" political set so this obviously common-sense approach will never be adopted.

Like Manhattan? The entire nation of Bangladesh? How many people live along coastal areas to be affected? A billion? Easily. Let's say $25K each to displace them. Cheap right? Yep only $25 trillion.

 

[gropouce]

Like Manhattan? The entire nation of Bangladesh? How many people live along coastal areas to be affected? A billion? Easily. Let's say $25K each to displace them. Cheap right? Yep only $25 trillion.

i guess he doesn't give a s*** until there is water on his kitchen floor.
Neighborhood can die. Let him decide who deserve to be helped, and who doesn't.

I'll do the same at hospital. If people don't live "healthy", i don't cure them and let them die.
I do prefer to help healthy people who doesn't need help: it is more economic....

 

[MidnightDistort]

Whether or not global warming is happening, some of the stuff we let into the air is harmful to humans. If we can walk through toxic areas then maybe i would side that what is happening around the globe is natural but we as humans can destroy the planet as much as keep it safe. Our resources are finite on this planet as well, yet with our economic system we promote waste and consumption. I think anyone that denies global warming must be more concerned with making profit or worried about losing jobs in the oil market. These people who are part of the oil market has plenty of time and money to switch over to something better, instead of fighting over cleaner energies and worry about losing sales could very well become more self sustainable. They had better do that while they still have money, time and resources because eventually when we either damage the planets ecosystem or use up too much resources there won't be much left of anything on this planet for anyone to use. Might as well help each other while there is time left.