Climate Change?

[lovinthehd]

No we aren’t, knock it off with these arguments. What about China, all of Asia minor, Indonesia, the whole of Africa, India and Pakistan? I know what you should do, hold a drum circle, that’ll get the rest of the world to care about climate change!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not as butt-hurt about other countries as my own I suppose. We're supposed to be leaders....

 

[TankTop5]

I'm not as butt-hurt about other countries as my own I suppose. We're supposed to be leaders....

And we are leaders, every year we are progressively lowering emissions and pollution. That said, if the climate models are correct it won’t mean anything measurable. We need to do both, focus on lowering CO2 emissions and pollution as well as raising the living standard of Third World countries so that they can also think about these things. While that is being done we need to think about how to adapt and live in this world that we are creating, there simply is no realistic option for lowering CO2 emissions enough according to any model to do anything at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lovinthehd]

And we are leaders, every year we are progressively lowering emissions and pollution. That said, if the climate models are correct it won’t mean anything measurable. We need to do both, focus on lowering CO2 emissions and pollution as well as raising the living standard of Third World countries so that they can also think about these things. While that is being done we need to think about how to adapt and live in this world that we are creating, there simply is no realistic option for lowering CO2 emissions enough according to any model to do anything at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You haven't proved anything along these lines. Just your opinion or rather republican talking points that are old and tired.

 

[TankTop5]

You haven't proved anything along these lines. Just your opinion or rather republican talking points that are old and tired.

Beg your pardon, Republican talking points are denying climate change all together, I have said no such thing. I have tried to bring a rational argument to the discussion and if you would like to dispute my opinion feel free but don’t cast aspersions with no intellectual argument to back it up!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lovinthehd]

Beg your pardon, Republican talking points are denying climate change all together, I have said no such thing. I have tried to bring a rational argument to the discussion and if you would like to dispute my opinion feel free but don’t cast aspersions with no intellectual argument to back it up!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First, truck your iphone. Tired of seeing that.

I'll reread to see how rational you are being outside of the conservative/right wing/republican talking points.

 

[TankTop5]

First, truck your iphone. Tired of seeing that.

I'll reread to see how rational you are being outside of the conservative/right wing/republican talking points.

I have no clue what my Tapatalk login is, and last time I logged out and log back in I lost all of my conversations. I’ll try to figure out how to log into Audioholics separately.

Back on topic, what is the IPCC recommended reduction of CO2 globally to avert catastrophic climate change? If the United States were to reduce CO2 emissions to zero tomorrow we would only add months to accepted climate models. In fact the real recommendation is for a global net negative CO2 emissions to avert climate change. Global CO2 emissions are continuing to rise while the United States, Canada and Europe are the only nations lowering their CO2 emissions but not by any appreciable amount. I believe every nation that signed the Paris accord’s is in gross violation with the exception of maybe France!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lovinthehd]

If you can get into Tapatalk just go to settings for signature, it's really easy, even a republican can do it.

 

[TankTop5]

If you can get into Tapatalk just go to settings for signature, it's really easy, even a republican can do it.

Let me see if I can figure it out.


Sent from my butt using haptics

 

[lovinthehd]

Let me see if I can figure it out.


Sent from my butt using haptics

Your tectonic farts are not an improvement.

 

[highfigh]

[QUOTE="mtrycrafts, post: 1324247, member: 5380"
But, not having an answer or plan to have others follow is no reason to do nothing.
What will be the cost of letting this planet go to that heat cycle that could last centuries if not millennias or longer.
Yep, why worry now, Let them pay to fix it, will be dead by then, right?[/QUOTE]

The plan is to reduce output of CO2 and other pollutants- the problem is in finding a way that's effective AND affordable. If the cost is so high that life as we know it ends, we may save the planet but the human cost will be horrible in places where they have no money to do much of anything. Those, coincidentally, are also the places that produce the most pollution because they can't afford to improve their methods of using fuel.

Ultimately, the planet takes care of itself. It takes a lot of time, but the temperature will lower again once people stop clear cutting the rain forests and burning everything in sight

Science led us here. They didn't see the signs of what causes atmospheric and climatic problems accurately enough, soon enough. They dove into some rabbit holes 40-50 years ago and that has cost us dearly.

 

[highfigh]

CO2 where, though, in the upper atmosphere or at plant level? We do have clues, but we're facing a stubbornly entrenched group with financial interests running interference...

CO2 is heavier than air- it tends to settle at lower levels and acts like a blanket. The upper atmosphere is still cold as ever.

 

[highfigh]

We could just wait and make sure all the old conservative money is safe. That's usually best for all of us. LOL!

You can hate conservatives all you want, but you're forgetting about the money hoarded by Democrats and there's a lot of it- old and new.

 

[KEW]

And we are leaders, every year we are progressively lowering emissions and pollution. That said, if the climate models are correct it won’t mean anything measurable. We need to do both, focus on lowering CO2 emissions and pollution as well as raising the living standard of Third World countries so that they can also think about these things. While that is being done we need to think about how to adapt and live in this world that we are creating, there simply is no realistic option for lowering CO2 emissions enough according to any model to do anything at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are we leaders?
Note that our per capita CO2 emissions are twice that of China!
China only produces more because it is so much bigger (four time the population) than the US!
I am glad we have reduced it, but we are still the biggest gluttons on the Earth!
We have been able to claim a reduction, but it is kind of like a 400 pound man bragging about losing 10 pounds; that is great, but he still has a long way to go before he is healthy!

 

[herbu]

Enough, herbu! I answered your question and a few others too. I am not a climatologist and I really don't know the significance of 400 PPM, and I'm not bought into the Green Deal human life on earth will end bullshit.



If we stopped all coal burning:

1. There would be a lot less mercury in the environment.
2. There would be less particulate air pollution.
3. Most coal mines would close, which would be a big environmental benefit.

So, yeah, I don't like coal power plants.

As for all cars averaging 50mpg, you get less air pollution, less fossil fuel consumption (and the production of fossil fuels of all types is a dirty business),and you'll achieve a lower cost per mile of driving, so the amount of driving per person will increase, so traffic will get worse. (Basic macro economics.)

And, FWIW, as I've already stated, I am not in favor in any way of costly programs to quickly eliminate fossil fuel burning by some arbitrary date. But for a lot of reasons I am in favor of reducing reliance on fossil fuels as soon as the market and the technologies reasonably allow. I think the risk from global warming is high, but since the US is only 15% or less of all fossil fuel consumption in the world, I am absolutely not in favor of up-ending the US economy when even our complete elimination of fossil fuel consumption would only buy a few years of CO2 savings.

Irv, I agree, and that's all I've been saying. Reduction in fossil fuel burning would be helpful to the environment. But until we understand enough to know how much difference it would make, it would be irresponsible to embark on a path that would upend civilization. (And for all those whose knee-jerk is that doing nothing will upend civilization... show me the numbers explaining that effect.)

 

[KEW]

Irv, I agree, and that's all I've been saying. Reduction in fossil fuel burning would be helpful to the environment. But until we understand enough to know how much difference it would make, it would be irresponsible to embark on a path that would upend civilization. (And for all those whose knee-jerk is that doing nothing will upend civilization... show me the numbers explaining that effect.)

That is like asking a doctor to show you the numbers to prove that a persons heart disease was caused by weight. This person may smoke and be a heavy drinker and even though we have placed much research effort into heart disease, we cannot assign specific numbers to specific influences. However, for a person with heart disease to decide not to lose weight (or decrease drinking/smoking for that matter) because a doctor cannot show numbers does not sound reasonable to me.

Similarly, we cannot guarantee that every extreme weather event was caused by climate change. However, it is a reasonable premise that recent increases in frequency from what happened decades before are caused my some recent change and greenhouse gasses is the only explanation that holds water.
Some have argued that the Earth has seen such extremes before, and while that is true, those changes happened gradually over hundreds of years and involved elimination of many species on earth! Fortunately those extremes have not happened since the time human beings joined the party!

But below is a recent history of costs (just for the US). If you look at recent trends and project into the future, we are talking a very expensive "do nothing" attitude. The question in my mind is when is it truly too late? I don't think it is wise to wait until we can determine when is too late before we at least start addressing the low-hanging fruit!

You agree that we should be doing what we can, but our president is doing the opposite (especially in the energy sector).

NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) tracks U.S. weather and climate events that have great economic and societal impacts. Since 1980, the U.S. has sustained 241 weather and climate disasters where the overall damage costs reached or exceeded $1 billion (including adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index, as of January 2019). The cumulative cost for these 241 events exceeds $1.6 trillion.

...The number and cost of disasters are increasing over time due to a combination of increased exposure, vulnerability, and the fact the climate change is increasing the frequency of some types of extremes that lead to billion-dollar disasters.

Cost Comparisons
The year 2018 also experienced the 4th highest total costs ($91.0 billion),as noted below in the data plot. The combined costs of the 2018 disasters trails only the years 2017 ($312.7 billion),2005 ($220.8 billion) and 2012 ($128.6 billion) when all years are inflation-adjusted to January 2019 dollars.

The accumulation in the estimated cost of billion dollar weather and climate disasters on a monthly basis, for each year since 1980
The annual cost average for billion-dollar disasters is $42.8 billion (CPI-adjusted) over the period of record (1980–2018). The annual cost average over the last 5-years (2014–2018) is $99.1 billion (CPI-adjusted),more than double the long-term average. In fact, the total cost over the last 5 years (2014-2018) is approximately $500 billion, which is nearly $100 billion / year.

 

[lovinthehd]

You can hate conservatives all you want, but you're forgetting about the money hoarded by Democrats and there's a lot of it- old and new.

Don't hate them particularly nor have I forgotten how much wealth has been given to so few.

 

[lovinthehd]

CO2 is heavier than air- it tends to settle at lower levels and acts like a blanket. The upper atmosphere is still cold as ever.

CO2 remains a greenhouse gas, though, and stays in the upper atmospghere longer than other greenhouse gases, some if it remaining in the upper atmosphere for thousands of years.

 

[Ponzio]

Yeah, this is normal.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/summer-hailstorm-buried-mexican-city-guadalajara-under-ice-180972539/?utm_source=smithsoniandaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20190702-daily-responsive&spMailingID=40111640&spUserID=OTA1OTU5NzUzNTU2S0&spJobID=1560182950&spReportId=MTU2MDE4Mjk1MAS2

 

[mtrycrafts]

Yeah, this is normal.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/summer-hailstorm-buried-mexican-city-guadalajara-under-ice-180972539/?utm_source=smithsoniandaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20190702-daily-responsive&spMailingID=40111640&spUserID=OTA1OTU5NzUzNTU2S0&spJobID=1560182950&spReportId=MTU2MDE4Mjk1MAS2

We should just learn how to survive in such chaotic world. More cost effective.

 

[highfigh]

CO2 remains a greenhouse gas, though, and stays in the upper atmospghere longer than other greenhouse gases, some if it remaining in the upper atmosphere for thousands of years.

How much do you think Methane contributes since it converts into CO2 and water when it burns?