Climate Change?

[mtrycrafts]

....

Yes the climate of earth has always changed.

...

But not at the rate it is currently happening, by a long shot.

What are the benefits of higher CO2? How much higher?
How high was it at the last several hot periods?

 

[TankTop5]

But not at the rate it is currently happening, by a long shot.

What are the benefits of higher CO2? How much higher?
How high was it at the last several hot periods?

You’re 100% correct! North America and Europe are lowering CO2 output while China, India, Indonesia and Africa are projected to continue to increase CO2 output. Like I said, you can educate and protest all you want, unless there is an immediate cost benefit to lowering CO2 emissions you aren’t accomplishing anything. Do you have any thoughts on how to get the rest of the world to lower CO2 emissions in a meaningful way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ponzio]

Man/Woman have caused these problems and I believe we can fix them, if the will of the people is strong enough. We can reverse this. To resignedly surrender is craven cowardice and depraved indifference.

A simple example is what happened locally to one of our rivers, the Schuylkill River in southeastern Pennsylvania. The pollution got so bad (mercury, lead, etc.) from the upstream manufacturing factories, that signs were put up that stated that it was dangerous to your health to drink, go swimming or go fishing and eat the catch. It was obvious from the color, a brackish brown, of the river that it wasn't safe/healthy and the uptick in illneses of people that were eatnig their catch was alarming.

Amazingly though after a 10 year period or so, after the plants closed down, the river came back to life and you can now drink it, go swimming and eat your catch. We just need the political will and common sense to stop this self-mutilation.

What are we mental patients, that we can't see the harm we're doing to ourselves?

 

[herbu]

Of course not, that's a different question entirely. However, based on the information on this web page:

https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere seems to be going up by about 5 parts per million per year, very roughly. So 1% equals about somewhat less than one year of incremental excess CO2 emissions, assuming that's the question you're asking (and I'm not sure about that).



On this point you're completely off-base and just being stubborn and argumentative. There is no way in the next hundred years that we're going to capture enough sunlight to affect the balance of energy hitting the earth. NFW. Or are you one of the people highfigh is talking about that can't understand arithmetic?



I said something similar in a previous post in this thread, but I think the basis for your version of this same opinion is just because you're basically a denier that there's a problem at all.

Well, Irv, thanks for your response but you didn't answer the question. The article in your link is interesting, but also doesn't answer my question. In fact, the guy says: "There’s nothing particularly magic about the number 400, (ppm CO2). But for environmental scientists and advocates grappling with the invisible, intangible threat of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, this symbolic target has served as a clear red line into a danger zone of climate change. "

Quite interesting he calls it an "intangible threat" and a "symbolic target". That tells me he doesn't know either.

People are advocating some extreme measures to "save the planet". Let's stop all coal burning, gasoline powered cars and airplanes, and implement a carbon tax. Pretty serious measures. So why is my question so hard to answer?

If we immediately stopped ALL coal burning in the USA, exactly what benefit would we realize? And at what price? Once we understand the benefit and cost, we can make an intelligent decision. Until then it's just emotion or politics. Same question for other actions. What if all cars averaged 50mpg? Benefit and cost? And if you can't define the benefit, how can you say the cost is acceptable? That is my problem with all the global warming talk. Unless you can express the problem and solution in numbers, you cannot logically argue your case. BTW, numbers about how much levels have risen or how fast they are rising may be interesting, but mean nothing unless you understand what they mean.

 

[herbu]

However, as far as I am aware it is the only answer that prevents destruction of life on earth as we currently know it and maybe human life on earth, period!

So you must understand exactly what effect lowering CO2 to the level of 10 years ago would have and how much it would cost. Please tell me.

 

[herbu]

Farms can only adapt to climate changes so quickly and we have yet to know what (drought vs flooding, etc) to expect any year. the only clear thing is that the weather will not be reliably consistent!

"Reliably consistent" like it has always been in the past... right? Hahahahahahahaha

 

[herbu]

Guys, I don't think anybody with an IQ above room temperature would say that humans aren't having an effect on the atmosphere. We can even measure some of the changes accurately now, and understand they do not seem to be naturally occurring.

For half the people, that is enough to incent extraordinary measures to correct. But the other half want to understand a cost/benefit analysis. Funny that the half that can't quantify, (justify), their proposed actions are the most emotional and quickest to label the other half "stupid".

 

[KEW]

"Reliably consistent" like it has always been in the past... right? Hahahahahahahaha

It is all relative.
South Bend Indiana experienced a 1000-year flood followed by a 500-year 18 months later.
That is not consistent weather relative to pre global warming numbers.

 

[herbu]

It is all relative.
South Bend Indiana experienced a 1000-year flood followed by a 500-year 18 months later.
That is not consistent weather relative to pre global warming numbers.

So you believe a 1000-year flood happens every 1000 years, a 500-year flood happens every 500 years, and the two should be equidistantly spaced? Any deviation is proof of a looming global catastrophe. OK.

 

[TankTop5]

Man/Woman have caused these problems and I believe we can fix them, if the will of the people is strong enough. We can reverse this. To resignedly surrender is craven cowardice.

A simple example is what happened locally to one of our rivers, the Schuylkill River in southeastern Pennsylvania. The pollution got so bad (mercury, lead, etc.) from the upstream manufacturing factories, that signs were put up that stated that it was dangerous to your health to drink, go swimming or go fishing and eat the catch. It was obvious from the color, a brackish brown, of the river that it wasn't safe/healthy and the uptick in illneses of people that were eatnig their catch was alarming.

Amazingly though after a 10 year period or so, after the plants closed down, the river came back to life and you can now drink it, go swimming and eat your catch. We just need the political will and common sense to stop this self-mutilation.

What are we mental patients, that we can't see the harm we're doing to ourselves?

Cool story bro. You just compared a river in Pennsylvania to global pollution and CO2 emissions. Almost 3 billion people on earth burn their trash (or animal feces) to stay warm, can barely feed their family to any appreciable nutrition level. The living standard of half the planet would be dramatically increased with mosquito nets, clean water and basic antibiotics, we haven’t even gotten to a refrigerator or indoor plumbing. You’re telling me you’re going to bother them with the idea of global warming? This is simply the luxury of western civilization that you can engage in this conversation but don’t for one second delude yourself into thinking the other half the world gives two fucs about what you think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KEW]

So you believe a 1000-year flood happens every 1000 years, a 500-year flood happens every 500 years, and the two should be equidistantly spaced? Any deviation is proof of a looming global catastrophe. OK.

No, I was simply using that as an example of two extreme weather events (that statistically would only be expected to happen once every 500 and once every 1000 years) happened 18 months apart. If you know anything about statistics you realize that that is way, way out in the tail of your normal distribution curve!
"Any deviation" is a ridiculous statement! I thought it was common knowledge that statistics is not about precisely accurate prediction, it is about likelihoods.
Maybe this would be easier to follow if we looked at it as two 500-year floods (a 1000-year flood is, after all, a 500-year-flood "and then some"). The likelihood of two 500-year floods being exactly 500-years apart is extremely low; however it is exponentially greater than the likelihood of two 500-year floods within 2 years of one another.

Although it is not impossible, when you see something like that happen, it is so unlikely that you should then start looking for another factor influencing these events!

 

[highfigh]

It is all relative.
South Bend Indiana experienced a 1000-year flood followed by a 500-year 18 months later.
That is not consistent weather relative to pre global warming numbers.

I had 100, 200, 300 and 500 year floods in less than ten years.

I'm not that old!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To be fair, the flooding that occurred because of these events was caused by a badly managed dam downstream in most cases and in the worst, it was due to a storm that came across in a straight line, perpendicular to the Milwaukee River's general course, so it dumped a lot of water in a small area and it inundated the river in that short time but in every case, we really got dumped on. In '97, my basement flooded because my downspout came off at the elbow, in '98 we got more rain and my basement was fine, the sump pump crock was bone dry because I had screwed the elbow on. My car, OTOH, drowned because I was working West of my house and the sewers couldn't handle the water.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Well, Irv, thanks for your response but you didn't answer the question. The article in your link is interesting, but also doesn't answer my question. In fact, the guy says: "There’s nothing particularly magic about the number 400, (ppm CO2). But for environmental scientists and advocates grappling with the invisible, intangible threat of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, this symbolic target has served as a clear red line into a danger zone of climate change. "

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.

Quite interesting he calls it an "intangible threat" and a "symbolic target". That tells me he doesn't know either.

People are advocating some extreme measures to "save the planet". Let's stop all coal burning, gasoline powered cars and airplanes, and implement a carbon tax. Pretty serious measures. So why is my question so hard to answer?

If we immediately stopped ALL coal burning in the USA, exactly what benefit would we realize? And at what price? Once we understand the benefit and cost, we can make an intelligent decision. Until then it's just emotion or politics. Same question for other actions. What if all cars averaged 50mpg? Benefit and cost? And if you can't define the benefit, how can you say the cost is acceptable? That is my problem with all the global warming talk. Unless you can express the problem and solution in numbers, you cannot logically argue your case. BTW, numbers about how much levels have risen or how fast they are rising may be interesting, but mean nothing unless you understand what they mean.

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.

 

[mtrycrafts]

.... Do you have any thoughts on how to get the rest of the world to lower CO2 emissions in a meaningful way?

No I don't. If I did, I would not be here but enforcing the plan.
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?

 

[TankTop5]

No I don't. If I did, I would not be here but enforcing the plan.
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?

I never suggested doing nothing but we may want to focus more on how to adapt. The World is not going to end, but it is going to change and necessity is the mother of all invention. Nobody can say with a straight face that globally we will reduce CO2 emissions enough to affect any models in any negligible way, it’s just not reality. Too much of the world is struggling to find the resources to deal with the problems steering them in the face with zero ability or finances to think long term.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mtrycrafts]

I never suggested doing nothing but we may want to focus more on how to adapt. The World is not going to end, but it is going to change and necessity is the mother of all invention. Nobody can say with a straight face that globally we will reduce CO2 emissions enough to affect any models in any negligible way, it’s just not reality. Too much of the world is struggling to find the resources to deal with the problems steering them in the face with zero ability or finances to think long term.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How to adapt?
How do you adapt when rice, 600 million depend on this, loses vitamin content as CO2 increases?
How do you adapt when prairie grass that cattle feed on lose a large amount of protein as CO2 increases?


And, who will do the research? Private companies? Certainly not the Agriculture department research labs that are being dismantles for who know why.

 

[lovinthehd]

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

 

[TankTop5]

How to adapt?
How do you adapt when rice, 600 million depend on this, loses vitamin content as CO2 increases?
How do you adapt when prairie grass that cattle feed on lose a large amount of protein as CO2 increases?


And, who will do the research? Private companies? Certainly not the Agriculture department research labs that are being dismantles for who know why.

But most other vegetation grows much better with higher levels of CO2. You can keep throwing strawman arguments out but the fact is, nobody’s gonna do anything about CO2 omissions globally that will have any demonstrable effect. Nobody has any clue of how to actually lower CO2 emissions, there are lots of ideas that can accomplish it but none of them will accomplish it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lovinthehd]

But most other vegetation grows much better with higher levels of CO2. You can keep throwing strawman arguments out but the fact is, nobody’s gonna do anything about CO2 omissions globally that will have any demonstrable effect. Nobody has any clue of how to actually lower CO2 emissions, there are lots of ideas that can accomplish it but none of them will accomplish it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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...

 

[TankTop5]

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...

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