but you see i think climate change and reversal is localized. a river here a river there, a forest here a forest there, etc... if everyone did their own little part we'd have avoided man-made climate change altogether. but that led to my bigger point, nature will not allow human race to work together on that scale, we don't have it in us. we're not ants. perhaps a new human will evolve to be more drone like and teamwork on that scale will be possible but until then enjoy the ride because it's coming to an end!
Because you will not change your mind or open it for consideration contrary to what you believe, so engaging you is pointless. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png It's clear from this chart that it is MUCH WARMER now than it was in your medieval warming period 1,000 years ago. In other words, it wasn't warm enough to trigger a cascade effect back then, but the risk is much higher now. You can dismiss scientists who study this and research it every day of their lives, or you can open your mind and start taking what they say seriously - because the current situation is beginning to look dire. I'm not afraid of climate change and the impact it will have, I am saddened at the immense cost of it, and disgusted by those who would rather remain blind and stick their heads up their asses
And yet humanity did act to save the world from the Ozone hole which was not nearly the threat we face now. The difference is that Industry doesn't want the change because of short term profits it might risk. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that our climate is already undergoing rapid change around the world. Everything predicted by climate models is happening at an alarming rate.
Clear from the chart. From Wikipedia. One chart is your proof. Trust the scientists who have made zero testable predictions, along with doomsayers who said that streets NYC would be under water by now, that the arctic ice was in a death spiral, and that we would see largely increased numbers of Atlantic hurricanes. I could go on and on with their failed predictions. Are you aware of the global cooling scare in the 70s? Of the millions of people who died in Africa due to hysteria around DDT from 'A Silent Spring'? Or of the crap science behind 'The Seven Countries Study ' by Dr. Ancel Keys that led to the fatally flawed lipid heart disease hypothesis? That's just two examples of "settled science", and that's why real scientists like Dr. Judith Curry are willing to question the orthodoxy. What we know just often isn't so in science. I'm sure that you have seen some compelling arguments and been on sites that show zero arguments, indeed allow zero arguments against the gospel of global warming. It aligns with your political beliefs as well, which is comforting. However, the fact that proAGW sites like skepticalscience allow zero debate and skeptical sites like wattsupwiththat encourage all discussion should concern you. Which approach is more scientific and which is more religious? All I question is the climate sensitivity, which i suspect to be between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees. (Do you even know what it is? ) I laugh at arguments that all climate feedbacks or the majority of them are positive, as the earth has a somewhat stable climate that switches to glacial periods far too often for my taste. It has never shown a tendency to go the other direction.
you question science and the chart that debunked everything you wrote before yet aren't able to provide one yourself. I think you need to really ask yourself if you aren't stuck in a believing a false reality and nothing will change your mind. You aren't making a case as rather trying to politicize the issue here. You suspect? Based on what basis do you have to make a scientific hypothesis to climate sensitivity? Have you studied the issue and done research? Do you take measurements and get the data yourself? Are you an expert in this area??? No you just read the junk science blogs as fact because it makes you feel good. You are wasting my time.
Are you genuinely questioning whether the constant over industrialization and pollutants people increasingly put in the air has catastrophic effects or not? If I may ask, What industry do you work in?
Possibly, but it will probably take a lot longer than we think. The last major global warming could be a decent model for the current path we are on with CO2 releases. However, we are a long way out from a hothouse Earth considering how low the temperature is relative to what it has been in past hothouse periods. However, there are many factors that go into global warming and it doesn't have to be a straight line up. Humans have the potential to cease our CO2 release and have the effects reverse as quickly as they popped up. As atmospheric CO2 levels rise so will plant biomass since they live off CO2. CO2 only stays in the atmosphere for like 100-200 years I believe, so it's not as if the effects are irreversible. Methane is a much, much stronger greenhouse gas that we don't focus nearly as much on. It's like 30x more powerful than CO2 and the atmospheric levels have tripled since the Industrial Revolution. However, the methane cycle is relatively short like 12-15 years I think. I wish we would stop with the "renewable" energy push and make a realistic push towards nuclear power. Within 50 years we could have electric transportation tied up to a nuclear power grid and drastically reduced pollution...but this is just fantasy.
100%. Thank you Robbie - you get it. If you believe that CO2 is a major concern, you should be pushing for practical baseload electrical generation replacement, which is nuclear power. I'd like to see development of thorium based nuc generators, but even the latest uranium models have safety features that prevent incidents like Fukushima. I just want us to spend our money in a practical fashion. Ethanol from corn is a disaster financially and ironically actually increases net CO2 output. Wind farms require coal or nat gas backup (along with other environmental problems) and solar power peaks when our demand curve drops in the middle of the day in most areas. Grid scale battery backup would solve these issues but it's still a pipe dream. We have earth days, windmills, and CAFE standards when we should be focused on clean nuc plants and not paying China to throw our garbage in the ocean.
We've crossed the 400ppm and at the rate we are going will hit 500ppm in less than 50 years. We're already higher than at any point in the history of mankind or anything resembling mankind. And the last time we were at this level it was warmer and the seas were much higher, so even being carbon neutral at this point may not be enough to save us from a humanitarian disaster. I think going nuclear may be the one big thing the world needs to do to prevent this. Another is finding massive carbon sinks to reverse what we have done sooner - in the next decade - research needs to be put into this area pronto. We need to find ways to help develop countries industrialize in a cleaner fashion, and yes reduce Co2 emissions of course. It needs to be a full scale undertaking where we eliminate as much co2 as possible without causing a global recession but still making massive strides. And it needs to start now
Plants and the ocean are the best carbon sinks that exist. I think some of the desert reclamation projects the Chinese are doing and the great green wall in Africa with the Sahara are interesting, but I have no idea if they will actually succeed. I believe trees are the best at carbon sequestration, but I also think that video mentioned azolla ferns that were excellent at it as well. The thing is trees don't operate on human time scales. There is no quick solution on a human time scale. There is probably some plant or algae that we can genetically modify to extract CO2 more rapidly than currently exists. Also, I don't know if global warming would certainly be a humanitarian disaster. We would have to adjust to sea level and climate changes, but it could be a benefit to humanity since there will likely be greater access to fresh water due to more rainfall. Primates have flourished before during periods of higher global temperatures, but the level which humans operate today is completely incomparable to primates from millions of years ago or even humans from 500 years ago with our population explosion. As an aside, have we ever seen an animal explode in population like modern humans have over the past few hundred years?
I suggest cutting the power to your house from all outside sources. Park your car and only ride bicycles. Keep physical exertion down to a minimum so you do not exhale too much CO2. Do not purchase anything that has any part of it rooted in hydrocarbons (note: that includes plastic wrapping, plastic parts, rubber parts created from synthetic rubber, paints, adhesives, etc....). Come to think of it, it would be very hard, probably impossible, to find a bicycle that fits this paradigm so you may have to get a horse or just walk everywhere. Don't be a hypocrite, instead be a shining example to everyone else. Do your part to save the Earth by eliminating your own carbon footprint ASAP!!!
Live in a small house or even better an apartment. Oh, and don't have kids. I have been married for a long time and we will have zero kids. How about you? Back to the serious discussion, what is the right amount of CO2 in the air?
I can understand your pessimism, it's not that your notion is foreign. I know it has been suggested before that global warming could very well be the filter. That a civilization that is intelligent will burn up its resources before it realizes the harm it is doing to its planet and thus never reaches stage 2 and burns out on its planet inevitably. I think it's more likely that the filter is that space colonization and space travel to the point where it is more casual is the actual filter though...and not this. The challenges of colonizing Mars as of right now seems pretty much impossible...I think it is more likely that this is the filter, that we are trapped on our planet that will eventually change radically and then be unable to support any life...as the planets around us have shown... At this point, global warming poses more of a threat then a looming asteroid, the latter I think we'd see coming so far in advance that we could figure out a way to knock it off its orbit (I know NASA has already planned for such a scenario) so I do understand the pessimism. I think there are many signs that this is our test, as a species, to become a stage 1 civilization that is capable of controlling our planet to a point... and that it is a very passable test. We already know how to slow it down, we just have to do it. I do think that the messaging could be better. I do think politicians should sell solar energy as new jobs instead of an alternative and that the message has to be to how these changes can benefit people. For example, the diet alone. We can eat less beef and help our environment...we can sell to people that eating seafood is healthier for them...I do think that the messaging is too much of "SACRIFICE" when it doesn't have to be.
The oceans are warming, and warmer oceans hold less CO2 so right now the oceans are releasing Co2 not acting as a sink. We are cutting trees and the amount of plants needed to make a dent is not practical. We'll have to find another solution, somehow using solar to convert CO2 into carbon and oxygen just like plants but on a far more efficient scale. I doubt it will benefit humanity because our planet is in an equilibrium that supports 7 billion people. The US and other bread baskets will turn to desserts and the amount of areas that become temperate for farming will not compensate. More rainfall doesn't mean that rainfall falls in the right places, it just means that some place already wet will become a whole lot wetter and places already dry will become a whole lot dryer for example.
While noble, these acts will not solve the crisis we are in. Synthetics/Plastic are also not the problem, it's the burning of carbon that releases Co2, not the manufacture of plastics. Human production of Co2 from breathing is also insignificant. Instead of trying to promote these useless and silly solutions, we have to focus on things that can actually have impact on a global scale. But at least you are waking up and smelling the coffee and realizing we do face a problem. I must admit, I didn't think you had it in you to wake up from your slumber of right-wing propaganda.
The production of plastics does not release a substantial amount of co2 relatively speaking. If you are concerned about this (I tip my hat to you) you can support the construction of plastics from sugar & Co2 instead of using petrochemicals. Again, I suggest you focus on the major contributor of CO2, that is the burning of fossil fuels versus other sources.
[Premium Post] The global warming movement is over. The majority is not willing to pay money and forego quality of life in exchange for the possibility of lowering the earth's average temperature by 1 degree over the next 30 years. A basic cost-benefit analysis makes this proposition laughable! It's actually completely absurd. GOOD DAY
Quality of life is hurting the poor now (wildfire, floods, pollution, disease) but it will get up to the middle classes and coastal rich very soon. By then it will be too late. Must concede economic gains (all major countries in north America and asia) to slow down and set things right.
