Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

[Subduction Zone]

You do know that the polar vortex was CAUSED by climate change right? The higher then normal temperatures caused the jet stream to go south, pulling normal temperatures for the arctic farther south then normal.

I grew up in the late 60's and early 70's in Minnesota. It was noticeably colder then than now. When the polar vortex hit the news with "extreme cold" claims I rolled my eyes a bit. It used to get at least -20 F every winter when I was growing up. My brother who also lives in the much more mild state than I do now did not believe me until he looked up records on the internet. Another sign that climate has changed. I suppose it is good for Minnesota, but there are countless others that it is very bad for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

oops yeah I meant co2, what I get for trying to post right before bed hehe.
Plus the increase in temperature would cause more of the co2 from plants, permafrost, and oceans to increase.

I've heard a few times people talk about why bother we can't stop it, well you can't stop the runaway train from hitting the station, but if you start slowing it down you can maybe evacuate more people and cause less damage.

Or maybe even avoid the runaway altogether. From my understanding that is still possible. I probably do not need to worry about AGW, but those that follow me will.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You must be a communist troll of some kind. Why would you pick a site like this to launch such a tirade. My position is simple. Climate changes; it has for as long as the earth has existed. You think that all of a sudden Al Gore drops into the human race he must be right that we are rapidly heating up the earth. None of these temperature predictions have panned out. Certain people seem to want to be the center of all things that operate in the universe. There are too many other processes that operate. Let me also note that our gas planets put out a lot of methane in their atmosphere; you don't see a runaway greenhouse gas there. Ah must be the concepts from all those other science subjects. And furthermore scientists still study the subject. The planet, the solar system, the Sun are all too big & the primary drivers of the energy cycle. Human contribution just cannot manipulate it that much given the natural repositories. You just are not very tolerant of others' opinions & there is no need for alarmism. I don't understand why you would want to go back to the Stone Age. You really envision an earth w/o modern transportation. What is your cure for people who live in the far north like Minnesota, or the Yukon or the deep north of Russia. Do you want them to freeze to death for the sake of what some invisible prize? Too much obscession. You just bought into the democratic playbook which is to make everything & anything a crisis. Clearly the US has progressed a long way in its air since 1970. We could do a better job with our physical land pollution be it landfills that are up to the brim or just the unsightly plastic, paper, foam, appliances tossed out into the countryside. But I don't see any politicians doing anything about that either because a) it's labor intensive to pick up & b) it does not get their name on a bridge. What is easier for them to do is to eliminate as many conveniences for humankind as they can under the guise of progress. They're phonies. I mean just look at the number of VIPS that got caught violating their own covids rules. These people are no different than the kings & queens of the age of feudalism. They thing rules don't apply to them. And they have no concept how electric grids work. They thing batteries are cheap; they're not & that is why they are specially secured in many stores. All batteries eventually reach retirement & then where are you going to pack them away for their corpses. Landfills again? Try Africa. That's where the electronic waste is going now. But politicians in our country don't represent any one unless it unleashes something for them. They don't care how the people in the north of Maine will handle winter. To them it's just easy to turn on electric heat. My state has the highest continental electric prices in the nation. What if those prices now rival the mortgage? Then how will people survive? You think they will remain here. You think they will pull off martyrdom on this mullarkey? No they will go south where heating is not needed as much. But if you think someone with 1500 square feet of space is going to pay $1500 for their electric bill in the winter, you've lost your mind. Now arguably I could support MAGLEV trains because they eliminate a pollution source & because of their efficiency might even drag more people off the roads but every time I write my congressperson on the issue-nope--just rather keep subsidizing Amtrak, a failed train system that to survive needs the govt. So in sum, you're not convincing me on any of this. The Sun rules.

Whoah, that's a major tl;dr - who stripped out all the paragraphs?

 

[Aussie Pete]

ahhh yes this old nugget of a lie :>

Is Methane more damaging? In a way sorta, the difference is, methane stays in the atmosphere for about a decade, co2 stays in there for hundreds of years. So water and methane that are both as bad if not worse then c02 get cycled out frequently, while co2 just builds and builds.

the methane from 11 years ago is gone, while the CO2 from 111 years ago is still there. Along with all the co2 that's been added since.

oops yeah I meant co2, what I get for trying to post right before bed hehe.
Plus the increase in temperature would cause more of the co2 from plants, permafrost, and oceans to increase.

I've heard a few times people talk about why bother we can't stop it, well you can't stop the runaway train from hitting the station, but if you start slowing it down you can maybe evacuate more people and cause less damage.

If people would stop cutting down trees, the problem would be mitigated. CO2 is essential for plant growth. Plants grown in greenhouses benefit from higher CO2 levels. If forests were restored, CO2 control would be much easier. The opposite is happening. Reducing water vapour (the main greenhouse gas) would be counterproductive. Lower rainfall, less growth, more heat effects from the sun and so on it goes.
Reducing CO2 is only a part of the solution. Building regulations should encourage green spaces. Instead, new suburbs in Australia are often treeless. Gardens are getting smaller so the heat load increases. It is measurable and can be several degrees different in adjacent suburbs. This is all controllable and is nothing to do with fossil fuels or any of the other ecological "villains". It's all to do with money.

 

[eclipsenow]

You must be a communist troll of some kind.

I'm Ordo-Liberal, not communist. Although America has drifted so far into the alt-right that even Joe Biden would fit in the far right of most conservative parties in the OECD.

Why would you pick a site like this to launch such a tirade.

Because I'm a Christian and disgusted at the way the American church has drifted into scientific denial and associated itself with one political party so strongly it's the church of Donald Trump.

My position is simple. Climate changes; it has for as long as the earth has existed.

That's just downright insulting - OF COURSE it changes.
Ask yourself a question right now.
Do you honestly think climatologists don't know that already?
Don't study it to understand various historical forcings?
Don't know why it changes and how it changes over time - including continental drift and how that changes the way it works?

You think that all of a sudden Al Gore drops into the human race he must be right that we are rapidly heating up the earth.

Don't tell me what I think - that's insulting.

None of these temperature predictions have panned out.

Evidence please? Now you're just making stuff up!
We're right on track with the WORST temperature projections! The worst case scenarios.

Let me also note that our gas planets put out a lot of methane in their atmosphere; you don't see a runaway greenhouse gas there.

Um, Jupiter is 5.1 AU away.
It's 5 times further away from the sun than we are! Also, "The composition of Jupiter is similar to that of the Sun—mostly hydrogen and helium. Deep in the atmosphere, pressure and temperature increase, compressing the hydrogen gas into a liquid. This gives Jupiter the largest ocean in the solar system—an ocean made of hydrogen instead of water."

Ah must be the concepts from all those other science subjects. And furthermore scientists still study the subject.

I'm not sure what you're even saying here. Are you sure you have 3 university degrees?

The planet, the solar system, the Sun are all too big & the primary drivers of the energy cycle.

Incorrect - we know how much energy the sun gives of and measure it consistently. 340 W / m2.

The sun's weather has even been in a slight cooling phase the second half of last century, but our earth kept warming. Why? The Radiative Forcing Equation. As I keep saying, I'm no scientist, but even I can understand that this equation measures the 'before and after' of the Industrial Revolution.

where C is the CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration.[7] The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic,[8] at concentrations up to around eight times the current value, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect. Some claim that at higher concentrations, however, it becomes supra-logarithmic so that there is no saturation in the absorption of infrared radiation by CO

A different formula might apply for other greenhouse gases such as methane and N2O (square-root dependence) or CFCs (linear), with coefficients that may be found e.g. in the IPCC reports.[10] While recently a study[11] suggests a significant revision of methane IPCC formula.​

Human contribution just cannot manipulate it that much given the natural repositories.

See the Radiative Forcing Equation above.

You just are not very tolerant of others' opinions

Your opinion is butting into reality.

& there is no need for alarmism.

Not if we don't take action there isn't! But if like Donald Trump and the pandemic we stand there and say "It's only 15, soon going down to nothing" the next thing you know our denial of the facts have condemned more than 3000 people a day to dying of the virus! You guys are suffering a 9/11 almost every day because of that man!

Don't make the same mistake with the climate. Did you look up a dictionary? Do you know the difference between climate and weather?

I don't understand why you would want to go back to the Stone Age.

Yeah, thanks for paying careful attention to my writing. It says a lot about a person when they can't take in what their opponent is actually saying! Remember I wrote this?

What if I told you I want to roll out a convenient, attractive, beautiful modern life for all 10 billion of us on earth by 2050?​

Don't believe me? Here's the summary page from my blog - but I must explain that I originally came into environmentalism studying the peak oil movement in the 2000's - just to explain some of the points mentioned in my summary paragraph below.

5. There is hope if you get involved

I’m now convinced there is no technical inevitability of a worldwide collapse. "Peak energy" from the peak oil doomers is just a myth. Check my solutions pages — we can have all the abundant reliable affordable clean power we want, but there's a lot of public fear to deal with first. Yet there are technical solutions to our many environmental problems. But will we deploy them in time? I originally used the symbol of an eclipse and pushed the line that “We must eclipse ourselves or be eclipsed.” But that's not only too melodramatic: it's also too life or death, too all or nothing, too binary.

I can now see a thousand ways we might succeed in some areas and fail in others. While we might not “be eclipsed” and collapse back to the stone age, we risk being stuck in the twilight. We must pressure governments and corporations to roll out the solutions ASAP or our children will inherit a planet we hardly recognise, with half the biodiversity extinct by 2050 and possibly billions living in poverty, hunger, and war. There are enormous challenges ahead. I hope you will study the solutions summary page, read further, and find at least one cause that might resonate resonate with you enough for you to get involved.
The Eclipse is here​

You really envision an earth w/o modern transportation.

Wrong!

What is your cure for people who live in the far north like Minnesota, or the Yukon or the deep north of Russia. Do you want them to freeze to death for the sake of what some invisible prize?

You haven't even read my signature have you? All right, let me explain. Dr James Hansen is one of the grandfathers of modern climate science. Guess what? He doesn't recommend a renewables only solution to climate change! Not at all. Instead he says: He says: “Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” Hansen warns not to drink sustainable energy Kool-Aid

Instead Dr Hansen recommends nuclear power, especially breeder reactors that eat nuclear waste getting 90 times the energy out of the fuel. The final waste product from breeders is only hot for 300 years, and only generates 1 golf ball waste to power a whole person's life - cradle to grave.
Refuel on Nuclear Power – the Silver Bullet!!!

Too much obscession. You just bought into the democratic playbook

Yes - understanding we are grieving our Lord with our entitled, selfish lifestyles, and hurting not only the world he loves but each other with our ignorant energy choices, can all become a bit obsessive. Seeing how the Republican Religious Right have basically become divorced from reality is a bit of an obsession of mine - especially when their leader denied not just climate science but an easy to understand pandemic that's now burning through Americans like our Australian Bushfires of last year.
(Yeah, I'm Australian, not even a democrat!)

which is to make everything & anything a crisis. Clearly the US has progressed a long way in its air since 1970.

Not so fast! Coal is one of the deadliest forms of electricity that we have ever invented, and combined with oil and gas creates deadly smog that chokes people to death. But coal even kills in first world nations that do not have as much visible smog. Invisible particulates get through our scrubbers and hang around our cities, killing thousands. Coal, oil and gas particulates kill about 2.6 million people per year worldwide. That’s over 7000 people a day, or nearly 2 Chernobyl’s a day or 650 Chernobyl's a year! (See “Comparison with Chernobyl” below)
WHO | 7 million premature deaths annually linked to air pollution

Your last long paragraph was a rather incoherent rant about things that peeve you. There's a lot to say about plastics and Trump's failed response to Covid 19 and the way American transport systems work and political hypocrisy and even the way American towns are deployed in the landscape. America can do so much better. But the way all this seems to sit in your mind as "facts that disprove the basic laws of physics" is really unsettling to me.

CO2 traps heat.
This is known.
I have spoken. (Mandalorian quote.)
I bet you didn't even watch the 2 minute video I linked to above. Try again! You could go into many physics labs on the planet where they could set up a demonstration something like this.

Indeed, the human race has known this since 1856 when Eunice Foote discovered CO2 traps heat.

 

[eclipsenow]

If people would stop cutting down trees, the problem would be mitigated. CO2 is essential for plant growth. Plants grown in greenhouses benefit from higher CO2 levels. If forests were restored, CO2 control would be much easier. The opposite is happening. Reducing water vapour (the main greenhouse gas) would be counterproductive. Lower rainfall, less growth, more heat effects from the sun and so on it goes.
Reducing CO2 is only a part of the solution. Building regulations should encourage green spaces. Instead, new suburbs in Australia are often treeless. Gardens are getting smaller so the heat load increases. It is measurable and can be several degrees different in adjacent suburbs. This is all controllable and is nothing to do with fossil fuels or any of the other ecological "villains". It's all to do with money.

Cities are only 3% of the surface of the planet. Our grazing and farming takes up about half the non-ice land on earth. There are some big food revolutions coming - as big as the agricultural revolution at the end of the Hunter Gatherer age. If we could reduce the amount of meat we eat with some of the proteins I'll list below, we could quickly plant out a good genetically diverse mix of trees native to the various regions around the globe. We can fix this! Indeed, one of the solutions below is fairly low tech and involves a mass of seaweed which can be used to sequester carbon in the bottom of the oceans.

LOW TECH way to feed the world - think of it as a ‘permaculture of the oceans’ that filters out super-nutrients that create oceanic dead zones. While it restores the oceans, it can also feed the human race - without fishing! It's seaweed and shellfish farms off our coasts. Bren Smith describes the smaller coastal farms in his TED talk.

Dr Tim Flannery shows how we can scale this up to sequester huge amounts of carbon, solve climate change, de-acidify the oceans and stimulate the ocean food chain - all without fishing! See his TED talk (14 minutes) https://tinyurl.com/y2ohlnpw or his ABC Special "Can Seaweed Save the World" (55 minutes) Can Seaweed Save The World? or even his "The Conversation" article at Sea the possibilities: to fight climate change, put seaweed in the mix

Then there's this HIGH TECH way to feed the world. George Monbiot discusses an alternative to traditional farming called 'ferming' - short for fermenting. Apparently they've found a way to make flour from bacteria! George ate a pancake grown from bacteria. They are working on protein rich meat patties and even omega 3 rich seafood sticks. Imagine a hamburger where the only thing that was really grown was the lettuce and tomato. The best bit? If this becomes a cheap way to make food, we'll be able to feed the human race from solar factories in the desert. It climate-proofs our food! We'll still need fruit and vegetable farms scattered around - but if ferming can replace the majority of crops and meat and fishing - we've just solved one of the most dangerous climate threats - to our very food! Lab-grown food is about to destroy farming – and save the planet | George Monbiot With shellfish farms and ferming - I'm optimistic we'll be able to feed a world of 10 billion even in a climate emergency.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Cities are only 3% of the surface of the planet. Our grazing and farming takes up about half the non-ice land on earth. There are some big food revolutions coming - as big as the agricultural revolution at the end of the Hunter Gatherer age. If we could reduce the amount of meat we eat with some of the proteins I'll list below, we could quickly plant out a good genetically diverse mix of trees native to the various regions around the globe. We can fix this! Indeed, one of the solutions below is fairly low tech and involves a mass of seaweed which can be used to sequester carbon in the bottom of the oceans.

LOW TECH way to feed the world - think of it as a ‘permaculture of the oceans’ that filters out super-nutrients that create oceanic dead zones. While it restores the oceans, it can also feed the human race - without fishing! It's seaweed and shellfish farms off our coasts. Bren Smith describes the smaller coastal farms in his TED talk.

Dr Tim Flannery shows how we can scale this up to sequester huge amounts of carbon, solve climate change, de-acidify the oceans and stimulate the ocean food chain - all without fishing! See his TED talk (14 minutes) https://tinyurl.com/y2ohlnpw or his ABC Special "Can Seaweed Save the World" (55 minutes) Can Seaweed Save The World? or even his "The Conversation" article at Sea the possibilities: to fight climate change, put seaweed in the mix

Then there's this HIGH TECH way to feed the world. George Monbiot discusses an alternative to traditional farming called 'ferming' - short for fermenting. Apparently they've found a way to make flour from bacteria! George ate a pancake grown from bacteria. They are working on protein rich meat patties and even omega 3 rich seafood sticks. Imagine a hamburger where the only thing that was really grown was the lettuce and tomato. The best bit? If this becomes a cheap way to make food, we'll be able to feed the human race from solar factories in the desert. It climate-proofs our food! We'll still need fruit and vegetable farms scattered around - but if ferming can replace the majority of crops and meat and fishing - we've just solved one of the most dangerous climate threats - to our very food! Lab-grown food is about to destroy farming – and save the planet | George Monbiot With shellfish farms and ferming - I'm optimistic we'll be able to feed a world of 10 billion even in a climate emergency.

I'm not. Already there are wars between different tribal groups over land use. The technically competent West thinks it can apply solutions to the rest of the world. People are not that easy to persuade. Some races are more willing to starve than to eat food that is not culturally acceptable, as some charities have found out. 1.6 billion Muslims - how do you convince them that artificial food can be Halal? And its not just food. Australia is roughly the size of continental USA, if you exclude Alaska. The majority of the land is desert. Most people live on a narrow coastal strip. Population growth here is creating huge problems. And we are relatively well off.

 

[lordjeff]

I'm Ordo-Liberal, not communist. Although America has drifted so far into the alt-right that even Joe Biden would fit in the far right of most conservative parties in the OECD.


Because I'm a Christian and disgusted at the way the American church has drifted into scientific denial and associated itself with one political party so strongly it's the church of Donald Trump.


That's just downright insulting - OF COURSE it changes.
Ask yourself a question right now.
Do you honestly think climatologists don't know that already?
Don't study it to understand various historical forcings?
Don't know why it changes and how it changes over time - including continental drift and how that changes the way it works?


Don't tell me what I think - that's insulting.


Evidence please? Now you're just making stuff up!
We're right on track with the WORST temperature projections! The worst case scenarios.


Um, Jupiter is 5.1 AU away.
It's 5 times further away from the sun than we are! Also, "The composition of Jupiter is similar to that of the Sun—mostly hydrogen and helium. Deep in the atmosphere, pressure and temperature increase, compressing the hydrogen gas into a liquid. This gives Jupiter the largest ocean in the solar system—an ocean made of hydrogen instead of water."



I'm not sure what you're even saying here. Are you sure you have 3 university degrees?


Incorrect - we know how much energy the sun gives of and measure it consistently. 340 W / m2.

The sun's weather has even been in a slight cooling phase the second half of last century, but our earth kept warming. Why? The Radiative Forcing Equation. As I keep saying, I'm no scientist, but even I can understand that this equation measures the 'before and after' of the Industrial Revolution.

where C is the CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration.[7] The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic,[8] at concentrations up to around eight times the current value, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect. Some claim that at higher concentrations, however, it becomes supra-logarithmic so that there is no saturation in the absorption of infrared radiation by CO

A different formula might apply for other greenhouse gases such as methane and N2O (square-root dependence) or CFCs (linear), with coefficients that may be found e.g. in the IPCC reports.[10] While recently a study[11] suggests a significant revision of methane IPCC formula.​

See the Radiative Forcing Equation above.


Your opinion is butting into reality.


Not if we don't take action there isn't! But if like Donald Trump and the pandemic we stand there and say "It's only 15, soon going down to nothing" the next thing you know our denial of the facts have condemned more than 3000 people a day to dying of the virus! You guys are suffering a 9/11 almost every day because of that man!

Don't make the same mistake with the climate. Did you look up a dictionary? Do you know the difference between climate and weather?


Yeah, thanks for paying careful attention to my writing. It says a lot about a person when they can't take in what their opponent is actually saying! Remember I wrote this?

What if I told you I want to roll out a convenient, attractive, beautiful modern life for all 10 billion of us on earth by 2050?​

Don't believe me? Here's the summary page from my blog - but I must explain that I originally came into environmentalism studying the peak oil movement in the 2000's - just to explain some of the points mentioned in my summary paragraph below.

5. There is hope if you get involved

I’m now convinced there is no technical inevitability of a worldwide collapse. "Peak energy" from the peak oil doomers is just a myth. Check my solutions pages — we can have all the abundant reliable affordable clean power we want, but there's a lot of public fear to deal with first. Yet there are technical solutions to our many environmental problems. But will we deploy them in time? I originally used the symbol of an eclipse and pushed the line that “We must eclipse ourselves or be eclipsed.” But that's not only too melodramatic: it's also too life or death, too all or nothing, too binary.

I can now see a thousand ways we might succeed in some areas and fail in others. While we might not “be eclipsed” and collapse back to the stone age, we risk being stuck in the twilight. We must pressure governments and corporations to roll out the solutions ASAP or our children will inherit a planet we hardly recognise, with half the biodiversity extinct by 2050 and possibly billions living in poverty, hunger, and war. There are enormous challenges ahead. I hope you will study the solutions summary page, read further, and find at least one cause that might resonate resonate with you enough for you to get involved.
The Eclipse is here​

Wrong!




You haven't even read my signature have you? All right, let me explain. Dr James Hansen is one of the grandfathers of modern climate science. Guess what? He doesn't recommend a renewables only solution to climate change! Not at all. Instead he says: He says: “Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” Hansen warns not to drink sustainable energy Kool-Aid

Instead Dr Hansen recommends nuclear power, especially breeder reactors that eat nuclear waste getting 90 times the energy out of the fuel. The final waste product from breeders is only hot for 300 years, and only generates 1 golf ball waste to power a whole person's life - cradle to grave.
Refuel on Nuclear Power – the Silver Bullet!!!


Yes - understanding we are grieving our Lord with our entitled, selfish lifestyles, and hurting not only the world he loves but each other with our ignorant energy choices, can all become a bit obsessive. Seeing how the Republican Religious Right have basically become divorced from reality is a bit of an obsession of mine - especially when their leader denied not just climate science but an easy to understand pandemic that's now burning through Americans like our Australian Bushfires of last year.
(Yeah, I'm Australian, not even a democrat!)



Not so fast! Coal is one of the deadliest forms of electricity that we have ever invented, and combined with oil and gas creates deadly smog that chokes people to death. But coal even kills in first world nations that do not have as much visible smog. Invisible particulates get through our scrubbers and hang around our cities, killing thousands. Coal, oil and gas particulates kill about 2.6 million people per year worldwide. That’s over 7000 people a day, or nearly 2 Chernobyl’s a day or 650 Chernobyl's a year! (See “Comparison with Chernobyl” below)
WHO | 7 million premature deaths annually linked to air pollution

Your last long paragraph was a rather incoherent rant about things that peeve you. There's a lot to say about plastics and Trump's failed response to Covid 19 and the way American transport systems work and political hypocrisy and even the way American towns are deployed in the landscape. America can do so much better. But the way all this seems to sit in your mind as "facts that disprove the basic laws of physics" is really unsettling to me.

CO2 traps heat.
This is known.
I have spoken. (Mandalorian quote.)
I bet you didn't even watch the 2 minute video I linked to above. Try again! You could go into many physics labs on the planet where they could set up a demonstration something like this.

Indeed, the human race has known this since 1856 when Eunice Foote discovered CO2 traps heat.

 

[lordjeff]

You're caught up in this stuff like a compulsion & that's too dangerous for one' health. Not all climatologists agree on cause. Fact remains temp. records don't go for all eons of time-we don't know what it was like in 47,000,000 BCE on Dec. 25. The cardinal rule of geology is the processes of the past act today as well. Along comes Gore & tells people that this gadget we use is hurting the planet. That's his hypothesis. But he would need many more courses do understand the forcings. Not all hypotheses turn out. He has an m/o-he's out to make money. To label one gas as the cause of a planet going extinct given that the planet has 3 repositories to counter any forcing is not using logic. You need to watch those utube podcasts on logic & fallacies. You simply want to follow 3 scientists because that is to your liking. I choose not to. 12 years from now the earth will still be here.

 

[lordjeff]

If people would stop cutting down trees, the problem would be mitigated. CO2 is essential for plant growth. Plants grown in greenhouses benefit from higher CO2 levels. If forests were restored, CO2 control would be much easier. The opposite is happening. Reducing water vapour (the main greenhouse gas) would be counterproductive. Lower rainfall, less growth, more heat effects from the sun and so on it goes.
Reducing CO2 is only a part of the solution. Building regulations should encourage green spaces. Instead, new suburbs in Australia are often treeless. Gardens are getting smaller so the heat load increases. It is measurable and can be several degrees different in adjacent suburbs. This is all controllable and is nothing to do with fossil fuels or any of the other ecological "villains". It's all to do with money.

Arguably maintaining healthy forests requires good silviculture & strengthens the repository. Figure this the earth is maybe using a tad less paper given all the ipod tablets now. Urban landscaping must be the new field as to how to re-engineer city design to dissipate pollutants & heat caused by entropy. That is actually where I do see wind turbines come into play by situating them in the harbor. I have seen pix of buildings with vegetation on the roof, even the sides of bridges. It increases the repository. Incidently the main culprit here is entropy-a fact of physics. That accounts for the heat accumulation here so if something is constructed to advect the air thru the streets & between the tall buildings, who knows might get some effect. But the politicians would simply rather tax people or outlaw vehicles. Maglev trains will help too. As trains use diesel part of the time, if you convert to magnetism, you lose the diesel.

 

[lordjeff]

You do know that the polar vortex was CAUSED by climate change right? The higher then normal temperatures caused the jet stream to go south, pulling normal temperatures for the arctic farther south then normal.

Didn't I say from the get-go that the climate always changes. It's just that co2 did not invent a polar vortex no different than it invented a tornado, a blizzard, a hurricane, a trade wind, or an earthquake. Al Gore had nothing to say about the vortices, that is about the same time they coined the term climate change in lieu of global warming. The climate changes & the planet has been thru both icehouse states & warmhouse states & so has the geological column of time.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Along comes Gore & tells people that this gadget we use is hurting the planet. That's his hypothesis. But he would need many more courses do understand the forcings. Not all hypotheses turn out. He has an m/o-he's out to make money. To label one gas as the cause of a planet going extinct given that the planet has 3 repositories to counter any forcing is not using logic. You need to watch those utube podcasts on logic & fallacies. You simply want to follow 3 scientists because that is to your liking. I choose not to. 12 years from now the earth will still be here.

1. Al Gore is (was) a politician. He didn't have a "hypothesis" because he wasn't (and isn't) a scientist of any sort. He took a political position and favored a plan of action based on the science done by actual scientists.

2. I don't know of any "planet hurting gadget". CO2 emissions are from a gadget or even a single invention (like the automobile). CO2 emissions come from internal combustion engines; from burning coal for electricity, heating, and industrial uses; from burning methane (natural gas) for electricity, heating, cooking, and other purposes. This isn't one "gadget" but a series of processes essential to the global economy.

3. AlGore is not the central figure climate change or climatology. Even if his motive had been entire self-serving, it wouldn't affect the reality of CO2-driven climate change *ONE* *BIT*.

4. There are a *lot* more scientists than 3 involved in climate research and supporting restrictions on CO2 emissions to constrict climate impacts isn't about following some sort of Pied Piper.

5. Climate change isn't going to make the planet go extinct or destroy it. NO ONE ever said such a thing (who had the slightest clue what they are talking about). This is and has always been about avoiding *massive* disruption of our society, agriculture, coastal cities, and economies from the cumulative impact of CO2 emissions on climate.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Urban landscaping must be the new field as to how to re-engineer city design to dissipate pollutants & heat caused by entropy. That is actually where I do see wind turbines come into play by situating them in the harbor. I have seen pix of buildings with vegetation on the roof, even the sides of bridges. It increases the repository. Incidently the main culprit here is entropy-a fact of physics. That accounts for the heat accumulation here so if something is constructed to advect the air thru the streets & between the tall buildings, who knows might get some effect. But the politicians would simply rather tax people or outlaw vehicles. Maglev trains will help too. As trains use diesel part of the time, if you convert to magnetism, you lose the diesel.

In this section you have misused the following physics terms:

* heat
* entropy
* magnetism

You also seem to have constructed sentences in odd fashion that can not be translated into English.

 

[lordjeff]

Al Gore can make a hypothesis. No law against it. People do that all the time. But politicians do by what they always do which is to follow trends. Many of these trends hurt people. What I mean by gadgets is they really don't want people to have cars & both Pelosi & Boxer have said that. Not everyone can walk to work or take the bus or train. To perform heavy excavation requires heavy earth equipment-steam shovels, payloaders, all sorts of tractors, cranes, stump grinders, mowers, cement mixers, hysters, dumptrucks, pavers, plowers. These function on diesel. Airplanes use kerosene. Personally when one lives in the north, you need to have a reliable heat source & that is not going to happen with wind or solar. Politicians have such arrogance to think everyone can use electric heat. Wait to you see the bill. Oil/natural gas/propane are simply more efficient. And as aforementioned if everyone is stressing the grid to recharge, that slows the current down. That will be a great inconvenience to people's lives. In terms of scientists, there are scientists who believe climate change is all natural, some believe it to be solely anthropogenic, some a mix of the two, some not ready to commit one way or the other. It does not matter how many side one way or the other. Colleges are cash cows for govt. money known as grants. It's all about job longevity. No accountability at all. So you can bark about the number of institutes established by the fossil fuel haters, but there are others on the opposite side. If you peruse the articles today put out on the environment, you will see that a good many are written by people who have no biz doing jourrnalism. They are making judgements & writing op-eds, not doing research. Take the case of say the Sierra Club, they're are totally driven to think anything anthropogenic is bad. Ya know if you pour mercury into a river, you're going to have problems. However, if you buy into their mullarkey, they would soon cut down a forest to implement a solar or wind farm under the guise that this will lower the planet's temp. It won't & they're not even employing their own premise of co2 contributing to warmth. Their idea is that solar or wind does not produce emissions so that makes them desirable. The problem is the sun does not shine all the time, nor the wind blow. This stuff can only provide one with electric heat which is prohibitively expensive. Solar-fine for Florida, Arizona, but it's not going to help Duluth. We call this best efficiency practices. And if you don't believe that they don't want to ban cars or planes of course they do-it's always a one size fits all approach. It's never a middle road approach w/ our congress. They like picking winners & losers--that's a human flaw because humans live in tension. Personally a society could operate with both. And if there is a day that comes where they can do an electric battery on a jet & it works, then that is the progression of technology. But we are not there & I for one do not care to sacrifice my gadgets for some obscure dream. I mean you don't see Hollywood giving up their jets & car, who's kidding who. They want the little people to do that. This is just human nature. But in particular, the far left "squad" in congress are the ones pushing it.

 

[lordjeff]

You do know that the polar vortex was CAUSED by climate change right? The higher then normal temperatures caused the jet stream to go south, pulling normal temperatures for the arctic farther south then normal.

By the way the vortex is not caused by spontaneously engineered change. The vortex exists because of the Polar Easterlies, which a cyclonic semi-permanent belt at the poles.

 

[lordjeff]

This is all irrelevant. These things take place over longer periods of time than humanity has existed. Concern about man-made climate change is not about thousands of years or millions of years, but decades. Things have changed in human lifetimes, will continue to change for a decade or two, and if we don't stop our destructive CO2 emissions habit they will happen for much longer. Those changes are occurring faster than the ecology can adjust.

I simply disagree with you that there is this urgency. Human behavior is always about manipulating some part of the public. That occurs in Marxist societies, democratic ones, totalitarian ones. We do not have destructice CO2 emissions because we haver repositories & I'd support trying to keep those in good shape. You must have bought in to AOC's doctrine for you to believe that civilization is all of sudden doomed. Heck, a good portion of the planet probably does not even have electricity or a car etc. The US actually led the world in reductions last year. Over a couple decades, the oil companies have managed to reduce the amount of sulfur in fuel & of course we no longer can manufacture gasoline w/ lead in it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We do not have destructice CO2 emissions because we haver repositories & I'd support trying to keep those in good shape. You must have bought in to AOC's doctrine for you to believe that civilization is all of sudden doomed.

Oh boy...

What on earth are these "repositories" you speak of?

I really doubt that may concern about global warming/climate change has anything to do with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez as I learned about these things and became concerned about them when she was in pre-school. Do you follow the doctrine of any pre-schoolers?

[Oh, please use paragraph breaks with lines to space them. A previous post is a mass of text.]

 

[Hans Blaster]

Solar-fine for Florida, Arizona, but it's not going to help Duluth.

Why? They have solar power (photovoltaic) in Belgium. All of Belgium is north of Duluth. (Similarly in other parts of Europe, north and south of Duluth.)

 

[lordjeff]

Oh boy...

What on earth are these "repositories" you speak of?

I really doubt that may concern about global warming/climate change has anything to do with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez as I learned about these things and became concerned about them when she was in pre-school. Do you follow the doctrine of any pre-schoolers?

[Oh, please use paragraph breaks with lines to space them. A previous post is a mass of text.]

The earth's natural repositories for absorption of CO2 are a) oceans/seas/lakes, b) all vegetation including trees, plants, algae, plankton, grass, rushes & sedges, weeds, flower, vegetable & fruit crops, grain crops, flowers, c) sedimentary rocks of the minerals calcite/dolomite, namely limestone, spar, & dolstone. Carbon is pulled in under certain sea conditions & calcite forms. Large-scale formation leads to very pieces of limestone such as chalk or limestone strata. These repositories are the natural buffer to prevent the planet from attaining the status of a runaway greenhouse effect which occurs on Venus. The ocean comprises water which in vapor form is the largest greenhouse compound but we don't want to evaporate all that now.

 

[lordjeff]

Oh boy...

What on earth are these "repositories" you speak of?

I really doubt that may concern about global warming/climate change has anything to do with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez as I learned about these things and became concerned about them when she was in pre-school. Do you follow the doctrine of any pre-schoolers?

[Oh, please use paragraph breaks with lines to space them. A previous post is a mass of text.]

She seems to be one who is alarmist & of course the media adores her because the media wants drastic action-not for the sake of climate or a solar panel manufacturer. The media believes the US of A has ruined the planet & in order for the US to heal everyone's hurt, they want us to go back to the Stone Age. She is not a progressive but a regressive. In fact she actually found her way to Congress by virtue of a talent show looking for persons to run in her district. That's how bad it is when we say we cannot get good smart people to run. In fact she was the one who said we have 12 years left which of course the rest of her cohorts are going to run with to scare the hell out of the public into compliance. What an embarrassment to Boston U. The earth's demise goes out when the sun moves off the Main Sequence.