Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[deonb]

Thank you. I like somebody appreciating my work because, as you can also see in this thread, I am not very much appreciated on TMC.

Does it not say something to you, being on the forum where people put their money where their mouth is on climate change in a more direct and meaningful way than almost anywhere else, that you keep finding that those same people have an issue with your rhetoric?

 

[dandelot]

The deniers won't care, but anyone interested in how the climate models
came to be and how the science is done will find
"A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data and the Politics of Global Warming"
by Paul N Edwards an interesting read. It's won awards.
The study of the climate actually began about 1850!
(I have no financial interest in the book, I just think it is a fine book
and a search of this thread failed to find any mention of it.)

 

[mwulff]

Thank you. I like somebody appreciating my work because, as you can also see in this thread, I am not very much appreciated on TMC.

It could be that because English is not your first language you inadvertently come across as angry and bad tempered. But that said I agree with you that we have have reached dangerous levels of co2

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Does it not say something to you, being on the forum where people put their money where their mouth is on climate change in a more direct and meaningful way than almost anywhere else, that you keep finding that those same people have an issue with your rhetoric?

You got the main point. But I don't understand the reason why this is happening.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

The deniers won't care, but anyone interested in how the climate models
came to be and how the science is done will find
"A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data and the Politics of Global Warming"
by Paul N Edwards an interesting read. It's won awards.
The study of the climate actually began about 1850!
(I have no financial interest in the book, I just think it is a fine book
and a search of this thread failed to find any mention of it.)

Interesting book. I will read it as soon as possible.

 

[David99]

I think there is plenty of facts out there that show a relatively rapid change in CO2 and climate change. Those can't be discussed or denied. The effects of what that will cause in the future if we continue that way is up to interpretation. A scientifically based educated guess doesn't look too good, though. The impact is enormous so it's better to stay on the safe side. There are many very good alternatives to keep burning oil and gas. One way or another we will run out of those anyways so it only makes sense to start developing sustainable alternatives now.

I think the discussion about global warming isn't the key issue. What we do now is burning **** will not last, one way or another.

 

[bonnie]

(I have no financial interest in the book, I just think it is a fine book
and a search of this thread failed to find any mention of it.)

Kudos for actually searching on the forum . Drove me nuts as a moderator how few people would take the time to check first.

 

[JRP3]

@mwulff

Don't agree. Already at a CO2 concentration of 650 ppm the Earth will be destroyed.

I think this is part of your problem. May be a language issue, but the earth will be quite fine at higher CO2 concentrations, it has been so in the past. Humans however may not survive. There is a distinction.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Humans however may not survive. There is a distinction.

That's why I have a language issue. People don't understand me because I am too much worried for the future of mankind. But the Earth already at 550 ppm of CO2 concentration will not be the same as today. We will not like the Earth at 550 ppm. Believe me.
And at 650 ppm the frozen methan under the Oceans will destroy the Earth completely.

 

[CalDreamin]

You could use the same data, look farther back and conclude that the earth has not been colder relatively than it is right now.

View attachment 81148

Hundreds of millions of years ago, the earth would have had a completely frozen surface were it not for the higher levels of greenhouse gases than current. That's because the sun emitted significantly less energy hundreds of millions of years ago than it does now.

As the nuclear reactions became more efficient, the infant Sun began to expand very slowly. At first the Sun only shone with 70% of its modern brightness. But as it continued to evolve over eons of time, its brightness grew by 7% every billion years. When trilobites first crawled on shallow ocean bottoms 500 million years ago, the Sun was much fainter in the sky than it is today. Earth would have been in a deep-freeze had it not been for the warming actions of an atmosphere laced with greenhouse gases like water and carbon dioxide.

- - - Updated - - -

the earth will be quite fine at higher CO2 concentrations, it has been so in the past. Humans however may not survive. There is a distinction.

Exactly.

 

[jerry33]

Hundreds of millions of years ago, the earth would have had a completely frozen surface were it not for the higher levels of greenhouse gases than current. That's because the sun emitted significantly less energy hundreds of millions of years ago than it does now.

But the moon was closer to the earth, so tidal warming was stronger.

 

[DriverOne]

Things were so very different in Earth's early days that just comparing CO2 levels is meaningless. More recent comparisons are more useful and applicable to Homo Sapiens.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

I think this is part of your problem. May be a language issue, but the earth will be quite fine at higher CO2 concentrations, it has been so in the past. Humans however may not survive. There is a distinction.

I told to some friends here in Italy about this view, that is shared also by other TMC Members and that I agree is the reason why I am having problems on TMC. My friends considered the chance of mankind disappearing from the Earth not acceptable, and I agree with them.

 

[Canuck]

I told to some friends here in Italy about this view, that is shared also by other TMC Members and that I agree is the reason why I am having problems on TMC. My friends considered the chance of mankind disappearing from the Earth not acceptable, and I agree with them.

The chance of mankind disappearing from the earth is not a "chance". It's 100% certain and only a question of when. Also, you're missing the point being made about the Earth being fine. It's to show that we need to be concerned about "us" and not the Earth -- which is the same view as you have.

 

[mwulff]

Just for the record the current atmosphere co2 concentration is 404.11 ppm not 550 ppm. This is an all-time high and we need to do something about it.

Source: NOOA

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Just for the record the current atmosphere co2 concentration is 404.11 ppm not 550 ppm. This is an all-time high and we need to do something about it.

Source: NOOA

Agree 100%

- - - Updated - - -

The chance of mankind disappearing from the earth is not a "chance". It's 100% certain and only a question of when. Also, you're missing the point being made about the Earth being fine. It's to show that we need to be concerned about "us" and not the Earth -- which is the same view as you have.

Sorry English is my second language. I didn't understand your point.

 

[CalDreamin]

But the moon was closer to the earth, so tidal warming was stronger.

My understanding is that tidal warming mainly influences the interior and not the surface. As an example, Jupiter's moon Io experiences tremendous tidal warming that make Io the solar system's most active body for volcanoes. Yet the surface temperature of Io averages a very cold -202 deg F. Heat from the sun or the lack of sun's heat is apparently more important in determining surface temperatures.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Interesting article:

One magical politician won't stop climate change. It's up to all of us | Rebecca Solnit | Comment is free | The Guardian

The Climate Change issue is up to all of us. So folks take your own responsabilities with respect to this matter.

 

[beeeerock]

Interesting article:

One magical politician won't stop climate change. It's up to all of us | Rebecca Solnit | Comment is free | The Guardian

The Climate Change issue is up to all of us. So folks take your own responsabilities with respect to this matter.

I've come to exactly that conclusion. The people we elect to look after our collective interests - whether they be health care, roads, education, defense or environment - have shown absolutely no initiative or responsibility on this matter. How many decades have we known the problem exists? Too many. Elected officials are more interested in the short term desire to get elected again to take on anything that might be important AND controversial. Not to mention, big business has most of the politicians in their pocket. I have never understood how a corporation can behave as a soulless beast when it's run by men and women who presumably have souls. And I've never understood why we simply say "that's business" as if it's OK.

If there is to be any action on climate change, it will have to come from a grass-roots level. I've stated before that I bought my car as a statement, not because it was uber-cool. And the panels that are planned for my roof will happen one way or the other. I intend to take the time to talk to anyone and everyone who wants to know more about either.

If we're all going to hell in a handbasket, at least those of us who are trying to prevent it can do so with a clear conscience.

 

[jerry33]

My understanding is that tidal warming mainly influences the interior and not the surface. As an example, Jupiter's moon Io experiences tremendous tidal warming that make Io the solar system's most active body for volcanoes. Yet the surface temperature of Io averages a very cold -202 deg F. Heat from the sun or the lack of sun's heat is apparently more important in determining surface temperatures.

Juipter is a gas giant, earth is a rocky planet. I'm not sure you can compare the two. Even if you can, the movement of water caused by the tides will raise the temperature quite a bit.