-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate facts to warm to
- Thread starter tonybelding
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Hmmmm.
Since Kyoto 1997, the gridlock and ideological trench wars in U.S. politics have brought global climate politics to a stand still. Hansen attributing this to Obama is not fair.
It is true, though, that with the election of President Obama in 2008 hopes rose to an all-time high that now is the time for the U.S. to join global movement. These have been bitterly disappointed.
My opinion is that all concerned citizens should turn to local action. If we reduce our carbon output to zero, it becomes irrelevant if intergovernmental agreements aim for 2, 5, 17, 25, or 90 percent reduction - and get filibustered in Senate.
I didn't know there is a rate of disintegration that's in our control.
From across the pond, it doesn't look like President Obama is in the position to change course of major political topics from his election campaign, lest alone the world's course.
Since Kyoto 1997, the gridlock and ideological trench wars in U.S. politics have brought global climate politics to a stand still. Hansen attributing this to Obama is not fair.
It is true, though, that with the election of President Obama in 2008 hopes rose to an all-time high that now is the time for the U.S. to join global movement. These have been bitterly disappointed.
My opinion is that all concerned citizens should turn to local action. If we reduce our carbon output to zero, it becomes irrelevant if intergovernmental agreements aim for 2, 5, 17, 25, or 90 percent reduction - and get filibustered in Senate.
Norbert
TSLA will win
I think that refers to the "point of no return". Currently we are still able to avoid a climate change if we reduce CO2 pollution, but above a certain level, we will not be able to stop it anymore.
I certainly agree that each concerned citizen should take action. Individual actions are not enough, however; the actions of society collectively harm each of us individually. Without effective and enforceable government policies, we're not going to see enough volunteers taking individual action to achieve the reductions that are needed.
There are two general forms of solving this problem: (1) reduce your consumption/activities or (2) innovate to find lower-impact forms of consumption/activity. The innovation path is harder and often requires some form of collective action: consider Tesla, which in order to be successful needs to have enough consumers willing to buy an EV--which government policies have helped (contrast the number of reservations in Norway to the number in Sweden). The advances in solar technologies would never have occurred without government policies that created a robust market.
The big problem is that the public does not perceive this to be a problem. Not one person at my work, other than myself, thinks that human activities have any significant impact. And given that the Governor of the state called for a prayer meeting to end drought (even though superstition is supposed to be separate from government) it's not likely that attitudes will change anytime soon.
We had a Governor do that in Georgia around 2006, the drought ended about 2.5 years later. So it works. :wink:. We then had another Governor do it, I think twice. It is a lot easier that fixing our water supply problems.
sarcastic if you didn't pick up on it
W.Petefish
Active Member
Research suggests that there really is no "point of no return". Through Geochemistry it can be reversed. See Here: SOCM (Shallow-water Ocean Carbonate Model)
The German government didn't put feed-in tariffs into legislation because they had it in their election campaign :smile:. It was an idea born inside a grass roots movement, lobbying for the cause and finding support in a few open minds inside the parliament. So the actions of individuals can matter to the greatest possible extend.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Sorry, but that doesn't look very convincing to me. I don't even see the claim you state, made in a clear form. It looks like rather simplistic "Research Models" on a small side issue. And it's from November 2005. Climate change skeptics always come up with some isolated research that they point to, as if that meant anything.
I seem to see the same type of reaction from climate change proponets!
I am neither, but in reading this model, the potential for oceanic buffering of CO2 is huge, don't be so quick to dismiss it!
Norbert
TSLA will win
Oceanic buffering of CO2, by itself, is a well-known effect. I recently pointed to an article mentioning it as well.
That's why there are large organizations creating huge combined reports. These aren't individual efforts for a long time, but large groups of scientists with thousands of research projects coordinating with each other.
I'm not dismissing it, and don't even see any claim that would need dismissing.
It just seems like a tiny piece in an enormous puzzle, and doesn't appear to make any clear statement one way or the other in the first place, aside from that there would need to be a much, much larger effort lifting such research to a relevant level. Those seem just a few simple equations assembled into a "model".
I like to think of the whole issue this way:
1) We have put a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in the past 100 years. This is measurable.
2) We are currently putting CO2 into the atmosphere at a staggering rate. This is measurable.
3) This greatly increased portion of the atmosphere that is CO2 is likely producing effects.
4) The atmosphere weather/climate system is so insanely complex we can't really predict what is going on.
5) We should probably try to stop, and reverse, the process of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, because there are a lot of bad things that could happen.
I personally think it is clear that increased CO2 is correlated with increased temperatures. But the earth is such a complex system we really can't predict how it will react. I have a feeling it will react, and well I don't want it to because it is working pretty well keeping us alive at the moment.
1) We have put a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in the past 100 years. This is measurable.
2) We are currently putting CO2 into the atmosphere at a staggering rate. This is measurable.
3) This greatly increased portion of the atmosphere that is CO2 is likely producing effects.
4) The atmosphere weather/climate system is so insanely complex we can't really predict what is going on.
5) We should probably try to stop, and reverse, the process of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, because there are a lot of bad things that could happen.
I personally think it is clear that increased CO2 is correlated with increased temperatures. But the earth is such a complex system we really can't predict how it will react. I have a feeling it will react, and well I don't want it to because it is working pretty well keeping us alive at the moment.
As I've said before, at some point the "burden of proof" needs to shift from those who believe that dumping large quantities of CO2 is harmful, to those who believe such a large-scale intervention has unimportant negative effects. I believe that we are well past that point, and the "climate skeptics" now need to prove (preponderance of the evidence) that unchecked carbon emissions is not a threat.
W.Petefish
Active Member
Also a good thing to note is the fact that we are coming out of an ice age. Granted the effects of industrialization are still not very well known. If anything we could say that it would serve as a catalyst for climate change.
My suggestion: Use geochemistry and electrochemistry to split the co2 apart into it's initial components, being O2 and Carbon. The carbon should be used in industry and the O2 could be released into the atmosphere.
The major problem with this solution: Lots of energy needed, and at this point more so than it is worth.
In the future it might be economic to "mine" carbon from the atmosphere. For this to be economic, nuclear energy needs to be developed just about as far as we can take it. This requires in turn that countries reverse their take on nuclear energy. (and as far as what politicians do, don't count on it.)
My suggestion: Use geochemistry and electrochemistry to split the co2 apart into it's initial components, being O2 and Carbon. The carbon should be used in industry and the O2 could be released into the atmosphere.
The major problem with this solution: Lots of energy needed, and at this point more so than it is worth.
In the future it might be economic to "mine" carbon from the atmosphere. For this to be economic, nuclear energy needs to be developed just about as far as we can take it. This requires in turn that countries reverse their take on nuclear energy. (and as far as what politicians do, don't count on it.)
Maybe we can invent a nuclear source of energy to power that "photosynthesis" process in that forest plant... Best would be fusion since fissile material will be exhausted soon. I suggest Hydrogen as it is the most common element in the universe. Distribution of energy across the plant would happen using electromagnetic rays. Which could be called "sun light".
W.Petefish
Active Member
Similar threads
