Be Afraid, be very afraid

[Revoltingest]

It is intellectually disingenuous to cite one event as if this tells the entire story. Maybe you think that NASA, NOAA, the Department of Defense, the NSA, and many other agencies are ignorant or lying to feather their bed, but some of us at least know what the real facts are. Here, even Wikipedia has information, including links to scientific studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

BTW, you linked us to NASA on that one item, but you should have looked further because here's the larger view, also from NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ The headline for the article from NASA reads: "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal".

The word, "unequivocal", is typically trotted out when things are actually equivocal.
And they've demonstrated in failed predictions that the climate models need more work.
Of course, we can observe warming, & project some trends, but I wouldn't be so quick to
believe everything government aparatchiks say. (They can be ordered to say things.)
Btw, some computing improvements loom, so I expect models to gain predictive value.

 

[metis]

But would it settle down into some kind of equilibrium?

In the distant past, the huge amount of trees, shrubs, and plants on our planet would have gradually soaked up more and more of the CO2, but because of agriculture we have no where near that amount of vegetation left. Also, the increased release of methane gas, which has roughly 20 times the heat-retention effect than CO2, would not dissipate that quickly because of the huge human and animal populations.

 

[metis]

The word, "unequivocal", is typically trotted out when things are actually equivocal.
And they've demonstrated in failed predictions that the climate models need more work.
Of course, we can observe warming, & project some trends, but I wouldn't be so quick to
believe everything government aparatchiks say. (They can be ordered to say things.)

My long-time rule-of-thumb is that it is always wise to lean in the direction of safety, and that can be applied to a great many things, including this. Why take a chance, even if one had doubts? Or, an analogy that I like to use, before taking a high-dive into the pool, it's probably best to check the depth of the water first.

There are many benefits to going "green" that go beyond global warming.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

In the distant past, the huge amount of trees, shrubs, and plants on our planet would have gradually soaked up more and more of the CO2, but because of agriculture we have no where near that amount of vegetation left. Also, the increased release of methane gas, which has roughly 20 times the heat-retention effect than CO2, would not dissipate that quickly because of the huge human and animal populations.

I don't know maybe the plants are trying to get rid of us. I mean, the situation doesn't seem like it's going to end life for them anyway. Once we are gone, they'll just soak up all the gas we made.

 

[metis]

So all you environmentalists, ask yourselves a really simple question: why are the elite not setting us peasants a good example ?

Good point. Some are and some aren't, and there's undoubtedly many in-between. There has been some good headway made by countries in the west, but that's not enough.

 

[Revoltingest]

My long-time rule-of-thumb is that it is always wise to lean in the direction of safety, and that can be applied to a great many things, including this. Why take a chance, even if one had doubts? Or, an analogy that I like to use, before taking a high-dive into the pool, it's probably best to check the depth of the water first.
There are many benefits to going "green" that go beyond global warming.

What action to take is the issue, & then which course is safe?
It's why I prefer GW mitigating measures which simultaneously accomplish other goals,
eg, cutting fossil fuel use with tax incentives (increased fuel taxes, & reduced tax penalties
on conservation measures).

 

[metis]

I don't know maybe the plants are trying to get rid of us. I mean, the situation doesn't seem like it's going to end life for them anyway. Once we are gone, they'll just soak up all the gas we made.

I have no doubt that the plants will survive, probably along with cockroaches, so can we only imagine what intelligent beings might look like millions of years from now?

Who said "Donald Trump"?!

 

[Revoltingest]

If the ultra rich (Al Gore etc) gave a damn about global warming, would they not be skyping each other instead of traveling the world in personal jets ?

According to scientists back in the 80's, every 747 jet airliner journey across the Atlantic spews out so much CO2 that it will take all plant life 40 years to consume.

So all you environmentalists, ask yourselves a really simple question: why are the elite not setting us peasants a good example ?

They see themselves as royalty, whose needs transcend the mundane.
Conservation is for the little people.
Note:
Obama burns a couple hundred thousand gallons of jet fuel on one Hawaiian vacation.
Madonna just charted a jet to travel 120 miles.
Al Gore is......well, just look at'm!

 

[metis]

What action to take is the issue, & then which course is safe?
It's why I prefer GW mitigating measures which simultaneously accomplish other goals,
eg, cutting fossil fuel use with tax incentives (increased fuel taxes, & reduced tax penalties
on conservation measures).

Of course.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

According to scientists back in the 80's, every 747 jet airliner journey across the Atlantic spews out so much CO2 that it will take all plant life 40 years to consume.

If you see it from the perspective of a plant, it looks like plenty of energy in a way.

Oh BTW in SW Cornwall, UK the coast has raised beaches that are 150ft high. This means that the sea still has 150ft to rise even before it reaches the same level that it was at after the last Ice Age melt-off. In geological terms, the coast is one huge river delta filled with conglomerate soil.

What of the UK will that situation leave?

Same goes for the U-shaped fjords in Sweden. They were once glaciers. Then stone age man built loads of dirty coal powered power stations to keep their fury footsies warm and the ice melted. Then they did an awesome clean-up job dismantling all of them brick-by-brick.

Can you give more detail on what you mean here?

 

[metis]

They see themselves as royalty, whose needs transcend the mundane.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course.

It's easy to agree with sensible recommendations.
(Although people seldom think mine sensible. There's always someone with a Nobel Prize who'd disagree.)
But more controversially, I wouldn't spend money on carbon sequestration which accomplishes only that.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I have no doubt that the plants will survive, probably along with cockroaches, so can we only imagine what intelligent beings might look like millions of years from now?

I don't know, I think we are quick to rule out the possibility that plant-life has something more to it. In a way, we've been kind of doing the will of it all along haven't we? It provided us with wood (spears, bows) to kill the roving megafauna who tramped forests into plains. It provided itself to us in the form of burning logs to warm the earth, we build structures out of it which are like little Co2 factories. I don't know, is there something more going on with all that?

 

[metis]

It's easy to agree with sensible recommendations.
(Although people seldom think mine sensible. There's always someone with a Nobel Prize who'd disagree.)
But more controversially, I wouldn't spend money on carbon sequestration which accomplishes only that.

CO2 is CO2, and we need to use any technique possible to lower that level without breaking the bank in doing so-- and we can and have been doing a better job on this, as has western Europe, Japan, Australia, etc. Some of the new technology is literally fantastic in terms of what it can do.

 

[metis]

I don't know, I think we are quick to rule out the possibility that plant-life has something more to it. In a way, we've been kind of doing the will of it all along haven't we? It provided us with wood (spears, bows) to kill the roving megafauna who tramped forests into plains. It provided itself to us in the form of burning logs to warm the earth, we build structures out of it which are like little Co2 factories. I don't know, is there something more going on with all that?

One real concern, however, is the gradual melting of the permafrost which, if enough, will release higher levels of methane gas that has that 20 times more heat retention power than CO2. This is nothing to sneeze at, and some models indicate that the effects might not be reversible.

 

[Revoltingest]

CO2 is CO2, and we need to use any technique possible to lower that level without breaking the bank in doing so.....

That is to excessively focus upon a single contributing gas.
Don't forget that methane (far more dangerous) looms increasingly large.

 

[metis]

That is to excessively focus upon a single contributing gas.
Don't forget that methane (far more dangerous) looms increasingly large.

That's also what I said in post #55.

 

[Rapha]

1) What of the UK will that situation leave?
2) Can you give more detail on what you mean here?

1) Well if sea level returned to the same level that it was at when the last ice age was ending then all of England that is now 150ft above sea level will be underwater.
2) If it was not for the Sun warming up during the last Ice Age then none of the ice would have melted. In other words, CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming.

Oh and hasn't Venus and Mars also been rising in temperature over the past 20 years ?

 

[Revoltingest]

That's also what I said in post #55.

And so you did!
We're not doing very well disagreeing here.

 

[metis]

. In other words, CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming.

Actually, the climate scientists, who have been intently studying the data for decades now, have overwhelmingly concluded that CO2 is indeed the main culprit. The positioning of the Earth vis-a-vis the Sun is not a causal factor in this case.