Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

I don't know how you get this impression. By actual count of media coverage, the sceptic side has received about the same amount of Press as the science. That while having only a handful of scientists to support the coverage. And, with nary a peer reviewed paper among those few scientists. Of the few, most are emeritus or the same for sale bunch who also denied the consequences of tobacco - for pay.

The lobbyists are almost entirely from the industries that consider themselves threatened. There is next to nothing from the "side" of science. As for spending to go "eco-friendly," that is the wise thing to do for reasons of the economy if the urgency and necessity of the problem is not getting through.

The important is no longer to have both sides resented and the population to draw up their own interpretation. The population is not qualified to do so and it will usually be persuaded by rhetoric over science anyway.

The important thing is to listen to what science says and to act in accordance with that.

   

What I asked is where you think the heat from the carbon dioxide is going if it isn't heating up the atmosphere. That's all.

   

The temperature trend is about .8C since 1880, not .6 or .7 1880 is usually given as the base year for the start of the tend; partly because of the rebound from the LIA. However, to "nitpick" a little, 1880 was a local high. The temperature for several years before that and for some after was lower and the increase could be shown as high as 1.1 C depending on the selected starting point.

That would be cherrypicking of the denial school in reverse and 1880 is a good compromise year. However, two thirds of the increase has taken place in the past forty years or so.

Trying to establish the sensitivity in this way is also complicated by part of the increase being from natural variation in the first half of the twentieth century.

   

The mechanics are the same, justifying the analogy. Unless you want to argue that scale alters the mechanics, but I don't think you believe that; it would mean small-scale experiments do not necessarily reflect global-scale atmospheric mechanics, and would undermine a lot of climate change science.

This is common ground.

   

You and your neighbour's house are both on fire. You shouldn't extinguish yours because your neighbour's refuses to extinguish his? That's your best justification for Americans (North Americans) doing nothing? Okay, I guess that's a baby step on the journey from denial to rationality.

   

meanwhile, while you're trying to bring your fire under control, your neighbours are throwing aviation fuel onto their fire

   

I believe this is what is known in public policy circles as the "race to the bottom."

   

The problem is that the neighbors house keeps setting your house on fire, even as you spend a fortune trying to put the fire out in your house. And the fire isn't obvious but just smolders along for a long time. Your neighbor is saving a bundle not fireproofing his house, while you have to justify a huge drop in standard of living to fireproof yours. It makes no sense to join your neighbor in a race to the bottom, what makes more sense is trying to find ways to fireproof your house in a way that doesn't bankrupt you - then you can be a model for your neighbor. We're not really trying that in Canada.

   

I don't know what you're talking about. You said the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere was like adding a couple of tankers of salt to the ocean - ie diddly squat. I pointed out that we would have to add 7 quadrillion tonnes of salt to the ocean to equal the percentage amount that CO2 has risen in the atmosphere - it's a very large increase.

But I had never heard what Zip said about the relationship between CO2 and warming, and it sounds like the warming we have experienced in the last 150 years matches that 1 to one relationship. That means we're not in as dire straights as some want us to believe, and as long as we can take measures to reduce the amount of CO2 we keep spewing in the the air we should be OK.

   

I don't think Zip is proposing a one to one relationship, andy. He is saying that he thinks the 3 to 1 of climate sensitivity is exaggerated.

In that, he is in a small minority of scientists. The broad consensus is a range of 1.5 to 4.5 - a very broad consensus with few believing it is less than 2.5.

You need to rethink our "being OK." For one example, an increse of 1.6 will start the melt of the Greenland Icecap in earnest and we have already experienced .8. At the present rate of increase that 1.6 will be achieved in around 50 years.

It will still not be too late IF emissions are cut to zero and substantially reduced by then. It will be too late, however, even then to prevent an increase in sea level of a few feet.

There is no comfort to be found. The climate for the next few centuries is going to be uncomfortable even with our best efforts. That is already built in. CO2 does not just go away and, unless we find a way to actually remove it from the atmosphere, there is no possibility of avoiding some of the consequences of a climate that will continue to warm over the next century or so even if we come to our senses.

Zip is an optimist.

   

Yeah, I'm probably not an optimist. Just read that James Lovelock said we've already reached the tipping point. Either way, I don't think as a species we're able to deal with long term threats like this effectively. So while the race to the bottom with China makes no sense, beggaring ourselves now while the others keep polluting makes no sense either. Either way we lose.

I'm all for carbon taxes - not so much for global warming but because they reduce oil use, which means less pollution and less reliance on shithole countries. Plus happier people. Done right, I think they can at least begin to make a dent.

I'm for conservation of all energy - we're such piggies and could lead perfectly pleasant lives with just a bit of discipline.

I'm for exploring non-carbon energy, as long as it doesn't become a boondoggle.

And, as others here have suggested, we should be putting more effort into global warming effects amelioration - learn to live with it.

   

Conservation is th biggie for the short term. I don't recall stats on that but we could save a great deal of energy and reap a substantial reduction in emissions there.

   

Why not plant a whole big pile of trees to capture the carbon?

   

That's a lot of trees. We'd have to way reduce our agriculture to make room for them.

   

Lots of open range all over Wyoming. Prolly lots of that up in Canada too.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next