NSR- Scary Report on sea Ice levels

Telenator, exactly, plus that 1 degree can seriously harm plants evolved to live in certain ranges of temp/weather.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telenater

China may be lagging so far, but they have a tremendous capability to change their methods faster than the US has.

---

Step 1... Lose the lignite/subbituminous (soft & dirty) coal for power production and build a national electric grid.
.China uses more and dirtier coal than the USA, only increasing the amount, and they use dirty coal with less control than the US

Accidental coal fires in mines and production in China are responsible for 3% of the fossil fuel generated CO2 emissions for the WORLD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cono Este

Yeah but we could have the UN enforce it, everyone would have to comply, they always do. Dont they? ;) ;)

---

The UN vs China??? LOL! You and I would have a better chance of winning a game of chess against Kasparov.

Quote:

---

I have been to a few places in China and it reminded me of a painting I have of Industrial Birmingham in the Victorian age. Very foggy.

---

Yeah, I was in Shanghai(and various other places) a couple of years ago. Every time I blew my nose, the tissue would be black from all the gunk I was breathing. The larger cities were all the same. Some of the smaller towns that hadn't started growing yet weren't so bad, but there are fewer and fewer places like that.

Dammit... I shouldn't have used so much hairspray on my mullet back in the 80s.

Sprite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

Ahh, they don't give much a flying fuck about anything, unless it gives them the ability to overtake the US, which is what, I believe they are going for.

---

The Chinese charachter for "china" consists of two charachters; the charachter for "middle" and the charachter for "country". The Middle being the ideal, or balanced position. They believe they are the country around which the rest of the world(should) revolve. Anything that prevents this is seen as a temporary imbalance that must be corrected.

So, yeah, they want to overtake the US, and anybody else who doesn't agree with their view of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telenater

You just don't fucking get it.

1 Degree isn't anything we will personally notice by itself. However, 1 Degree of warming globally is a lot of added energy in a variable system. When you increase the net energy in a system you increase the magnitude of it's swings.


We'll have more severe storms, more droughts, and more extremes of all types. But beyond that, we have a number of climate systems that involved in feedback loops that are not fully understood. Arctic Ice is one that could just be a precursor. Desertification has accelerated in some cases. Sea level rise should be a major concern as should the loss of carbon sequestration in rainforests.

---

I never said 1 degree wouldn't effect anything. (it's clear you've had that argument with someone else and you got a little heated ;) ) You do need to keep in mind though that, such things as changes in the suns energy, natural climatic changes, and even the COOLING effects of pollutant aerosols isn't fully known. My comment about the 1 degree change, if you'd go back and read that comment again, was only implying that it's too early in the game to be coming to conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

My comment about the 1 degree change, if you'd go back and read that comment again, was only implying that it's too early in the game to be coming to conclusions.

---

So do we wait until things get past the point of no return before we start taking appropriate measures?

If you are driving on foggy road, and you think you see a brick wall in front of you, you don't wait until you smash into it to confirm that it's actually there. The smart thing to change your behavior enough to prevent hitting the wall in case it is there.

I would argue that this is much the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by watersnowdirt

If you are driving on foggy road, and you think you see a brick wall in front of you,

---

I'd probably pull over, take a nap, and wait for the mushrooms to wear off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by watersnowdirt

So do we wait until things get past the point of no return before we start taking appropriate measures?

If you are driving on foggy road, and you think you see a brick wall in front of you, you don't wait until you smash into it to confirm that it's actually there. The smart thing to change your behavior enough to prevent hitting the wall in case it is there.

I would argue that this is much the same.

---

Actually, if you think you see a brick wall on a foggy road, it is probably too late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

I'd probably pull over, take a nap, and wait for the mushrooms to wear off.

---

Probably a good suggestion for the present administration...


And, yes, you're quite correct I've been through this many times with my "conservative" friend (some of whom are quite conservative by any measure).

I think WSD has made the point I think needs to be made. We don't know for sure what will happen with climate change. What we do know is that the mean global temperature has been climbing faster than it has in any other similar time period for which we have records. We also know that it is very conicident with human industrial activity increasing and emissions levels.

Given these points, it only makes sense if you don't know the outcome of your behavior's effects to do what you can to moderate those effects at least until you know what they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by watersnowdirt

So do we wait until things get past the point of no return before we start taking appropriate measures?

If you are driving on foggy road, and you think you see a brick wall in front of you, you don't wait until you smash into it to confirm that it's actually there. The smart thing to change your behavior enough to prevent hitting the wall in case it is there.

I would argue that this is much the same.

---

You're right. If we see it being an urgent problem, we should do something about it. However, there are about a million problems higher on the list to worry about right now than global warming. We can't spend life worrying about everything. No matter what WE do, the Earth will always be here. We won't. ;)

And as far as China goes, they don't care about global warming. Their population is just getting computers and cars. Think emissions levels are bad right now, wait until they get modern. Those people want the lifestyle that we have, and aren't comfortable enough (yet) to sit around and plan for the future. Most are poor, needy and think in the now.

"When you are confronted with a fluctuating and unpredictable climate 'the last thing you'd want to do is conduct a vast unsupervised experiment on it.' "

-Elizabeth Kolbert in A Short History of Nearly Everything


Something to keep in mind is that any sort of reduction in CO2 emissions likely wouldn't have a visible effect for nearly 100 years.

Somethings to think about: we are in an inter-glacial period in a long term ice age, some scientists say that we can expect up to 50 more glacial periods before a long term warming sets in; global warming may actually cause a dramatic decrease in North American temperatures.

If anyone is really interested in seeing a semi-concise summary of the current scientific thought, models and history of climate change, go check out the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at www.ipcc.ch

Good luck.

So, therefore it is pointless to do anything about it, and should terminate any law which restricts the ability of industry to burn Carbon?

And quoting a Bill Bryson book isn't exactly credible.

I love reading posts by uniformed people on scientific theory. This honestly scares me. Im glad you guys are discussing it, but a lot of you should probably do a little more homework before you start spouting about #1 stuff youre 100% wrong about and/or #2 things that scientists dont yet have an answer to.

Telenater seems to have some idea of what he/she/it is talking about. :yourock:

Id write more and impart my unending paleoclimatology knowledge unto this thread, :rolleyes: but Im on vaca and Ive skied 4 straight days of BC pow pow and Im beat. :the_finge


Sorry for the negative post and absolutely no contribution to this discussion, but as a paleoclimatologist, it gets real f***in old hearing people talk about something they have no clue about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natedogg

I love reading posts by uniformed people on scientific theory. This honestly scares me. Im glad you guys are discussing it, but a lot of you should probably do a little more homework before you start spouting about #1 stuff youre 100% wrong about and/or #2 things that scientists dont yet have an answer to.

Telenater seems to have some idea of what he/she/it is talking about. :yourock:

Id write more and impart my unending paleoclimatology knowledge unto this thread, :rolleyes: but Im on vaca and Ive skied 4 straight days of BC pow pow and Im beat. :the_finge


Sorry for the negative post and absolutely no contribution to this discussion, but as a paleoclimatologist, it gets real f***in old hearing people talk about something they have no clue about.

---

post summary/

I know more than you.

I'd explain but I'm too busy telling you I'm busy.

I know more than you, and your full of shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soul_skier

i feel sad, there is a chance that ours will be the last generation to get truly epic snowfall

---

No shit.

Carpe Diem

(edit)

And I really think we've got only 15 years left of possibly good winters. If we do anything to curb climate change it will be to help out the seventh generation, not the immediate. We have to not be so selfish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

yeah dude, all you'd have to do is survive the -130 degree deep freeze

---

The heating in my SUV will keep me warm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snowsprite

Dammit... I shouldn't have used so much hairspray on my mullet back in the 80s.

Sprite

---

Aerosol pollutants actually cool the earth down, contrary to what they were all telling us back then.

There are too many unknowns, which is why I think this thread is so funny. The scientists don't even know what's going on. Their recent finding is that tropical deforestation may be actually decreasing methane levels in the atmosphere, and that plants are responsible for up to 30 percent of the methane in the Earths atmosphere.

How can you fix a problem when many environmentalists are blocking solutions to it. Environmentalism effectively killed diesel cars (starting to make a comeback), take a look at Cape Wind (might be ugly, but it reduces greenhouse emissions - nothing is free), and nuclear is basically a struggle to help reduce emissions.

I am all for fixing the problem pronto, but that means reducing car fleet emissions, eliminating coal and natural gas use in electricity generation. We have substitutes - if only we could use these.

You idiot, it's not environmentalists killing cape wind. It's the west falmouth landowners. Do a little research befor eyou make comments condemning people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

You idiot, it's not environmentalists killing cape wind. It's the west falmouth landowners. Do a little research befor eyou make comments condemning people

---

No they are not the only organization blocking this, but it is not all environmentalists either. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who's been an outspoken opponent of the Cape Wind proposal is a senior attorney at Natural Resources Defense Council. On the other hand Greenpeace is for Cape Wind. I have done my research. And many high profile, self proclaimed, enviros are against the project.

Other groups that have been opposing Cape Wind are: The Humane Society of the United States, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Massachusetts Audubon Society.

Done my research, and formed my opinion. I have an open mind to info that shows the opposite.

Debate the science if you want, but there is total agreement in the fact that greenhouse gases create a greenhouse atmosphere (a theory that makes sense and has been verified in lab testing).
There is total agreement that these "greenhouse gases" are present in greater concentrations than we have ever seen (including historical data from ice cores). In fact, the levels trend upwards ever since the industrial revolution, and particularly the increase in oil and petroleum useage.

debate cause and effect
debate micro impacts on a macro system
debate why US should do anything if China does not
debate if there is even any warming occuring (yet)
debate whether an ice age or a heat wave will result
debate whether the gulf stream will be shut off and Britain willl be in a deep freeze

But you cannot dispute the human created increase in gases in the atmosphere that are thought to have a greenhouse effect.

When you see the chart showing the actual increase in these gases, and see how much they have increased since we started burning oil, you have to wonder what that will do to our environment.
Hell, one large volcano eruption has the ability to affect crop production, sunlight and temperature. Its a fact.

Dude, saying that envoronmentalists are against cape wind is like saying republicans are prochoice because some repubs are pro choice. You made a very general statement there. A more accurate statement would be- animal rights groups are against cape wind for it's potential impact on avian populations.

I should know, I helped design Cape Winds outreach policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

Dude, saying that envoronmentalists are against cape wind is like saying republicans are prochoice because some repubs are pro choice. You made a very general statement there. A more accurate statement would be- animal rights groups are against cape wind for it's potential impact on avian populations.

I should know, I helped design Cape Winds outreach policy.

---

Fact is that many high profile enviros have opposed it, which in my opinion has done damage to a good energy alternative. Kennedy's, Cronkite at al. Sorry the statement came across as offensive, and I did state that many enviros are FOR it. Nonetheless, my original statement stands. There are solutions to greehouse emissions, but these solutions are very difficult to implement.

I do care.

I don't doubt that you care. But the enviro's that oppose it (kennedy) are also land owners in the area (once again, the all mighty dollar trumps all)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

I don't doubt that you care. But the enviro's that oppose it (kennedy) are also land owners in the area (once again, the all mighty dollar trumps all)

---

There I agree.