barrowaj

Actually these points are not true. We have a pretty good idea that CO2 is the cause of global warming. It is believed that varions in the sun's intensity would be a minor contributor to the warming trend. On the other hand, the increase in warming correlates with the projected production of CO2 due to humans.

On top of that, we can do something to lower the heating. We can lower our CO2 production, and we can come up with a method of storing CO2 back into the ocean. Humans have disturbed the atmospheric equilibrium by putting all that fossil fuel carbon into the air; but we could put it back.

Sombra

Dalem regarding your answers 5 and 6 .

Well at least most scientifics think they know the cause. You simply say you don´t believe it. They have a theory , they predict and the observations are in step with their predictions.

You say : Simply luck, Such things happened sometimes in the remote past... Nothing to worry about...

Praxus

In order to stop this mythical problem, lets cease all economic activity

dalem

Actually, no, we don't. You've read my points on this before I assume.

And all previous warming and cooling periods evidenced in the historical and geologic records have nothing to do with human-produced CO2. So pinning this particular cycle on our smokestacks is weak.

No, we can't, not appreciably. And the oceans will take C02 into solution as they have always done - naturally.

-dale

raptor1992

but if the ice caps melts on the north and south poles then the himalayas would be shorter

raptor1992

sorry my signature is big. please forgive me

barrowaj

The difference is that previous trends were gradual and much less severe than the current trend, which correlates with human CO2 production. Specifically, this is the graph I am referring to:


If you talk about the natural environment at a stable feedback system, then you would assume that the pattern of warming and cooling would repeat itself within a set of boundaries. However, it is clear that current CO2 emissions have escaped the previous boundary conditions. So we don't know if the system is stable under these parameters.

Sure we can make changes to reduce CO2. We can reduce our output of it, and we can dissolve it in the ocean. There was an article in Scientific American about how we could do this a few months ago. I'll have to go look at the article again.

I know that we could help grow more algae in the oceans, but this might have other significant consequences that we should investigate first.

dalem

And we don't know if it isn't.

Modern nations can't do enough to make a real difference and developing countries certainly aren't going to do anything anyway.

-dale

raptor1992

the world right now is chopping down trees. i believe that not many developing nations would care about the ice caps

barrowaj

That's true. But from the projections I've seen, there is a certain point of no return, where temperatures would increase on their own. Then again, as you say, its only a projection, climatology is by no means an exact science. But the consequences of failure to control CO2 emissions are dire. The evidence around global warming appears substantial enough that we should be thinking about how we can reduce our emissions, and also get China to reduce our emissions. It doesn't do us any good to just say its an impossible task, throw our hands up in the air and hope that the projections aren't true.

Well, the US could make a difference. I'm not saying we could just stop running on petroleum. But if we could get the hydrogen economy to work, and install more nuclear powerplants, we'd be most of the way there. And while hydrogen energy prices may be more expensive in the short run, the spending on the new technology would help boost the economy. And in the long run, cleaner air would help improve public health, and less CO2 would help us preseve our coastal regions.

barrowaj

That's true. But from the projections I've seen, there is a certain point of no return, where temperatures would increase on their own. Then again, as you say, its only a projection, climatology is by no means an exact science. But the consequences of failure to control CO2 emissions are dire. The evidence around global warming appears substantial enough that we should be thinking about how we can reduce our emissions, and also get China to reduce our emissions. It doesn't do us any good to just say its an impossible task, throw our hands up in the air and hope that the projections aren't true.

Well, the US could make a difference. I'm not saying we could just stop running on petroleum. But if we could get the hydrogen economy to work, and install more nuclear powerplants, we'd be most of the way there. And while hydrogen energy prices may be more expensive in the short run, the spending on the new technology would help boost the economy. And in the long run, cleaner air would help improve public health, and less CO2 would help us preseve our coastal regions.



Maybe I just need to move further north. Houston is hotter than hell, although we had our first nice weather of the fall today. (I reposted the above because my 2nd post made a new page... and nobody usually goes back to read the last post)

Praxus

Where did they measure that? Are all of the measurements over the different time periods from the same place? Or did they get the measurements from several sources and find the mean? Was the means to measure it the same in all cases?

Perhaps you should answer these questions, before you assume that a graph you found on Wikipedia is accurate.

Since when does physical violence "help boost the economy"? It does quite the contrary, it helps to destroy the very thing that makes the free market so productive and efficient: accurate prices. This is another issue, and if you whish to discuss it further we can bring it to another thread.

dalem

Well, you know my view on human drivenglobal warming.

I'm all for building more nuke plants, absolutely, for whatever the reason.

How does less CO2 affect health and coastal regions?

-dale

raptor1992

there's a news article from the mercury news saying that the melting ice caps would be blocking the the ways for supply ships going to the arctic or antarctica. some say there might even be incidents like the titanic

Parihaka

From memory the supply ships were blocked for a period of months last summer