Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Incovenient truth to CO2 haters out there is that changing our CO2 emissions will do little to nothing to curb global warming. We can roll back to 1990 levels tomorrow morning and guess what? We are still at the same levels that scientists say is causing our inevitable doom. We would have to roll back greenhouse gas emissions from humans to 1750 levels or LOWER to make a big difference. Plus we have all the peat bogs releasing methane at an accelerated rate that will negate much of any carbon reduction we can accomplish.
I'd rather waste money on something more fun and potentially useful, like a rocket that can deliver 100 nuclear warheads to an oncoming asteroid.
so, it wont bother you when all of us floridians move to your neighborhood?
Incovenient truth to CO2 haters out there is that changing our CO2 emissions will do little to nothing to curb global warming. We can roll back to 1990 levels tomorrow morning and guess what? We are still at the same levels that scientists say is causing our inevitable doom. We would have to roll back greenhouse gas emissions from humans to 1750 levels or LOWER to make a big difference. Plus we have all the peat bogs releasing methane at an accelerated rate that will negate much of any carbon reduction we can accomplish.
I'd rather waste money on something more fun and potentially useful, like a rocket that can deliver 100 nuclear warheads to an oncoming asteroid.
again, go back a few pages and peruse the links with model projections of warming under various scenarios ("business as usual", and emissions abatements). you will see that, to the best of our current knowledge, modifying our emissions can, indeed, apparently do plenty to curb global warming.
i think it is worth keeping in mind that regardless of what you believe, complex systems can respond to perturbations (kicks) in some surprising and drastic ways, so to play with that with abandon seems very, very foolish.
, to the best of our current knowledge, modifying our emissions can, indeed, apparently do plenty to curb global warming.
But how far do we want to "curb" the warming? All the way back to 1880? To 1066? Or just to 1979, when scientists were warning us all of the coming ice age? As Iraq war critics never tire of arguing, you have to know what the goal is before you can engage in an action.
So what's the goal? How cool do we want the climate to become?
But how far do we want to "curb" the warming? All the way back to 1880? To 1066? Or just to 1979, when scientists were warning us all of the coming ice age? As Iraq war critics never tire of arguing, you have to know what the goal is before you can engage in an action.
So what's the goal? How cool do we want the climate to become?
these are great questions. in my opinion, we should learn - to a more significant extent of our ability (which takes political and economic will, informed by reasonable discourse) - more about how the whole system (selves included) works; try and bring things back to something closer to approximately what we've evolved in (pre-1990 levels of CO2, certainly) to buy time to learn this if it seems that CO2 (and other human emissions) are "probably" responsible for what we are seeing (which appears, to me, to likely be the case), rather than just ramping blindly into the unknown (when the unknown seems likely to hold some much less than pleasant surprises); NOT just give the system a huge kick while knowing ABOUT what various kicks are LIKELY to do (in terms of sense or sign [+ or -, e.g.]: see IPCC, ACIA, etc. which point to various "likely" sea levels, or various likely regional aridifications, etc.) but without knowing just how variable (extreme) things could be.
we have a huge population now, and it's getting bigger very quickly; with a few of us, we're arguably more subject to the throes of the planet; with so many of us, it's arguably becoming the other way around....for better or for worse. we need to acknowledge what's known and work with it, in my opinion.
these are great questions. in my opinion, we should learn - to a more significant extent of our ability (which takes political and economic will, informed by reasonable discourse) - more about how the whole system (selves included) works; try and bring things back to something closer to approximately what we've evolved in (pre-1990 levels of CO2, certainly) to buy time to learn this if it seems that CO2 (and other human emissions) are "probably" responsible for what we are seeing (which appears, to me, to likely be the case), rather than just ramping blindly into the unknown (when the unknown seems likely to hold some much less than pleasant surprises); NOT just give the system a huge kick while knowing ABOUT what various kicks are LIKELY to do (in terms of sense or sign [+ or -, e.g.]: see IPCC, ACIA, etc. which point to various "likely" sea levels, or various likely regional aridifications, etc.) but without knowing just how variable (extreme) things could be.
we have a huge population now, and it's getting bigger very quickly; with a few of us, we're arguably more subject to the throes of the planet; with so many of us, it's arguably becoming the other way around....for better or for worse. we need to acknowledge what's known and work with it, in my opinion.
again, go back a few pages and peruse the links with model projections of warming under various scenarios ("business as usual", and emissions abatements). you will see that, to the best of our current knowledge, modifying our emissions can, indeed, apparently do plenty to curb global warming.
i think it is worth keeping in mind that regardless of what you believe, complex systems can respond to perturbations (kicks) in some surprising and drastic ways, so to play with that with abandon seems very, very foolish.
Of course modifying our emissions will fix everything. Thats how the whole global warming agenda and its taxes/trade systems are sold to the public.
There is still no proof that global warming will be that bad, other than the few inches of sea level rise. But considering the sea levels have risen around 400 feet since the end of the last ice age, the projected number of inches the IPCC has given by the year 2100 is actually funny. It fits right in with historical trends for the past 10,000 years. I remember watching a documentary in high school, early 1990's. It was about Venice and their problems with a combination of the city actually sinking and the well known trend of sea levels rising. This was back before the global warming freaks came along. And it was part of the documentary about the history of sea level rise and how it has affected the city. It is nothing new for the seas to be rising, and eventually when we lapse back into an ice age, they will shrink. I can just hear Al Gore's great grandson whining on the news about the retreating seas and how billions will be affected by the harsh effects on the fishing industry, and how its the rich countries that caused earth to cool off too much by not having a good strategy for setting the planetary thermostat correctly. They will cry for global taxes on rich countries.
It is absolutely hilarious to me that there is some horrible thing that is going to kill us all that is happening. What is causing it? All the thing ecosocialism freaks hate. What is going to fix it? Following the blueprints of what ecosocialist have always wanted, even before global warming was ever mentioned. Its no coincidence that they were the ones pushing the whole agenda laden with fear beyond anything Bush used to sink us into Iraq. Fear mongering obviously works very well though, as the more media repeats global warming crap, people slowly start caving. Its a play right out of the Nazi propoganda guides.
Anyway, I'm going to remained more concerned about actual pollution in the air and water as that is where we can make real changes rather than looking under our beds and in our closets for the CO2 boogeyman that is going to kill us all.
I'm just curious what all the "Global warming alarmists" would like their home town temperature to be, compared to what it is now. How much colder would they like it to be? What is the perfect temperature?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
