Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-09-2018, 08:40 PM
 
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
13,078 posts, read 7,543,778 times
Reputation: 9819

Advertisements

JMO, those who embrace energy efficiency and by proxy, low carbon, will be better off in the long term. Those who are denier s will pay more now and into the future. Economic s will win in the end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2018, 09:32 PM
 
2,572 posts, read 1,648,784 times
Reputation: 10082
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider View Post
The notion that humans are impurities that have to be cleaned off the face of the earth is preposterous. We deserve to live here every bit as the polar bears and squirrels do. As long as there have been forests, there have been forest fires. You don't need an 18-wheeler to start one. Millions of years before humans arrived, forests caught fire too but somehow the earth was and is covered in trees. You couldn't burn all earth vegetation if you wanted to.
Where did I write humans must be cleaned off the face of the earth? I am human and I hope to be around for a good while yet. You wrote that we humans are pathetic critters who don't really have an impact on the planet, and my contention is we DO have an impact and I listed some of the impact we have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2018, 12:58 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,287 posts, read 5,165,355 times
Reputation: 17794
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
"

It says there is NOT a linear relation between temperature increase and CO2 levels. It means something like this example..

This is purely an example of the "exponential" relationship and not real numbers.

Example, if I double the concentration of xx say from 100 to 200, I would get 1C
But to get the next 1C of change, I would need to double again from 200 to 400.
And the next 1C of change would required doubling again from 400 to 800.


The global temperature still does rise with higher concentrations of C02 but its a natural log rise. We can at be thankful its not a linear rise.



I think I said basically the same thing-- I used the actual observation that we've had a 1deg rise in temps while co2 went from 260 to 400. The 1.76 is the calculated rise expected (the difference between observed data to theoretically calculated expectation is further proof of the minor role co2 plays in the real word.)


And maybe my explanation was inadequate of the non-linear relationship of co2 to temp, but the principle is the same: temps go up with a doubling period so they approach an asymptote. To achieve the 6deg rise in temps predicted by the UN-IPCC, we'd have to go thru 6/1.76 =3.4 doubling periods-- co2 would have to go from the 320ppm (the level when the prediction was made) -->640-->1280-->2560-->~3500ppm. Who's wrong- Beer or the politicians at the UN?



The additional forcing (temp rise) from co2 flattens out over ~450ppm-500ppm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2018, 02:06 AM
 
6,438 posts, read 6,928,637 times
Reputation: 8743
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
The planet's temperature range has remained remarkably stable thru its history because there exist multiple negative feedback systems determining weather/climate. A most obvious one is that humidity increases with increasing temps. Increasing humidity means increasing clouds, and increasing clouds means more blockage of sunlight, leading to cooling. It's a dynamic ballet that's played out for more than 4 billion years.
Actually the climate has been all over the place. Only 18,000 years ago the place where I am sitting was covered by two miles of ice. TWO MILES. Whatever got rid of that must have been some global warming!

Don't expect the climate to stay stable, whether we are here or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2018, 02:54 AM
 
1,133 posts, read 1,352,133 times
Reputation: 2238
There was NO 'ice-age'...it was WATER that covered-over, carved, sliced & formed the vast amounts of hills, valleys & 'badlands' we see all over the earth.

And as for those lambasting what everyone should (or could) be doing, in order to contribute towards healing this planet, I have three suggestions...plain & simple:

1) When you leave your house/apartment, turn off your lights, TV, PC, A/C...it conserves electric.

2) Slow the hell down, while you are behind the wheel. Driving faster than 'needed' only serves to waste more feul & creates higher demand, which raises prices & tempers...which only serves to make everybody even MORE angrier & stressed-out, which produces even MORE CO2 pollution into the atmosphere.

3) QUIT BREEDING LIKE RABBITS. We are HUMAN...not 'animals'...so why does everyone 'rut' like animals ? Yeah, sure...sex FEELS good...I totally get it...but adding MORE people to the population means LESS food, water & natural resources to go around for everybody else, later on down the road.

It ain't rocket-science, folks...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2018, 07:11 AM
 
1,183 posts, read 538,290 times
Reputation: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben young View Post
I'm at a loss for words. What is the End Date and will Former Sen. Gore be able to sell his Beach House in time to make a profit ?
Lol! I am going throw another tire in the fire in your honor!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2018, 07:11 AM
 
1,112 posts, read 1,256,127 times
Reputation: 1710
Quote:
And maybe my explanation was inadequate of the non-linear relationship of co2 to temp, but the principle is the same: temps go up with a doubling period so they approach an asymptote. To achieve the 6deg rise in temps predicted by the UN-IPCC, we'd have to go thru 6/1.76 =3.4 doubling periods-- co2 would have to go from the 320ppm (the level when the prediction was made) -->640-->1280-->2560-->~3500ppm. Who's wrong- Beer or the politicians at the UN?
This part I can see.. or look at it with todays numbers of 1C for 400 PPM. We would have to have

Temp rise / CO2 PPM
---------------------
1C / 400 PPM
2C / 800
3C / 1600
4C / 3200
5C / 6400
6C / 12800

Well.. to get to 6C would require that the CO2 concentration be 32 times higher than it is now. Im pretty sure the human population bubble will have popped before that happens (just only slightly kidding).

But.. I dont think in any way can you dismiss CO2.. We are upsetting a balance that has been in place for millions of years by burning fossil fuel. And this has never happened before in the history of the planet. Just look what has happened in our extremely short period on the planet where we have produced an enormously significant over 40% step function of CO2 and it has corresponded to an also extremely short time span 1C rise in global temps. And on top of that its one of those things where we have done this in the last 118 years but each year now produces a huge amount more CO2 than in the early part of that 118 years.. And we have opened all the gates to increase that as fast as possible recently.

I would be skeptical abut 6C. But not 2C or even 3C. Take a look at the chart again for the last 10000 years (I have seen similar charts that actually do show the recent industrial age changes and they are similar). At 2C, we have a change in a very very short time period that exceeds the total temperature variation that has occurred over that 10000 years. At 500 PPM CO2 which is very beleivable (we are at 400 now), temperatures will have exceeded anything over the last 10,000 years.

If you are old enough, you have seen some weird stuff happen to familiar weather patterns. I have with a lake in the mountains of Colorado that freezes over in the winter. The patterns are significantly different than they were 30 years ago. Is that just a natural pattern? I dont know but I see real data showing we have already done something very real and dramatic to the planets temp (1C rise). I am definitely part of creating this problem (the very worst thing you can do for increasing CO2 on the planet is have a kid.. I had two plus all the other things that burn fuel in life) and trying to understand it now and realize also that Im not at all an expert on this.



Last edited by waltcolorado; 08-10-2018 at 07:27 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2018, 07:24 AM
 
Location: Minnysoda
10,659 posts, read 10,739,379 times
Reputation: 6745
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatTX View Post
Pathetic little critters with a huge impact on the planet. Incredibly polluted rivers and lakes, air quality so bad that in some places people with respiratory problems are advised to stay indoors, severely declining fish populations, decimated rain forests, many disappearing/endangered species and rapidly shrinking habitat for all, mountains of plastics, food animals that are pumped full of hormones and antibiotics, and on and on. And many natural disasters are also human-caused, as in the currently largest fire in the history of CA being caused by an 18 wheeler with a flat tire. Another recent fire started by an imbecile setting off fireworks, etc.
You are right ! That pernicious infestation of Mother Earth should be eradicated!!!! Most of the breeders should be done away with leaving just enough to support the more intelligent of us as we hold hands and sing kum-by- ya!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2018, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Beautiful Rhode Island
9,316 posts, read 14,932,402 times
Reputation: 10411
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke944 View Post
People will be living in denial all the way till the end. "but it's just a normal weather pattern...." -croaks-
But seriously, it's not like anything can be done about the situation. People got to have their suvs and their 1st world comfort and boredom issues solved, so just enjoy the time we all have left.
Sadly, I am beginning to agree with you. So many of the posters here just can't understand that the issue is man made CO2. They go off on tangents about how how the weather will always change and natural climatic epochs. We all know that! They just don't get the point.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached its highest level in at least 800,000 years, according to scientists, and it is greatly exacerbated and driven by man made pollution. This is a fact, not a maybe. The rise is tied in to the industrial revolution.

Meanwhile, my state can look forward to losing about 30-40% of its land mass to rising oceans. NYC and Boston will lose percentages of real estate. Impacts on midwest and western agriculture will cause food shortages and South Florida will be going under. One good superstorm and New Orleans and Houston will be gone.

Does no one even consider the massive effects of climate refugees within the US? Build a wall on the Mexican border but not one dime for the EPA.

Best to just stick your head in the sand and bring up the Al Gore talking point. Sigh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2018, 08:02 AM
 
1,112 posts, read 1,256,127 times
Reputation: 1710
Quote:
This part I can see.. or look at it with todays numbers of 1C for 400 PPM. We would have to have

Temp rise / CO2 PPM
---------------------
1C / 400 PPM
2C / 800
3C / 1600
4C / 3200
5C / 6400
6C / 12800

Well.. to get to 6C would require that the CO2 concentration be 32 times higher than it is now. Im pretty sure the human population bubble will have popped before that happens (just only slightly kidding).
Woops.. I made a significant error that I should correct - and it makes the data look worse.

It is not a 1C change for every doubling of CO2, it is a 1.76 C change according to this web site Cold Facts on Global Warming. So the correction is (starting with existing 1C rise for 400 PPM.

Temperature rise / CO2 PPM
---------------------------------
1C / 400 PPM
2.76C / 800 PPM
4.52C / 1600 PPM
6.28C / 3200 PPM


We get to near a 5C change with an increase of four times the CO2 we have now and are pumping it out faster than ever.. Just doubling what we have now results in a remarkable 2.76C rise in temps in also a remarkably short period of time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top