Spoilers! - Politics of beginings

Linked here to allow the politics argument free reign.

Spacekiwi wrote:Linked here to allow the politics argument free reign.

Sorry to have missed the fight been mucking around with tRMN boys on Facebook. I'm middle road, thinking both sides don't have a leg to stand on climate change. Climate change has way to many variables for accurate modeling with just one IE pCO2, the infamous butterfly effect.

Poker

PS Now both sides can hate me
.

well, its been nuked by duckk now as they kept arguing in the HH forum, so no worries there.

pokermind wrote:Sorry to have missed the fight been mucking around with tRMN boys on Facebook. I'm middle road, thinking both sides don't have a leg to stand on climate change. Climate change has way to many variables for accurate modeling with just one IE pCO2, the infamous butterfly effect.

Poker

PS Now both sides can hate me
.

The butterfly effect means that we can't predict the exact effects in terms of how air and ocean currents and other climate patterns will change as a result of global warming. What the science is sure of is that 1) atmospheric CO2 concentrations are going up, 2) global temperatures are going up, 3) CO2 gas has been known as a heat-trapping agent since the late 19th century, and 4) humans have been burning fossil fuels and releasing stored carbon into the air at an alarming rate since the Industrial Revolution, and are continuing to do so.

As I said, we can't predict exactly how this will affect the planet's climate and weather systems. It may be minor, it may be major; some changes may be seen as beneficial on a local scale even while other areas suffer. For example, shifting air currents might direct more rain to previously arid areas, away from historically moister and more fertile ones, which begin to experience drought.

Given our inability to predict the exact nature of the changes, the only responsible course of action is to plan and act on the basis that the worst-case scenarios are going to happen. Like the saying goes, "hope for the best, but prepare for the worst."

I caught a bit on NPR this morning on my way into work about climate change and how the scientists are trying to predict it. By looking back at the previous major warming of the planet (20 Million+ years ago), and current observed trends. The report was rather fair, and didn't place specific blame. It wasn't about blame. Rather it focused more on what could happen and the impact that may have.

Carbonic acid build up in warmer oceans from CO absorption in the ocean. More violent weather patterns developing due to warmer currents. Increased rain in areas that had not previously experienced it.

The scientist that NPR was speaking with suggested that if we curb our own CO2 additions to the atmosphere in the next 20 years, vice, say, 80 years, we could see only an 8000 year adjustment period for the environment to shift in accommodation for the new, warmer temperatures. If we wait, we may see a 20,000 year+ period before the earth begins to resemble what we are used to.

I've heard many arguments for and against climate change. I fall down on the side that humans are screwing up a good thing, the Earth namely, by injecting more gasses into the atmosphere then would normally accumulate. I believe that our actions are busily speeding up changes that would occur far more gradually. As in millennia changes are happening in a decade or less. And in the end, not only are we hosing the planet, but ourselves.

Of course, that hasn't stopped me from driving my car, using all my nifty electronics or buying the nice plastic toys I want, either.

The predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2

You will not get a buildup of carbonic acid (dissolved CO2) in warming oceans because the warmer water will either outgas the CO2 or more likely increased bioproduction will sequester the carbon as Calcium carbonate and other mi erals.

The planetary temperature has been in stasis for the last fifteen years.

The sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean has not been decreasing and is reaching minimum far earlier and at a greater area earlier than ever before this year.

Less Arctic ice means less evaporative and radiative cooling to space equals less thermal convection pumping of the gulf stream.

Erurope could soon freeze over.

Why dors this prospect not bother me?

namelessfly wrote:The predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2

You will not get a buildup of carbonic acid (dissolved CO2) in warming oceans because the warmer water will either outgas the CO2 or more likely increased bioproduction will sequester the carbon as Calcium carbonate and other mi erals.

The planetary temperature has been in stasis for the last fifteen years.

The sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean has not been decreasing and is reaching minimum far earlier and at a greater area earlier than ever before this year.

Less Arctic ice means less evaporative and radiative cooling to space equals less thermal convection pumping of the gulf stream.

Erurope could soon freeze over.

Why dors this prospect not bother me?

Just a thought. if europe does freeze over, all the europeans are going to move to other first world countries like the US..... And lots of them will become voters..... and will have a say on your countries direction..... such as choosing a president more to the left then Obama, being as he is to the right of most of the right wing parties in europe.



just a thought.......

there is a way to reduce our carbon footprint to a immense degree if a technology that was recently developed in sweden i think is used in power plants and motor vehicles. http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/this ... ml/?ref=YF

I see a word (nano) hated by new scientist in there, so i'm a little bit sceptical.further reading of the documentation throws up lots of other buzzwords hated by new scientist as well. the only ones missing are quantum and natural crystal power.....

What makes you think we would allow the imbeciles to immigrate?

Then again, having Europe freeze over in contradiction to AGW dogma might inspire Europeans to grow up, grow a brain and may be even grow a pair.

Spacekiwi wrote:

namelessfly wrote:The predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2

You will not get a buildup of carbonic acid (dissolved CO2) in warming oceans because the warmer water will either outgas the CO2 or more likely increased bioproduction will sequester the carbon as Calcium carbonate and other mi erals.

The planetary temperature has been in stasis for the last fifteen years.

The sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean has not been decreasing and is reaching minimum far earlier and at a greater area earlier than ever before this year.

Less Arctic ice means less evaporative and radiative cooling to space equals less thermal convection pumping of the gulf stream.

Erurope could soon freeze over.

Why dors this prospect not bother me?

Just a thought. if europe does freeze over, all the europeans are going to move to other first world countries like the US..... And lots of them will become voters..... and will have a say on your countries direction..... such as choosing a president more to the left then Obama, being as he is to the right of most of the right wing parties in europe.



just a thought.......