What are the options to "tackle global warming"

[turk]

Let's do a thought experiment. So, let's say global warming can be stopped and our generation, or ours and the next, can accomplish it. Let's think it through. So, first we have to determine what exactly must be done. The culprit of global warming is carbon dioxide (according to a theory) in excess, produced by us. This must be stopped. We must first get a measurement of that. We have a measuring system for it at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Okay. What is the level we need to maintain to avert global warming? We have a paleo-record of CO2 levels in the past. Apparently CO2 levels corresponded to temperature levels for millennia. The record shows higher temperatures mean higher CO2 levels, and CO2 levels "follow" temps by anywhere from 200 to 1000 years. So, the theory is CO2 drives temperature (though it lags). But it could be a factor accelerating temperature regardless. That is a possibility. We don't know. Let's continue assuming that possibility. We are at the point Mauna Loa has shown an increase in CO2 from 270 ppm to 391 ppm, from 1950 to 2010. An increase of 121 ppm in 70 years. To get a perspective on that it's about a 30% increase in the measurement. 391 ppm comprises .039% of the atmosphere being measured. It was .027% when measurements started. It was .026% before that for millennia according to paleo-records taken from a few spots in Antarctica and elsewhere. So, according to measurements taken it has increased in correspondence with our industrial emissions. Okay. At this rate of increase it will very likely likely reach 700 ppm before 2100. That will be .07% of the atmosphere, not including other greenhouse gasses. That's 89 years from now. 89 years ago was 1922. The arctic ice was retreating then. Anyhow, to reduce our emissions so we will achieve, say 350 ppm (somehow) in the atmosphere, will mean stopping all industry and related emissions now in the industrialized world and restricting those emissions in developing industrial nations. If it saves the planet it's worth it, no doubt. I'm just hard-pressed to see how it's implemented world-wide, without huge propaganda campaigns to control them. Okay, I am called away. I didn't finish yet but that should be enough to ponder and argue the merits of...

Will it save the planet? Seems a dumb question in light of the fact humans are spreading across the planet at increasingly higher rates. Of course stopping this juggernaut will benefit saving what isn't already tapped by the precocious species behind it. Given humans are generally civil to each other in the show, assuming they want to live and let live among themselves, it isn't sustainable if the planet has only so much water, arable land, and minerals to donate to this growing population.

Culling the "herd" with war, famine, and pestilence has kept the numbers manageable for the earth so far, but populations and appetite for aid and comfort still increased.

Okay, I have to finish this post later..

[turk]

So, with what we know, which doesn't seem much, as far as what our contribution is to global warming, I don't see what climate science as it stands now, should have to do with orienting government policies about it. Nothing would be the best policy toward it in my opinion. Of course we can work toward better energy sources, conservation, et al.. That makes sense regardless of climate change. To "tackle climate change" seems foolish with the amount of real info we have about it at this point. Anything we do, even stopping all human emissions of CO2 cold turkey, will probably have zero impact on climate change, yet think of what it will cost. And for no known positive effect other than not emitting CO2 as a species. We have to emit CO2 regardless. The only way not to would be extinction. We exhale the stuff. We create emissions in agriculture and animal husbandry. There's virtually no way not to emit CO2 and still be alive on the earth (that I'm aware of). Emitting less because of energy, like fossil fuels, is at best, a drop in the bucket. Natural sources of CO2 account for at least 95% of what's in the atmosphere. At least. It is probably more, considering the latest research. Ice-bergs release it as they drift and melt. That's a new finding. Phytoplankton blooms feeding large food chain confluences, have been determined to be nourished by higher CO2 levels in water near melting ice-bergs. Science is discovering new things like that consistently.

[Ritter]

Playing with one's self or blowing hot air?

[Lanval]

Playing with one's self or blowing hot air?

Ritter,


hmmmm... lessee:

We can take the opinion of a large number of scientists, with high levels of expertise in their field, with substantial private and governmental support, with literally thousands of hours to devote to detailed study of the global warming problem, with reams of supporting data...

and try to reduce the human contribution to global warming, and action they claim will have clearly positive effects.

Or

We can take the opinion of one guy, with no expertise in climatology, no research support, little if any time to devote to research global warming, with no supporting data...

and do nothing.

**********************

Let's think about this for a moment. Let's assume that Turk is right and that anything we do will have little effect on the global warming issue.

If the actions we take drive us towards sustainable energy, lower impact living, basically making humans less destructive to the environment then essentially we succeeded in making humans a more balanced part of an ecosystem ~ even an ecosystem that is in the process of dynamic change.

But... if Turk is wrong, then we WILL have lowered the impact of humans and in addition to the generally beneficial aspect of living in better harmony with the Earth's ecosystem we will diminish the changes apparent in global warming.

In other words, if you follow Turk's own logic, you SHOULD do something; in mathematical terms:

if doing something = 0

and

doing nothing = 0

Then it doesn't matter what you do.

BUT

if doing nothing = 0

and

doing something = < 0

then doing something is crucial.

But I repeat myself.

L.

[Hippie]

http://www.stopglobalcoolingnow.com/

[turk]

Yeah, I heard that argument before. Problem is it avoids answering the specific question of "what can can be done to actually stop climate change, i.e. gobal warming, or global climate disruption?" Anyone can say: "well if you try something it will only be a positive in the long-run". Okay then, let's try "something" and forget calling it "stopping global warming", rather be honest about what we're actually doing. Because. the fact remains NO ONE knows what is actually causing climate change, or that we can do anything about it. So, rather than taking the placebo of pretending we are doing something about it, why not be honest and call it what it is. Why drive a VW instead of a Chevy? Is there really any difference? Why not take the badge off the VW and slap it on the Chevy and pretend it's a VW?

[airkooledchris]

So, rather than taking the placebo of pretending we are doing something about it, why not be honest and call it what it is.

most people working on the technology don't even call it an effort to 'tackle global warming' anymore. usually you only hear about it from the fanatics on either side of the debate.
everyone else stopped listening because neither side will EVER be able to convince the other - and trying to do so is about as effective as pissing into a headwind, but less pleasant.

there's no reason to pin efficiency to any movement, it's just a smart thing to do.

[ruckman101]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110404/od_ ... lldHNmb3Jj

Every little bit helps, eh?


neal

[turk]

The phrase "tackling climate change" is political, and I heard Obama use it. But it's all over the place. "Google" it to see.
The people using it aren't being symbolic, or substituting it for efficiency. They are being literal. Apparently, they believe it is one of the most pressing issues facing the world.
If all that changed recently it's news to me. Good news.

[Ritter]

Playing with one's self or blowing hot air?

Ritter,


hmmmm... lessee:

[snip]

But I repeat myself.

L.

Lanval,

Please don't misunderstand me, I couldn't agree with you more. I don't really participate in these threads anymore because, as they say, beating a dead horse is a waste of time. There was just a nice opportunity to point out that the thread's originator was, as the only participant and responding to his own post, both playing with himself and blowing hot air.

[Lanval]

Playing with one's self or blowing hot air?

Ritter,


hmmmm... lessee:

[snip]

But I repeat myself.

L.

Lanval,

Please don't misunderstand me, I couldn't agree with you more. I don't really participate in these threads anymore because, as they say, beating a dead horse is a waste of time. There was just a nice opportunity to point out that the thread's originator was, as the only participant and responding to his own post, both playing with himself and blowing hot air.

Yah, but I couldn't pass up the chance to point out the silliness of argument. In fairness, I assumed you already knew/understood so my reference to you was really rhetorical, to introduce my own 2 cents. My apologies for unnecessarily dragging you into the muck.

*Lanval checks out*

[Lanval]

Playing with one's self or blowing hot air?

Ritter,


hmmmm... lessee:

[snip]

But I repeat myself.

L.

Lanval,

Please don't misunderstand me, I couldn't agree with you more. I don't really participate in these threads anymore because, as they say, beating a dead horse is a waste of time. There was just a nice opportunity to point out that the thread's originator was, as the only participant and responding to his own post, both playing with himself and blowing hot air.

Yah, but I couldn't pass up the chance to point out the silliness of argument. In fairness, I assumed you already knew/understood so my reference to you was really rhetorical, to introduce my own 2 cents. My apologies for unnecessarily dragging you into the muck.

*Lanval checks out*

[Amskeptic]

I assumed you already knew/understood so my reference to you was really rhetorical, to introduce my own 2 cents. My apologies for unnecessarily dragging you into the muck.

*Lanval checks out*

Pretend we are at a party. Bunch of different conversations going on. Perhaps we hear one particular conversation due to the volume, but we can *choose* to converse with whomever we please. I can hear that conversation over there, but there are people I enjoy exchanging ideas with over HERE. Please please please choose the conversations you enjoy most, and stick to them.

Pretend we are at a party. Imagine that some blowhard is blowing hard. Would you go over there and get in a shouting match with him? I have in the past, and regretted it mostly because my date got pissed at me, and secondarily because the exchange with Mr. Blowhard was not worth the time or the energy. But there are other conversations going on that I'd really enjoy.
Colin

[Lanval]

I assumed you already knew/understood so my reference to you was really rhetorical, to introduce my own 2 cents. My apologies for unnecessarily dragging you into the muck.

*Lanval checks out*

Pretend we are at a party. Bunch of different conversations going on. Perhaps we hear one particular conversation due to the volume, but we can *choose* to converse with whomever we please. I can hear that conversation over there, but there are people I enjoy exchanging ideas with over HERE. Please please please choose the conversations you enjoy most, and stick to them.

Pretend we are at a party. Imagine that some blowhard is blowing hard. Would you go over there and get in a shouting match with him? I have in the past, and regretted it mostly because my date got pissed at me, and secondarily because the exchange with Mr. Blowhard was not worth the time or the energy. But there are other conversations going on that I'd really enjoy.
Colin

I'm not sure what you're telling me here... is this Colinese for STFU?

If so, then I'll simply add that I find it worthwhile to try and elevate the level of thinking wherever I am. Poopyhead!

L.

[RussellK]

Heh. He called you poopyhead.