Page 63 of 189 FirstFirst ... 135359606162636465666773113163 ... LastLast
Results 621 to 630 of 1887

Thread: Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

  1. #621
    Roadster 919, S 2006 Doug_G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    12,100
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by David_Cary View Post
    Fossil fuels have allowed billions to have a reasonable lifestyle (whatever that is). You can't discount that. It is unlikely the earth could support anywhere near 7 billion people without fossil fuels.
    That is likely true. However we can use other sources of energy to derive the same benefits. And it is unwise to base the feeding of 7+ billion people on an unsustainable energy source.
    Roadster #919, Model S #2006. Blog The Rules of Model S Road Tripping
    Moderator: Tesla Motors , Electric Vehicles, Media, Roadster,
    Canada, EVents and Off Topic sub-forums.

  2. #622
    Senior Member Raffy.Roma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Rome (Italy)
    Posts
    2,303
    Quote Originally Posted by tigerade View Post
    Actually only long term measurements of average temperature are important for Climate. That's why one shouldn't consider so much short term measurements.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug_G View Post
    And it is unwise to base the feeding of 7+ billion people on an unsustainable energy source.
    Agree 100%
    PLEASE NOTE: Posts are the copyrighted intellectual property of the author and are intended as part of a conversation within this forum. My words may NOT be quoted outside this forum without my expressed consent.

  3. #623
    Senior Member SwedishAdvocate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Sweden, Earth
    Posts
    1,258
    Quote Originally Posted by David_Cary View Post
    …] One thing that is really hard to convince people to be worried about - sea levels have risen 7.5 inches since 1901. That number will only alarm a tiny minority of people - even accelerate it and it still seems pathetic. If in my lifetime, the ocean rises a foot - I can't really see an issue and I have oceanfront property. If certain cities have to be abandoned in 300 years, I can live with that. NO should already be abandoned.
    Here’s the sea level rise:

    Name:  CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg
Views: 164
Size:  77.9 KB
    Source: :: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO ACECRC ::

    Two questions:

    1. Where do you think this rise is going to stop?

    2. So with you in charge you would willingly abandon NYC, Boston, Miami, Jacksonville, Sacramento and Virginia Beach? (Source: RealClimate: The inevitability of sea level rise)
    Last edited by SwedishAdvocate; 2013-09-21 at 01:54 PM. Reason: Made some minor amendments.

  4. #624
    Member tigerade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    541
    This probably fits in the "No, duh" category, but this is an interesting study put out by Nature Climate Change.

    I really hate when scientific papers are behind a paywall, especially when I want to read them
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2009.html

    But here's a news article that summarizes the study:
    News in Brief: Slashing greenhouse gas emissions could save millions of lives | Environment | Science News

    Cutting greenhouse gas emissions should improve air quality and thereby save millions of people’s lives by the end of the century, new simulations find.
    Burning fossil fuels emits both climate-warming gases and other air pollutants such as particulate matter. Greenhouse gases also contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, the main component of smog. Because particulate matter and ozone can cause heart and lung disease, researchers think that reducing greenhouse gases would improve public health.
    J. Jason West of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and colleagues simulated climate and air quality through 2100. In a simulation with reductions in fossil fuel use, the model found 2.2 million premature deaths per year could be avoided by the beginning of the next century, compared with a simulation without climate change mitigation.
    The greenhouse gas cuts also make economic sense, the researchers say. The benefit of reducing pollution-related deaths, compared with the costs of mitigation, equals $50 to $380 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, the team reports September 22 in Nature Climate Change.

  5. #625
    Senior Member Raffy.Roma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Rome (Italy)
    Posts
    2,303
    Actually ground-level ozone is caused because of high temperatures in summer periods or in reasons where the average temperature is particularly high. In this sense greenhouse gases can contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone because they make average temperatures raise.
    PLEASE NOTE: Posts are the copyrighted intellectual property of the author and are intended as part of a conversation within this forum. My words may NOT be quoted outside this forum without my expressed consent.

  6. #626
    Senior Member Raffy.Roma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Rome (Italy)
    Posts
    2,303
    For reference I would like to report an article about health effects of ground-level ozone:

    http://www.epa.gov/glo/health.html
    PLEASE NOTE: Posts are the copyrighted intellectual property of the author and are intended as part of a conversation within this forum. My words may NOT be quoted outside this forum without my expressed consent.

  7. #627
    Member tigerade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    541
    Brace yourselves: Climate denial groups are preparing a major campaign ahead of Friday's release of the IPCC report.

    Ahead of IPCC report, fossil-fuel groups organize climate denial campaign | Grist

    It seems like we'll never get relief from these people. But I'm fine with it. I'll spend my whole life defending science if need be. I couldn't think of a more worthy cause.

    Name:  braceyourselves.jpg
Views: 138
Size:  103.7 KB

  8. #628
    Senior Member Raffy.Roma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Rome (Italy)
    Posts
    2,303
    Quote Originally Posted by tigerade View Post
    I'll spend my whole life defending science if need be. I couldn't think of a more worthy cause.
    The same.
    PLEASE NOTE: Posts are the copyrighted intellectual property of the author and are intended as part of a conversation within this forum. My words may NOT be quoted outside this forum without my expressed consent.

  9. #629
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by tigerade View Post
    Substantiate this claim.



    Trend and variation - YouTube

    I suppose that would take a dissertation. I don't think anyone who studies agriculture can come up with a way of feeding 7 billion people without fossil fuels with today's technology. There are certain things that I/we would have to just accept. I think we can all agree that our lifestyle in the US is what it is because of fossil fuels. I think we can also agree that it is difficult to tell people with a subsistence lifestyle that they can't live like Americans because we say so.

    In the rich world, we can make changes and reduce fossil fuels quite easily. In the US, we could cut carbon by 50% with a little will power (and a little taxation on carbon), and no significant change in lifestyle. But, it is a fair argument that China and India most certainly cannot. Hopefully they can develop a little less carbon intensively but it is hard to conceive of a world where we cut carbon as fast as they expend it. Our 50% cut would roughly be undone in 3-5 years by China. It is no wonder that there is little political will to make this happen.

    Given this reality (ok - my reality), it maybe better to focus resources on preparing for climate change.

    My only point is that reducing carbon on a global scale is very very hard. I make the argument that it is basically impossible. Even Europe hasn't really reduced carbon in any meaningful way recently and their usage line is roughly the same as the US (albeit from a much lower per capita start). Europeans generally agree that CO2 is a problem and over the last 20 years haven't cut much. The biggest reduction in both US and Europe has been from economic slowdown last 5 years. China has grown almost exponentially in the last 20 years.

    We now have cheap NG in the US and we are cutting pretty quickly because of it. But fracking just means we can go along releasing more carbon for more centuries.

    Whether all this means the extinction of man in 500 years is really hard to predict.

  10. #630
    Senior Member SwedishAdvocate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Sweden, Earth
    Posts
    1,258
    @David_Cary

    …and where do you think the sea level rise is going to stop? (See post #623 above.)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming Consensus?
    By tonybelding in forum Energy, Environment, and Policy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2013-05-21, 12:28 AM
  2. Global Warming: Fact or Mass Hysteria?
    By tonybelding in forum Energy, Environment, and Policy
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 2013-05-21, 12:25 AM
  3. California's new Global Warming label
    By graham in forum Cars and Transportation
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2013-05-14, 02:16 PM
  4. Climate Change 101 for Spooks
    By malcolm in forum Energy, Environment, and Policy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2009-08-11, 02:56 PM
  5. BBC unfair in global warming show?
    By tonybelding in forum Energy, Environment, and Policy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2008-09-29, 11:09 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •