Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Norbert]

This is the problem when talking with religious zealots, they are blinded by dogma. One can not convince a zealot of the err of their ways, one must simply move on.

Since you wrote in another thread that you ordered a S85, I'll simply wish you happy driving...

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

This is almost 4,5 years old. But who knows, maybe it can help wmarcy here.

In 4 minutes, atmospheric chemist Rachel Pike provides a glimpse of the massive scientific effort behind the bold headlines on climate change, with her team — one of thousands who contributed — taking a risky flight over the rainforest in pursuit of data on a key molecule.

Source: Rachel Pike: The science behind a climate headline | Talk Video | TED (Includes transcript.)

Rachel Pike studies climate change at the molecular level — tracking how emissions from biofuel crops react with the air to shape weather trends globally.

Why you should listen

Rachel Pike knows the intricacies of climate research -- the laborious, exacting and subtle techniques behind findings that end up in IPCC reports and, later, news headlines.

As a Ph.D candidate at Cambridge, Pike's research on isoprene, a major biofuel crop emission, and other molecules has taken her soaring over rainforest canopies in multi-ton labs-on-wings, into the cooled-down sub-levels of supercomputer grids, and into massive experimental atmospheric chambers. Her exhaustive work represents a major step toward a complete picture of how human activity affects the global ecosystem.

Source: Rachel Pike | Speaker | TED

 

[nwdiver]

Yep... further proof that when you peel back the layers of AGW you get science... go deeper and you find facts.

Peel back the layers of climate denial and all you find is Ideology. There are scores of libertarians that accept AGW... but finding a non-libertarian that rejects AGW is almost like finding a unicorn or bigfoot. Most (perhaps all) people that reject AGW don't reject it based on reason or logic... it's an emotional response.

 

[Norbert]

Yep... further proof that when you peel back the layers of AGW you get science... go deeper and you find facts.

Peel back the layers of climate denial and all you find is Ideology. There are scores of libertarians that accept AGW... but finding a non-libertarian that rejects AGW is almost like finding a unicorn or bigfoot. Most (perhaps all) people that reject AGW don't reject it based on reason or logic... it's an emotional response.

Some of them dislike government "interference" so much that they are willing to speak about their remaining doubt as if it were the truth itself.

 

[tigerade]

How does climate change affect humans? That's the question we asked Tom Wagner, Program Scientist for Cryospheric Research at NASA.

In four different ways, he says, from rainfall patterns and sea levels rising to food production and ocean acidification. First, "as the planet warms up, we're going to redistribute rainfall, which is going to affect our water resources and parts of North America may get a lot drier."
Second, "as the polar ice melts, sea levels are going to rise." The world's major cities, and a lot of people, are right on the coasts and rising sea levels are going to impact them.

Third, thinking about food, the "distributions where we can grow food are going to change as the planet warms up." So the range over which you can grow corn and other crops will change.

Fourth, says Tom Wagner, "the oceans are going to get more acidic as more CO2 dissolves in them." There are untold ramifications from that, including the possibility of radically altering the food web in the ocean, "which can affect everything from the composition of the atmosphere to the ability of the oceans to provide food for us."

NASA | Ask a Climate Scientist: Climate Change and Humans - YouTube

 

[artsci]

I don't disagree. Unfortunately. But I am deeply saddened, for our children and grandchildren. However, I remain somewhat optimistic that we may be at a tipping point with respect to renewable energy and may, through a concerted adoption of green technologies, and perhaps some geo-engineering, be able to pull civilization out of the fire.

All of these problems and harm are so completely unnecessary. If we had implemented intelligent public policy in the 1980's when this problem, and the policy solutions were becoming clear, we would today be living in a post carbon world. This issue would be in the past and we would all be living, as a matter of course, with the technologies such as cheap solar, electric cars and heat pumps (which are only now becoming widely available), such that fossil fuel use would, by this time, be dwindling to absolute insignificance. That said, we must continue to push for good policy (as advocated by James Hansen and the Citizens Climate Lobby) to be implemented as soon as possible.

I earnestly hope your optimism that we will find solutions is fulfilled. I will be a grandfather in September and I fear for the future of my grandchild as well as my son and his wife.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

NASA | Ask a Climate Scientist: Climate Change and Humans - YouTube

Terrible consequences can be caused by Climate Change. In particular I would like to point out the ocean acidification issue that can destroy the coral reef and alter the Ph of the oceans.

- - - Updated - - -

I earnestly hope your optimism that we will find solutions is fulfilled. I will be a grandfather in September and I fear for the future of my grandchild as well as my son and his wife.

The same.

 

[RichardC]

I earnestly hope your optimism that we will find solutions is fulfilled. I will be a grandfather in September and I fear for the future of my grandchild as well as my son and his wife.

Congratulations. Being a grandparent is a wonderful blessing! But also makes the future much closer and more frightening. I now feel that I have a personal stake in the year 2100.

With respect to climate change, now encumbered with this terrible knowledge, I feel an obligation to do what I can to help, and can tell that many others on this thread feel the same.

I have zero inherent interest in politics, but have become more actively involved in the last couple of years as I have come to understand how little heed is being paid by our politicians to the long term public interest, and what a pathetically inadequate job our media is doing to raise the warnings which are being clearly communicated to them by the scientific community. This truly seems to be a situation in which (to paraphrase Edmund Burke): all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

I would like to recognize and recommend a couple of books which Tom Rand of the MaRS Cleantech fund has published. The second, "Waking the Frog", is particularly relevant to the recent discussions on this thread and was publicly launched last week. Links to Tom's site and the descriptions from Amazon follow:

http://www.tomrand.net/

Kick the Fossil Fuel Habit: 10 Clean Technologies to Save Our World

In Kick the Fossil Fuel Habit, author Tom Rand, (engineer, Cleantech authority, venture capitalist, pragmatic entrepreneur and philosopher) doesn t provide a ''three-easy-steps'' approach to fixing our dependence on fossil fuels. But he does show it's possible to do without them.
By giving an in-depth look at ten technologies that together can bring a clean future, free of fossil fuels, Tom provides education and hope. This is a clarion call, a directive that we act quickly and collectively (governments, corporations and individuals) to provide future generations the opportunity to live in a sustainable world. Unique in being accessible to the general public, his message is not just important, but understandable and entertaining. His personal views and anecdotes are combined with a hardheaded engineering and business perspective. Beautiful color photographs bring the text to life. It is this generation's job to save the world we know for the next. Kick the Fossil Fuel Habit shows us how.

http://www.amazon.com/Kick-Fossil-Fuel-Habit-Technologies/dp/0981295207

Waking the Frog

Venture capitalist, entrepreneur, engineer, and philosopher Tom Rand explains why climate disruption might just be our very own pot of hot water. Are we the frog paralyzed in our inaction? In a highly readable account, Rand looks to contemporary psychology, economics, business, and finance to explain our stasis in the face of one of the most fundamental problems of our time. Rand’s account doesn’t just point fingers at the bad guys, but goes deeper — to our motivations, institutional lethargy, and deeply buried assumptions about market economics.
Waking the Frog is as much about solutions as it is an account of our present paralysis. Our ingenuity, technology, capital, and policy can work together to turn down the heat and at the same time enable the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century.

http://www.amazon.com/Waking-Frog-T...id=1396837080&sr=1-1&keywords=Waking+the+Frog

 

[tigerade]

What I'm watching now: The premier of "Years of Living Dangerously". Glad to see this project become a reality.

Years of Living Dangerously Premiere Full Episode - YouTube

 

[RichardC]

What I'm watching now: The premier of "Years of Living Dangerously". Glad to see this project become a reality.

Years of Living Dangerously Premiere Full Episode - YouTube

Thanks Tiger, we need more of these types of shows (unfortunately, the scientific data is not, by itself, getting the job done).

 

[tigerade]

An article arguing that climate change mitigation requires "the politics of the impossible". Something along to the end of slavery or apartheid.
Climate Change Needs the Politics of the Impossible - The Daily Beast

 

[Raffy.Roma]

An article arguing that climate change mitigation requires "the politics of the impossible". Something along to the end of slavery or apartheid.
Climate Change Needs the Politics of the Impossible - The Daily Beast

I agree with this article. As I said IMO it's impossible to work out the Climate Change/Global Warming issue because also in the best case in 2050 we will have a CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of 450 ppm whatever will be our efforts to decrease CO2 emissions. So geoengineering is the only way out. To this concern I would like to report this paragraph from the above linked article:

That leaves us with, basically, two ways out. One is extraordinary technology: either a silver bullet to produce cheap, renewable energy, or a reliable geo-engineering technique to adjust the global atmosphere-temperature-weather system directly.

 

[Doug_G]

[to moderator: request of moderation for posts containing thesis not supported by any scientific data and arguments]

I would only put the brakes on someone if they descended into trolling. I don't believe the threshold has been crossed at this time. Having some "anti" representation in the thread does stimulate useful discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the problem when talking with religious zealots, they are blinded by dogma. One can not convince a zealot of the err of their ways, one must simply move on.

This is quite true. However, that goes both ways. Since you have failed to post any credible scientific evidence to support your views, there may be some confusion here about about which party is the zealot.

 

[ggies07]

Any of you guys big music fans? Music is part of my life, I started drumming in school in 6th grade and went all the way through high school doing drumline. I love all different types of music. If you are, do you have any songs about the world that inspire you? I'll list some of mine (and some lyrics) that really bring me back to the basics of humanity, nature, and earth.

Brendan James
- Simplify - I love this song.

There's too many money chasers ganging up on Mother Nature
Creature comforting our paradise away
Ah, but who am I to say, I've just been born today...

Stop, for a minute, wipe the progress from our eyes
And stare at the setting sun that holds us here alive"

-Letter Of Apology - This one breaks my heart every time I listen to it

Dave Matthews Band

"If green should slip to grey
Would our hearts still bloody beat

If the mountains crumble away and the river dry
Would it stop the stepping feet?"

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

Didn’t quite know where to post this…

It’s not much, but I guess at least it’s something. David Beckham and Victoria Beckham has previously allegedly been driving gas guzzlers like Range Rover, Range Rover Evoque, McLaren MP4-12C Spider, Jaguar XJ, Cadillac Escalade, Audi S8, Rolls Royce Ghost and the Bentley Mulsanne.

A Model S is perhaps not that far away...

David Beckhams Driving a Prius Now?! | Celebrity Cars Blog

Original source:

David Beckham Photos - David Beckham Son Brooklyn Leaving The SoulCycle Gym - Zimbio

 

[Raffy.Roma]

It's good that celebrities drive the Model S. It's a way to advertize EVs. Hope that Beckham (both) will drive soon a Model S.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

Some good news on this front:

Reducing car pollution easier than UN experts thought

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Some good news on this front:

Reducing car pollution easier than UN experts thought

Considering that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is always increasing at a rate of 2 ppm per year I wouldn't be so optimistic about the reduction of CO2 emissions due to transportation. We should remember that today CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 400 ppm, 100 ppm higher than ever in the last million years. And in the last million years there has been an ice age each 100.000 years.
So let's be careful. IMO we could become optimistic only when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will start decreasing.

 

[tigerade]

From this article, Russia endorses geoengineering, others skeptical:
Artificial cooling tricky topic for climate panel - Yahoo News

It's Plan B in the fight against climate change: cooling the planet by sucking heat-trapping CO2 from the air or reflecting sunlight back into space.Called geoengineering, it's considered mad science by opponents. Supporters say it would be foolish to ignore it, since plan A — slashing carbon emissions from fossil fuels — is moving so slowly.
The U.N.'s expert panel on climate change is under pressure from both sides this week as it considers whether geoengineering should be part of the tool-kit that governments use to keep global warming in check.
Russia, in particular, has been pushing the panel to place more emphasis on such techniques in a key document for policymakers being finalized in Berlin this week.
Drafts leaked before the conference only mentioned one of the options, removing CO2 from the air and storing it underground. Russia, a major oil and gas producer, said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change should also mention solar radiation management, which could include everything from covering open surfaces with reflective materials or placing sun-mirrors in orbit around the Earth.
"It is expedient to give a short description of the approach and mention the major 'pro and contra'," Russia said in comments submitted to the IPCC and seen by The Associated Press.
But even advocates of studying geoengineering express doubts.
"Really at the present moment there is a high level of uncertainty surrounding all of these options," said Steve Rayner, co-director of Oxford University's geoengineering program. Still, he said it's worth continuing to research geoengineering "to get a better sense of whether there's any merit in pursuing these technologies further."

 

[artsci]

From this article, Russia endorses geoengineering, others skeptical:
Artificial cooling tricky topic for climate panel - Yahoo News

The news keeps getting worse by the day. I think when our "leaders" (maybe cowards would be a better word) finally face up to the terrible reality we're facing they'll be desperate to try anything. Of course, as is often the case, when we humans attempt these kinds of experiments with nature they do more harm than good. We're not nearly as smart as we think we are.