Climate Change is a Complex Subject, Not Just a Political Football

Are you still on this kick? You're wasting your time, and the time of everyone who reads this thread.

CO2 is the second most significant contributor to the greenhouse effect after water vapor, and increasing the amount of it increases its effect. That's reality, and you can't make it go away by repeatedly denying it.

 

OK, this is interesting stuff. It's the sort of thing I hope people will post more of....

 

And this too is interesting; thanks for finding and posting it.

 

State asks insurers: Are you ready for climate change? | STAR-TRIBUNE

 

Rise in violence 'linked to climate change' | BBC

 

We should not attack Syria. It still hasn't been proven which side used the chems.

 

Lay in lots of coal and other fossil fuels. Hoist the boat. It is going to be a very cold winter. This global warming is going to freeze the world under a layer of frozen alarmist crap. Squawk!

 

7 out of 18 strengthen their shells when exposed to excess acidification, what happens to the other 9?

And when it comes to these critters to live in and survive or to molt and shed their built up, thickened, stiffer exoskeletons, could that possibly cause problems?

It would seem, at least for those that accept evolution as rational, that these ancient critters would have perfected their shells by now and a quick change in such a basic part of their lives might be difficult and could seriously affect their survivability.

Of course, besides the other 9, there is also the question of what excess acidification of the oceans (anthropogenic ?) will do to the 226,000 named and possibly 2 million unnamed other species that live there.

I don't think coral appreciates excess acid in the water, they're already having problems of die off with excess heat. They're 1% of the space but harbor 25% of the life in the ocean.

All these little things are highly susceptible to change and don't like it. You could claim them as fellow conservatives. Maybe get their vote.

When you consider them, plus all the other fragile nurseries of the earth, the lagoons, salt marshes, estuaries, mangroves, plus all the freshwater versions of the same that are also affected by acidification (anthropogenic?), it's disapointing that some profess that there is no urgency here and that no attempt should be made to curtail free enterprise or the processes that are probably, most likely, that the vast majority of all empirical evidence points to, causing the ecological damage.

To you, calamity is not a bad thing, it is an opportunity to make money. Adversity is a good thing, it brings out the resourcefulness of humans. I look at a population of 7 billion not too bright people living paycheck to paycheck on the availability of food that relies on a dwindling petroleum base, shifting climates, a collapsing ecosystem and a superficially capable supply system and worry what sort of resourcefulness might be displayed when the time comes that there are glitches.

 

samsam...did you read the article? Or skim it?

 

The "CO2 drives climate"
part of this thread, reminds me of classic English literature.
Shakespeares play "Much Ado About Nothing"!

But to give it one more chance,
I know all the rhetoric about how it's a greenhouse gas, and a forcing agent, and feedback, ect ad nauseum.

Explain how hot, how much average global temperature will rise, if atmospheric CO2 reaches 500 parts per million?

And so there is NO trickery, no surprises, what I'm specifically looking for, is the awareness and understanding that putting more and more blankets on the bed does NOT make you warmer and warmer.
Diminishing returns.
Boy, I could draw some parallels about liberals apparently not understanding diminishing returns in finances, either! But that's getting too close to politics.

 

I stumbled across something else interesting.
So started a new thread
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/all-things-boats-and-boating/voyage-atlantis-48203.html#post649514

Check it out.

 

No, to tell the truth I had not read the article (I didn't see it cited) and was replying to what you posted of it and your general attitude as expressed over the other posts. I thought it was a new finding, but see it was published in late 2009.

I can't see where I'd change my post much, if at all.

The last part was 'interesting' might be the word...“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”

The blankets on a bed scenario above might work in the one case where the input of heat is limited to 98.6 degrees, but we are talking about the heat input of the sun. If you want a scenario for that, explain to a dog or baby how hot it can get in a car with the windows closed. Or in something say like, oh I don't know, maybe a greenhouse?

Too bad conservatives didn't understand financial diminishing returns when they cut taxes drastically while running two wars. Ah well, what was the enlightened thought at the time, 'deficits don't matter' or something like that? It probably has nothing to do with the US going bankrupt now, anyways.

 

For some odd reason, in the hot summer I take the blankets off my bed, and often the sheet too. And strangely enough, in the winter I tend to pile the blankets on. Silly me. What could I possibly be imagining?

And when I go camping in the winter it will be such a relief not to have to carry that bulky down sleeping bag, just take a sheet or two.

And those stupid refrigerator and hot water tank manufacturers. They keep putting more and more insulation around their appliances. And the International Building code keeps upping the recommend insulation for buildings. Now that I've been shown the light I now know it is just an evil communist plot to bilk unsuspecting Americans of their hard-earned dollars.

How can I ever thank you for such an insightful thought experiment.

PS: Why don't you turn off the air-conditioner and pile on twenty down comforters tonight, and report to us tomorrow how your night went?

PSS: When the price of energy double or triples (which it effectively already is in Europe), we will soon rue the lack of building insulation in typical US houses, BOTH in northern cold-climate houses AND in southern hot-climate houses. Europeans are far ahead of the US in building better insulated homes.

 

Yobarnacle you are right.
The Inuit didn't pile clothes, they put the clothes not touching the skin, the natural warm of the body make some sort of insulation between the clothes and the body.
The English died during the first piolar expedition because they piled clothed on top of each one all touching the body.
The German didn't pile blanket in winter they use one dawn comforter without sheet. The feathers are numerous but loose inside providing the necessary insulation between the body and the cold.
In very hot night, a sheet protect the body to overheat. Keep the seat in control, cooling the body.
In the hot sun the Marocain used to wear very heavy clothes, not touching the body.
Same system.

 

I'm still waiting for a figure.

Here are some earlier predictions and some recent updates to help you.


http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2013/03/20/how-much-will-the-planet-warm-if-we-double-co2/

http://mistakesinipcccalculations.blogspot.mx/

http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/t...ty-study-and-misprocessing-of-data-an-update/

http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/10/new-perspectives-on-climate-sensitivity/


Since the effect of CO2 on climate is SO CLEARLY understood, this should be an easy exercise.
An accurate temperature at 500 ppm or at 800 ppm, PLEASE.
GOOD LUCK!