What Do We Think About Climate Change

Additionally... yes, I am all for corporate, and personal, responsibility. Often people confuse regulation with responsibility. There needs to be a bit of both.

The less entangled the government gets in business, and the less business gets into government the less likely we will have colluding resulting in dramatic environmental or economic disasters because of people gaming the system instead of being just stewards instead of irresponsible exploiters.

 

actually since we are politicizing the science beyond all recognition. Gov just made legal contributions of any amount to any US political campaign by any domestic or foreign corporate entity

so biz is unlikely to be playing less of a role in politics any time soon

the simple reality is that deforestation and overpopulation preclude the planting of enough trees fast enough and in the places needed most

that and there is no source of water available to support all that dessert land

the central valley of Cal. is presently being destroyed by naturally occurring salts called selenium's raised to the surface by just the type of irrigation your are talking about

far better to recycle the CO2 already in the atmosphere and eliminate CO2 production for things like the beverage industry which is a horrible contributor to the problem in the first place

the stuff can be sequestered in a number of ways but the solutions are staring us in the face

there is no need to wait

simple cost effective methods are available now

there is only a need to educate the public to the severity of the problem

 

The reality is we can learn a lot from the past but whats happening now is unprecedented as the rate of change in the atmospheric chemistry is so extreme that there is simply no example of it to draw upon

even relatively small effects of past "abrupt" changes had relatively large consequences

 

Interesting.
Can you please tell me which "extreme" change in the atmosphere did not happen already in the past?

Furthermore, can you enlighten me as to what are the "catastrophic and abrupt" changes you fear so much? I did not read anything in the news of late.

Are you somehow afraid of a little bit more heat? Like in the middle ages when grape wine flourished in the north of England for a few hundred years and wheat was cultivated in Greenland? Far from "catastrophic" heat during human existence has been always associated with prosperity whilst cold with stagnation and poverty.
Any particular reason you wish the weather to cool down?
Perhaps leave the fridge door open?
Move to Siberia or Alaska?

 

no problem



notice that pesky little spike thats actually not so little ( represents about a 30% increase in about a 100 year period

find something similar in the past climate record and get back to us on that one

PS
once again a denier is missing the point entirely
its not that change has not occurred in the past
its the speed of the change that is occurring in the present
there is no data set that records a spike in CO2 even remotely comparable to the present man made phenomenon

 

Even more interesting.
What makes you belive that the "speed" (admitting your graph actualy holds water) has such catastrophic consequences and what are those terrible consequences and how come nothing is happening?
Why did the sky not fall on our heads between 1940 and 1970 in the post war industrialization? CO2 increased with great alacrity... no catastrophy.

By the way, perhaps you care to explain why is the Polar bear not extinct after the warm middle age period.
With the current tempretature increase they are supposed to be dropping like flies. sob poor polar bear...

Dandruff is supposed to be increasing a lot too.
Man is bad. Must kill two third as per Greenies wishes.

 

you might want to look at methane as well cause its looking pretty darn unprecedented as well



last hundred years has seen a three fold increase in concentrations

find that in the paleoclimate record previous to the industrial age mate

ps
you are welcome to go over the information presented in this thread as all of your questions have been addressed in detail and all rebuttals refuted to a degree that leaves little doubt as to the veracity of the science

cheers
B

 

Methane is terrible. Completely umprecedented. the old dinosaurs ate a lot of antiflatulence compounds in order to keep it at bay. Today, people are just pigs. They let them rip like there is no tomorrow. What do you expect? Bloody lefties, no manners! The world has gone to the dogs mate, look at that graph and the way people fart. A desgrace I tell you.

 

the quality of your response leaves one no doubt as to your inability to rationally address the the answers I have provided

obviously there is no rebuttal because the information is accurate

the rise in CO2 is unprecedented in the historical record

as is the persistent rise in methane

 

The methane leak in the gulf that is all over the news is a perfect example of the massive scale that natural events are the dominant factors. Like for instance the gulf oil spill... terrible to be sure. But it is not like natural earthquakes don't cause oil leaks... or now methane. Its not like massive forrest fires unabated by modern firefighting don't burn down entire rain forests under the right circumstances, and events like red tides, super volcanoes, and yes even extra terrestrial impacts, not to mention solar activity could be responsible for some if not the majority of the things we fear.

Both methane and co2 concentrations have been higher and lower in the past with both higher and lower temperatures (respectively and irrespectively). Am I for lots of methane in the atmosphere? no... but lets not act like it is the end of the world as we know it. (TEOTWAWKI)

 

My friend, I am all for quality.
However my point remains unanswered despite your (conceded) good effort.

The point is of practical importance. The warmist and the skeptics, can argue until the cows come home to pass yet more methane, yet there are things that not even you can spin.
CO2 has been much much higher than today and so has methane. "Rapid" or not past high concentration of CO2 AND methane did not doom the earth. Are you telling me now that your only argument is that the change is "rapid"?

In the post WW2 industrialisation era CO2 skyrocketed and temperature dropped. (?)
No correlation despite Al Gore phony argumentation.

The temperature is rising? Thank God that it is not dropping. Humans need warmth not ice as abundantly demonstrated in in the past.

What is your "rapid" changes supposed to do? Rise the sea by one centimetre? I don't care. Rise temperatures by 0.5 of a degree? Welcome!

The whole argument of doomsday is ridiculous and we are spinning lies and smoke and mirrors for one reason and one only. Because you have been doped by some very clever individuals and are pushing someone else's agenda in order to tax the world.

A universal tax has been dreamed up by many crooks for centuries and this is the golden opportunity. You are not contributing to "save the planet" since the planet can take care of itself, but you are playing in the hand of a bunch of crook politicians and deranged greens who are using you for their own agenda.
By "you" I mean those who think like you, nothing personal.

 

Collect the wood while it is alive, then season it and add a dash of preservative. Once reshaped into usable form it will be temporarily prevented from adding to greenhouse gases. The Siberian methane pocket is definitely NOT anthropogenic.

 

What he is saying is that the CO2 is the doomsday trigger releasing the clasp of Pandora's box which will in turn release the Methane and all sorts of other terrors.

Alas, all the other forces in nature would have plodded along for all time and never triggered this doomsday if not for the festering pox of man.

 

L M A O!

 

Extreme? You have no valid data from which you can substantiate such a claim. Nonsensical statements require nonsensical retorts. Mehr Unsinn!