What Do We Think About Climate Change

"Basically large local events" Well if they measured the CO2 close to something like that, it would matter?

Also looked into the dates for volcanoes, and I partially agree to that argument, but, a spike in CO2 level in 1850?
If you use a magnifying glass for the short period yhere probably is a spike, but I also found this site;
http://ocw.nd.edu/philosophy/environmental-philosophy/The carbon dioxide spike.pdf
There you'll see that 1850 is barely a lump on an steady upward rising curve.

Maybe you have better curves to show...?

 

CO2 is considered a 'well-mixed' gas, so the location of the sample is unimportant, else we'd have to throw out all that data from Mona Lau, being right next to the Hawaiian volcanoes, and we can't have that, can we

Look at the curve on the graph on the previous page of the thread. The spike is over 20 years long.



Jimbo

 

Ok... this one.....Oh ****, sorry, didn't come up right, post 1871, previous page... Second diagram.

Lemmesseee.............

To take a look at this, In the area around 1920-1945, there also was an increase in CO2, from approx 310-420 ppm a global increase like that would have not gone quite unnoticed. as an increase like that takes a release of approx; 233 billions of tons of carbon. About 1/3 of all carbon stored, globally, in plants, on land?

Error in measurment? Probably....

Even The Great Me, happen to do that, I even once made the inner roof on a boat 3 times before if by accident came out right.....
(But then I've not posted THAT anywhere as the correct way to do it either... ).

Not my arguments, but I just "translated" from here.... http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2008/august/190368

 

Good point...

Agree with you, to a degree at least, But I bet its not quite unimportant with the location, there's probably some intended gaps in most recordings, and also from Mona Lau.

 

1) I just hate it.....around in 2060, I just realized that I'm probably a complete writeoff by 2050......

2)Half Canadian average? Well we Norwegians are about half the American average, can still improve....

3) I'll too try to do my part, but from time to time I also try to convince some from the dark side....

 

Of course. The problem is all politicians efforts (and our tax moneys) are nowadays stubborngly focused on global warming only, scorning the global cooling possibility, which may prove to be quite worse if it happens. And it may happen soon, if some of the predictions we have been discussing in this thread come to be true.

Cheers.

 

Not to worry Guillermo as oil is predicted to run out in 10 to 15 years, - - and also lack of food will have us all starving to death, so the cold will not matter too much...

 

run with it Knut
run with it

and hey all the spelling tips you can muster actually will help
these last few months have doing nothing much but goofing off on the computer have been the most typing Ive done in about 20 years

 

Boston, eventually your fingers will see better than your eyes, except someone insists on shifting the keyboard and the next letter gets struck.... I'll have to stop making the earth move when I kiss my lovely lady....... as it seems to "wobble" for quite some time before and after..

Get one of those free typing tutors with a "speed test capability" using 2 fingers a bit of practice will get you to 30 wpm....

Install a "british english" dictionary and thesaurus and remove the US ones as Americans never learnt to spell.... then start reading news reports from http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/ - http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/ - http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/ - and "The Hindu" English edition as my wife, an Indian agrees with my assessment that, "the Indians are more English than the British"... Oh, and add the BBC news service to your list of websites.... then you will be well versed in global affairs and vastly improve your English (maybe - as some of the editorial and journalistic standards are sadly verging on "illiterate"....)

 

Absolutely,

if your 'goal' actually happens to be a self-defeating, 'fool's errand' promoted for an ulterior motive, like cutting CO2 emissions is.

Jimbo

 

Ok... we, the fools are gathering, banging our heads against some mad buggers wall...

Lets take one of the other twist of this problem:

Alternative 1 (ongoing):
Assume that we're continuing, increasing the use at a steady rate, like we done, so far. We then will definitely run pretty completely dry earlier. We will have an (even bigger) industry and way of life even more dependant of the resources. More people, more dependant. Well there may also of course be some conflicts related to resources (pretty much like we already have). We then will face huge nessesary changes, we will also, probably be squezed on the time factors to make that change, to avoid some serious political/ social conflicts.

Alternative 2:
Or; we realize that by 2030 - 2050, or something, we'll need to make do with close to zero natural oil. The earlier we realize, and make the needed changes, the softer that crash will be. We'll still be able to burn oil/ coal, but at a slower rate, maybe at a rate even below what the nature handles?

Oil, almost free/ cheap, for the masses, (us) will at a time, somwhere, be a far gone dream... (fact, sorry for pointing that out).

I don't feel to comfortable with Alt. 1, nor Alt. 2...

But, if Alt. 1 also is followed by unwanted serious climate changes, it'll be pretty uncomfortable, here where I live, I'm lucky, warmer summers; we'll handle that, more weather in the winter; that too. But water/ snow, falling on us, needs to come from somewhere (and it friggin' seem that it already does...). Warmer places, drier places, even more inhabitated places. If I were living in a warm place, that turned out to not to not be able to feed my and my family; I'd melt the plow to a sword and seek other places... (or dig up an AK-47). Oh and yea; Some will travel only to meet unemployment/ hunger...

Maybe I'm a fool... But I normally fasten the seatbelt, when driving in my car, even when I consider my days of racing as something far back in my past. Have not happened anything yet, does that too make me a fool?

 

Though these issues have intertwining features, they are actually separate and should be treated as such. We can overcome resource depletion by finding a renewable source of cheap energy. There are several promising developments in this regard, but these will not cut carbon output, as they still involve burning something for energy. But the mandatory carbon cuts for the sake of carbon cuts, rather than for reducing resource depletion, will increase poverty and retard modernization (electrification) of the developing world. Poor people will increase the burning of wood, or delay the transition to cleaner coal and oil powered electricity. Wood burning is much dirtier than ANY modern source of energy, including coal, and increases deforestation. Carbon output then increases. So you have a self-defeating fool's errand. Approvals for grants for rural electrification in Africa are already affected by this.

Jimbo

 

Well, perhaps this will come to solve our energy needings in a not so far away furure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiPER

Cheers.

 

On the subject of source bias, check out Dr. James Hansen's conflicts of interest in this article.

Excerpted:

A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute' funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other political action groups.

Jimbo

 

More on the same subject:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...12/Nasa-is-out-of-line-on-global-warming.html

Only the first section of the article is on-topic.

Jimbo