687 replies to this topic

[TimG]

Back to the point, we're both thinking AGW is real right ?

No dispute from me.

How do we deal with it ?

Grow the economy (richer people are better able to deal climate change). Spend money on R&D into alternate energy sources (no mandates unless viable without subsidies). No carbon trading (simply an excuse for scams). No emission targets (will never be met). No international treaties (can't trust governments like China to live up to their promises). Modest carbon tax. Adapt as required.

Edited by TimG, 29 September 2010 - 01:20 PM.

[Michael Hardner]

Grow the economy (richer people are better able to deal climate change). Spend money on R&D into alternate energy sources (no mandates unless viable without subsidies). No carbon trading (simply an excuse for scams). No emission targets (will never be met). No international treaties (can't trust governments like China to live up to their promises). Modest carbon tax. Adapt as required.

After all that, why bother with a 'modest carbon tax' ?

Grow the economy means, likely create more C02, so you're betting on the problem to be solved by... the problem ?

You might as well say "let's just hope it works out"... that makes more sense...

[TimG]

Grow the economy means, likely create more C02, so you're betting on the problem to be solved by... the problem ?

Not quite. CO2 is not the problem. Climate change is the problem. Richer economies are better able to adapt so emitting more CO2 will reduce the harm caused by any climate change induced by the CO2 (or anything else for that matter).

The trouble with CO2 is many people assume it is a toxin that harms life. It is not. It simply causes changes which will be partially good and partially bad. What we need to do is reduce the harm to human society and there is no reason to assume that emitting less CO2 is the best way to reduce that harm.

You might as well say "let's just hope it works out"... that makes more sense...

I would describe as the only plan that has a remote chance of working. I do not believe in doing something that I know will fail simply for the sake of "doing something". I am adamantly opposed "doing something" that will likely cause more harm than good (which is the case for most anti-CO2 measures).

Edited by TimG, 29 September 2010 - 01:40 PM.

[Michael Hardner]

TimG - how about doing nothing then ?

[TimG]

TimG - how about doing nothing then ?

I would not argue with that approach if you feel it is worthwhile. But you are the one who asked what we should do given the fact that AGW is happening. I gave you my list.

Edited by TimG, 29 September 2010 - 01:51 PM.

[Michael Hardner]

I would not argue with that approach if you feel it is worthwhile. But you are the one who asked what we should do given the fact that AGW is happening. I gave you my list.

That you did.

[jbg]

the point was... you were offering up the PDO as the causal link to global warming... to the global warming impacts mentioned... you were speaking of 30 year cyclical reversals as the causal link for the highlight points Hazeleyes mentioned... glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice-free Northwest Passage. The point was... if you're going to offer up the PDO as the causal link to global warming/impacts, you better be able to step up and substantiate that by providing a like association, a like long-term trend, between the PDO index and global temperature anomolies. Otherwise... all you've proposed is that a, by definition, oscillating temperature pattern (the PDO), a pattern that does not hold within it a long-term warming trend, is the "proof you spoke of" for global warming/impacts. Show the long-term trend correlation... you can show that correlation between the PDO index and global temperature anomolies - right?

Will research and advise but my recollection is that the PDO and global temperatures move in lockstep.

next? you're quite funny... you're wanting to take a localized phenomenon, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a phenomenon centered principally in the North Pacific, and suggest it's significant enough to bring forward global temperature impacts... that it's the cause for global warming, that it will result in, as you stated, 30 year cyclical reversals of global warming impacts; specifically those mentioned by Hazeleyes (i.e. glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice-free Northwest Passage). Teleconnections??? Oh, please... let us have some of that D'Aleo wisdom you so freely dispense - we can have some real fun then, hey?

I appreciate your complimenting my sense of humor.

bully for you! Given my suggestion that this thread be left to hone in on the failings of the political right/Conservative/Republicans (vis-a-vis, the 'war on (climatic) science'), your failings will fit right in - hey?

You're mind is what's failing.

[Saipan]

Now the question is: Where is the global warming?

[lukin]

still no answer, why is that? is it because your entire argument will fall apart if you answer?...

individual properties are very much irrelevant when in a mixture, CO2 by itself is deadly to humans, in an atmospheric mixture it's essential for our survival...pure water normal freezing temp is 0c, a typical seawater solution has a freeze point 1.8c lower...


dodge, no I was being nice...the timeline is the smoking gun for AGW, which you like most in the denier world can't comprehend....temp and CO2 are absolutely linked, temp increase can drive CO2 but the reverse is also true, CO2 can drive temp....in ice core studies previous warmings temps always preceeded a CO2 rise which ties in nicely with milankovitch cycles...in this warming a CO2 rise is preceeding temp, if today's warming was like the previous warmings we should not see a significant rise in CO2 for another 800 years....in this warming CO2 is driving temp...

You seem to be quite proud that you went to Holland this past summer, as you keep mentioning useless details of your trip. I'm very impressed that you went to Europe. I've never met anyone who has gone to Europe before. You're a champ.

Jets produce a fair bit of DEADLY carbon. Maybe people like you should think about the plight of our fragile planet before filling the atmosphere with unnecessary carbon. Practice what you preach buddy.

[lukin]

Remember the famed hockey stick graph which was supposed to prove that human emitted carbon is causing global warming, I mean climate change? Well Dr. Edward Wegman proved how fallacious that theory was.

Then we were told human habits would cause more, and more severe hurricanes. The sheep believed this as fact. Then Dr. Christopher Landsea proved how ridiculous that theory was.

Then we were told that Antarctic icecap was rapidly melting. Then common sense, and Dr. Duncan Wingham proved that theory wrong.

The AGW scientists have been given big bucks to tell the world, not prove, that human emitted carbon is causing climate change. The media jumped on board, and most sheeple fell in ,line believing that humans are causing global warming.

Oh well, the gullible like wyly and waldo, even though they use emoticons like champs, can always rely on the Toronto Star to tell them what they want to hear. Al Gore loves ladies like you.

Edited by lukin, 29 September 2010 - 05:45 PM.

[lukin]

Remember the crisis we were warned about in the mid 70s. The sky was also falling in 1975. The scenario then is slightly different than the doomsday scenario we presently have to stomach.

http://denisdutton.c...oling_world.htm

[RNG]

The first time I ever heard the name David Suzuki was in the '70's I think where he was warning us that we were all going to freeze to death because of particulates in the atmosphere. Guess he was wrong there too.

My famous story. Chemists at UCLA showed that Los Angeles smog contained hydrocarbons. It had previously been shown without a doubt that the smog was directly related to motor vehicles. Smog was a big problem in LA at the time. So the US government passed a quick, kneejerk law that harshly limited hydrocarbon emissions of vehicles. This was about 1973, I believe.

So the new cars come out and the smog problem in LA skyrockets. A little knowledge is dangerous. Yes, the smog contained a hydrocarbon tail. But every blade of grass, every leaf, every living critter on the face of the earth gave out these hydrocarbons. Here is the kicker.

To cut down the hydrocarbons, the auto industry went to lean-burn engines. More air, less gas. The problem, as any mechanic will tell you is that lean-burn engines run very hot. When a car engine runs hotter, the high temp and pressure causes more NOX to be formed and emitted. And then the chemists found out that the NOX when hit by sunlight acted like a catalyst to form the smog. More NOX means more smog. So two years later the government in it's infinite wisdom legislated NOX limits and relaxed the hydrocarbon limits. Meanwhile, the auto industry had to do it's second major re-tool in two years. What a waste of money. Sucks to be you if you bought a car at any time then or shortly after, because you were paying a huge stupid tax.

So be careful.

[wyly]

You seem to be quite proud that you went to Holland this past summer, as you keep mentioning useless details of your trip. I'm very impressed that you went to Europe. I've never met anyone who has gone to Europe before. You're a champ.

Jets produce a fair bit of DEADLY carbon. Maybe people like you should think about the plight of our fragile planet before filling the atmosphere with unnecessary carbon. Practice what you preach buddy.

ad hominem attacks always the method of those who are scientifically clueless...come on genius answer one of the questions I asked the chemistry expert RNG?... I think I'll be waiting a very long time...

you best find a thread where knowledge is optional you're out of your depth here...

[wyly]

Remember the famed hockey stick graph which was supposed to prove that human emitted carbon is causing global warming, I mean climate change? Well Dr. Edward Wegman proved how fallacious that theory was.

wegman hasn't done a peer reviewed report...the hockey stick has been duplicated over and over by other studies confirming it's validity...despite any errors Mann may have made the graph holds true..

Then we were told human habits would cause more, and more severe hurricanes. The sheep believed this as fact. Then Dr. Christopher Landsea proved how ridiculous that theory was.

actually he proved nothing, in fact he agrees global warming will affect the oceans and hurricanes he only questions the degree to which it effects weather... science comprehension is not your strong point...

Then we were told that Antarctic icecap was rapidly melting. Then common sense, and Dr. Duncan Wingham proved that theory wrong.

you were told by the media and YOU believed it because you're not very smart...Wingham absolutely backs up global warming as fact...the projections were the Arctic would melt before the Antarctic and that has proven true...

The AGW scientists have been given big bucks to tell the world, not prove, that human emitted carbon is causing climate change. The media jumped on board, and most sheeple fell in ,line believing that humans are causing global warming.

really, ok genius then have the balls to answer the simple questions that RNG refuses to answer

- a mixture of gases has it's own unique properties according to the percentage of each gas in the makeup of the mixture??? true or false

-if you change the ratio of the gases in the mixture you change it's properties???true or false

put up or shut up genius... and just because you love them so much here's two more

Edited by wyly, 29 September 2010 - 09:21 PM.

[wyly]

The first time I ever heard the name David Suzuki was in the '70's I think where he was warning us that we were all going to freeze to death because of particulates in the atmosphere. Guess he was wrong there too.

then you'll have no problem finding a link to that little known Suzuki fact...

I expect you'll dodge that question too