Cutting Back on Carbon

Hate to break this to you but the Arctic is not the world. You have heard of the Antarctic haven't you? Maybe not. That is the other ice cap.

 

the arctic is currently seeing more impact than the antarctic and it's winter down there

but, i'm personally more concerned with events in the northern hemisphere

it's becoming more and more obvious that something's wrong here

dumping pollutants into the atmosphere is consequential

 

Based on what information? Observations since 1979? That is a drop in the proverbial climate bucket. The Arctic has been ice free before, just because it has not happened before in your short little lifespan does not make it unusual. It has been warmer before. Your fear is based on predictions from computer models.

 

haven't you watched the video from miami?

 

So? We will lose Miami no matter what is done. The ice has been melting since the end of the last glacial period. Why you ask? Because it is warmer than the last glacial period. You do realize that the sea used to be more than 400 ft lower than today don't you?

 

Quite right. Apparently pumping all that CO2 in the atmosphere over almost 2 decades hasn't done anything.

 

Sea ice actually isn't that great of a positive feedback. The current theory is that loss of ice increases winter snow cover. Albedo loss of sea ice in the high arctic more than offset by increased snow cover. Snow has far higher albedo than ice.

 

i don't think you know what you're talking about

not at the current rate

it depends on when you're talking about, there was a time when it was higher than now

the atmosphere wasn't very hospitable during that era

sometimes things are more real than apparent

dumping billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere has consequences and not good ones

 

CO2 is plantfood. I can argue that were it not for the warming we have experienced over the last century and the greening effect of CO2 we would have a hard time supporting our population's food demand.

 

higher levels can damage crops and cause drought in what were rich farmlands

 

Optimal growing conditions for most plants range at about 1200-1500. Nurseries have machines that increase CO2 consentration for that purpose.

I don't know what you are talking about but you are making it up.

 

what a joke, i have 30 acres here and do quite a bit of gardening

crops aren't most plants and haven't you noticed all the drought/fires?

plants that live in increased concentrations of co2, require more water

high levels of co2 cause a reduction of photosynthesis in certain plants


Crops grown in the high-CO2 atmosphere of the future could be significantly less nutritious, a new study published today in Nature suggests. Based on hundreds of experiments in the field, the work reveals a new challenge as society reckons with both rising carbon emissions and malnutrition in the future.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140507-crops-nutrition-climate-change-carbon-dioxide-science/

 

Dang, people will just have to take vitamins with their Twinkies and 32 oz sodas.

 

people are already having to do much more than that

 

So the paper says "could", again nothing definite and what is the answer given in the paper? Adapt. But you love you some alarmism don't you?

 

Of course they do they are growing faster, conservation of mass or did you never learn that in school.

Rarely!

A 5% reduction in zinc & iron and a huge increase in growth rate does not a problem make. This is literally a case of 6 of one 2 dozen of the other. Why do you think nurseries grow their crops in a high CO2 environment?

- - - Updated - - -

The paper makes a huge difference out of a 5% drop in certain micro nutrients per serving and ignores the much larger increase in yield.

 

No, it is not. Clearly you did not read the counterpoints to Powell. Powell depended upon a word search (which he discussed in his section on methodology) which he admits is not even close to all-inclusive and might even be a self-biased approach. While 9316 sounds like a lot of reports it does not even come close to being a significant percentage of total reports.

And it is not a binary choice of either rejecting AGW or accepting AGW. There is a continuous range of opinion between those 2 extremes. And there is the category of "I don't know" which is probably quite large.

 

Considering that Cook et. al. threw out about 2/3rds of their papers for not taking a position "I don't know" is the clear consensus opinion.

 

Droughts and fires, normal. The IPCC gave low confidence that they are associated with global warming.

 

there is a consensus among climatologists, among big oil lackeys, not so much

yes, meaning it's possible they could develop cultivars with decreased sensitivity to atmospheric CO2, but we don't know

the west coast is experiencing longer fire seasons with above normal frequencies of fires, due to high temperatures and drought

June - Above normal fire potential will persist over much of California, southern Arizona, and southwestern New Mexico. Central Alaska and the southeast interior will also experience above normal fire potential. Portions of Northern California, Oregon and Nevada will increase to above normal fire potential as well.

July- Above normal fire potential will continue over most of California, Nevada and Oregon. Portions of Washington and Idaho will also experience above normal fire potential. Above normal fire potential will reduce to near normal conditions in Alaska and the Southwest. Fire potential will become above normal in the eastern Great Lakes states.

August through September - Above normal fire potential will remain over most of California, Nevada and Oregon. Portions of Washington and Idaho will also continue with above normal fire potential. Fire potential will expand to cover most of the Northeast.

http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/outlooks/monthly_seasonal_outlook.pdf

and they're in drought conditions, which lead to massive wiltage and death

you're wrong

 

Reference please.

As for any differential in albedo between snow and ice, every model I've found treats ice-snow as a unity. like this.

http://www.labgrab.com/files/arctic-sea-ice-Albedo.png

In any case over all in both the arctic and antarctic even with some variation the total cumulative effect is a decrease in ice-snow, even though the added warming produced moisture increases snow in some regions. AGW is about broad long term effects.

 

How many pages have you been arguing about ice.

The solution is common sense...if sea levels are increasing the water has to come from somewhere. Since there have been no comets or water coming from outer space (none to speak of) the water in the oceans has to come from somewhere. Could it possibly be coming from melting ice? And would a lot of that water be ice that was once on land?

So to say that ice is increasing and sea levels are increasing defies common sense.

The water has to come from somewhere.

 

First, sea ice worldwide is above the mean but that does not affect sea level but East Antarctica which holds about 60% of the worlds fresh water is gaining ice. Second, ice has been melting since the beginning of the Holocene and will continue to melt until the next glacial period. Third, saying that the sea is rising when we are trying measuring the worlds oceans in mm is a bit sketchy.

 

just for clarity, why don't you say where you think it's coming from?

 

You can bring out all the scientist you want, moaning a groaning about the end of the world.

There isn't any viable replacement for fossil fuels.

I hear efficiency touted as a solution. Sorry, that has been front and center for the last 40 years. There is some room for improvement, but there isn't enough inefficiency to reduce CO2 by more than 10%, and the cost to go from 85% to 95% is huge.

Solar power is a part of the solution. If you put solar panels on the roof of all homes and businesses, we would eliminate the need for any other source of energy, for 5 hours a day - distribute that power over a large country, maybe 9 hours a day. (That could reduce CO2 by 40% or so - after you increase CO2 by building, deliver, and install them). What do you do for the other 15 hours? There are no viable methods for storing electricity. Storing solar energy as heat, is currently limited to hours a day.

Wind power can provide power the other hours, but requires far more open space and is unreliable. Tidal, wave, geothermal, etc. are all prone to wear and tear, thus unreliable.

Convert coal fire plants to natural gas would reduce CO2 from that plant by 50%, but that conversion is opposed by the environmentalist - not the so called deniers.

Gasoline powered cars are about 25% efficient. Diesel, about 40%, and high boost turbo diesel (like big rigs), about 55%.

Electric cars, considering power plant efficiency, transmission line losses, battery, charger, motor controller, and motor efficiency, is on par with gasoline. Hybrids are better, but who was the genius that decided to use gasoline engines? High boost turbos suffer from lag, something a motor fixes.

Of course, we could increase the cost of CO2 to stimulate alternative energy development (like Europe has done for the last 40+ years - and their alternatives are????), and slow the economy even further.

Or, we could outlaw CO2, and reduce the population to ag revolution population levels by starvation.

If you are really serious about MMGW:

1. Cover your roof in solar panels (not just enough for you).
2. Push past the environmentalist and get coal fire plants (here and in the rest of the world) converted to natural gas - not by government mandate, but by market demand.
3. Go into car dealers and ask when they are going to build a turbodiesel hybrid.
4. Plant as many trees as you can on your property (avoiding the solar panels).
5. For Gods sake, stop recycling paper - do you know how many billions of tons of CO2 we could have sequestered in land fills?

Expecting the government to tax the rich so you can go about your life feeling like you accomplished something is pure hypocrisy.