Climate Change and Rising Sea Levels

GOOD!! Now we are getting somewhere

So, for the melting we have seen there has to be an increase in solar output yes???



Bit of a disparity

 

9 billion people on this planet - if they all lived like Americans and Australians do we are in BIG trouble

 

Because we are rapidly eliminating the main resource "nature" uses to balance the CO2 equation. Approximately one fifth of global warming is from deforestation

83 million barrels of oil per day

That is what the world is currently consuming and all the CO2 from that has to go somewhere...............

 

Do you disagree with Willie Soon, PhD, "Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future,” Physical Geography, 2007 and Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, et al., "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007 referenced in the cons on post #11? Here's a quote of item 4

Actually I think the ocean consumes the most CO2 but if deforestation is a problem then why not encourage forest management on federal lands that includes harvesting trees, cutting and culling dying or diseased trees and adding fire roads for better access for firefighters. I think the Sierra Club has convinced congress to not even fight fires in federal forest? I visited NC and saw millions of acres of tree farms there managed by private owners that sell crops to paper and plywood corporations...why not offer them to operate on federal lands and pay taxpayers for the right...could add a lot of trees and gain some revenue too.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you disagree with Willie Soon, PhD, "Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future,” Physical Geography, 2007 and Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, et al., "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007 referenced in the cons on post #11? Here's a quote of item 4

Actually I think the ocean consumes the most CO2 but if deforestation is a problem then why not encourage forest management on federal lands that includes harvesting trees, cutting and culling dying or diseased trees and adding fire roads for better access for firefighters. I think the Sierra Club has convinced congress to not even fight fires in federal forest? I visited NC and saw millions of acres of tree farms there managed by private owners that sell crops to paper and plywood corporations...why not offer them to operate on federal lands and pay taxpayers for the right...could add a lot of trees and gain some revenue too.

 

Hmmmm note did NOT address the graph but no matter

Yep! I agree with those that disagree with Soon and Robinson but even if I did agree it is a matter of big whoop! because it is ONE count it ONE paper against hundreds to thousands

One of the first things you learn to look at in health care research is the question "Is there a funding bias" and Soon is known to have received more than $1 million from Big oil
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=860

Because it is a GLOBAL problem - and the trees that we are loosing are in the tropics - not a couple of bloody pine trees in a reserve in America
Geeesh! Do you guys EVER think outside your own national borders?

Again - GLOBAL problem - gee the Bali roadmap really passed America by didn't it??

And I know this is a different paper by Robinson and Soon but the analysis is a sheer delight!!
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/critical-review-of-robinson-robinson.html

 

I'm really sorry to have wasted our time in this discussion. It seems to millions of people around the world environmentalism is a new kind of religion and the preachers have you sold lock, stock and barrel. There is nothing I could site, do or say that would convince you your preacher has only his/her self interest at heart and that you have been fooled by the greatest hoax ever presented to mankind.

Environmentalist proclaim the end could come tomorrow or a couple years from now but closer examination of all the loudest voices finds large amounts of money funding their loud speakers. The UN, OMG, the UN has zero credibility... They held a world hunger conference in S. Africa a few years back and flew in over 500 Mercedes limos for transportation, ate hundreds of tons of lobster and steak, and drank an oil tanker of French wine over the period of the conference. On climate change, as their projected date of doom neared they demanded the world act NOW or the world would end...it came and went just like all of the world will end doomsday professors predictions have. Al Gore got fat and bought a ocean front multi-million dollar home on the beach and and sold his socialist TV station to Big Oil drillers/producers. Have you no shame to follow the false prophets?

 

I'm really sorry to have wasted our time in this discussion. It seems to millions of people around the world environmentalism is a new kind of religion and the preachers have you sold lock, stock and barrel. There is nothing I could site, do or say that would convince you your preacher has only his/her self interest at heart and that you have been fooled by the greatest hoax ever presented to mankind.

Environmentalist proclaim the end could come tomorrow or a couple years from now but closer examination of all the loudest voices finds large amounts of money funding their loud speakers. The UN, OMG, the UN has zero credibility... They held a world hunger conference in S. Africa a few years back and flew in over 500 Mercedes limos for transportation, ate hundreds of tons of lobster and steak, and drank an oil tanker of French wine over the period of the conference. On climate change, as their projected date of doom neared they demanded the world act NOW or the world would end...it came and went just like all of the world will end doomsday professors predictions have. Al Gore got fat and bought a ocean front multi-million dollar home on the beach and and sold his socialist TV station to Big Oil drillers/producers. Have you no shame to follow the false prophets?

 

Run out of "scientific" discussion have we?

 

Zavy, was it your goal to prove to us there that you're yet another boring right-wing political cultist?

It's the same with all denialists. They parrot something off of WUWT and use that to pretend they have a clue, but they don't. So you keep hitting them with facts, they get backed into a corner, and then out come their cult's crazy political rants.

Again, Zavy, how can the sun be the cause when total solar irradiance is _decreasing_? You can attempt to deflect with rants all you want, but that issue isn't going away.

 

I don't recall when it actually began...

 

it's become standard behaviour,... raise a few questions, ignore any explanation given, deflect to blogs and pseudo scientists, then hide behind accusations of Al Gore and his global socialist conspiracy....when they resort to that you know that 1- they don't comprehend the science. 2-it's never been about the science anyways it's always been political( Al Gore), and 3-the debate is already over AGW is the accepted globally as reality...

 

it is exactly that cut n' dried...action/reaction, cause and effect, everything living and non living must obey the same laws of physics/chemistry, there are no exceptions... the research of various scientists data/graphs and such only serve to quantify what is happening, when it's going to happen and what to expect, that it will happen is not in doubt...

 

Bull (*)(*)(*)(*), science can't even predict the weather accurately seven days in advance. When the weather is calculated out at the same period of global warming and is exactly correct every day for a month then I just might bite on your conclusion.

 

Predicting the weather is a lot like predicting the result of a single roll of the dice. Predicting climate trends is more like predicting the percentage of sevens that will result from several thousand rolls of the dice.

Still, forecasters are getting much better at predicting weather a day or two away, aren't they? And why is that? Could be those computer models that have helped predict climate trends.

 

Climate is not the same thing as weather

Just as Global is not the same thing as local

BTW - still awaiting explanation for current warming

- - - Updated - - -

Climate is not the same thing as weather

Just as Global is not the same thing as local

BTW - still awaiting explanation for current warming

 

So what does mean scientifically? It means that there have been times in the earths past history that current conditions existed, long before human's could have had any impact on the climate.

Instead of political fighting over whether humans have caused the recent changes in the climate and whether changes in their behavior can significantly alter the climate; we should be directing our attention and money to ways to deal with possible problems that natural climate change will cause us. Such as not building in sea-level /coastal areas unless we build-up the homes and businesses. Building protective barriers in these areas. Planning for climate disasters including tornadoes, hurricaines and flooding by requiring all homeowners carry flood insurance, much like requiring all citizens carry health insurance to "spread the cost". After all in reality wind and flood damage is something that can happen to all homeowners. Right? By doing this, hurricane, flood and other damage to property is overall less costly to insure and pay for. But, IMO areas that have experienced repeated costly weather damage, such as coastal properties should not be rebuilt on and instead the insurance money used by homeowners to mover to insurable locations. Just my opinion.

Your thoughts?

 

In each of those previous situations we had a CAUSE, possibly not as clear as we would like but there is a CAUSE

 

Burning of fossil fuels have beyond a reasonable doubt exacerbated the changes taking place this time around. On the other hand, we're not going to quit burning fossil fuels and go back to the pre industrial age. So, the question of how much climate change is caused by human activities is just academic anyway, as those activities aren't going to change.

So, I agree with this: Let's spend our time and resources researching the likely effects of climate change and preparing for them. There is no way we're going to stop changes from occurring anyway.

 

it's obvious that part of the problem is he doesn't understand one of the most basic issues here, that being climate and weather are not the same...

 

good point but climate is even more predictable than that, I'd bet my home and everything I own that the summer in the arctic this year will be cool and dry just as has been without fail for thousands of years, even with rapid change the climate changes very slowly...

yup, I live a region right next door to the Rockies(I can see them from my window), we have huge weather swings from Arctic weather to Pacific warm fronts and both can happen on the same day....but because of avanced computer models we get week after week of accurate weather forecasts...errors are limited to local anomalies...

 

This sort of attitude is a little depressing because we CAN do something about it

83 million barrels of oil per day

That is our current rate of burning - Can we do something about that? Hmmmm - yes maybe we can, and this is what the OP was about. 20 years ago we would never have thought renewables would ever be near comparable let alone affordable - now they are undercutting the coal industry. Will they replace them - probably not but we can REDUCE the impact we are having

 

That's possible in my country and in yours.

But, the problem is those 2 and a half billion people in India and China who are beginning to be able to drive cars. They'll take up the slack.

 

And China is leading the world with renewables

India is struggling but definitely coming to terms with solar

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/SolarEnergyinIndia_emukherjee_100213

Both China and India have also invested in research into Thorium reactors

 

Now you're causing me to doubt my innate pessimism. Could we really begin to turn global climate change around? My usual cynicism says no, but who knows, it steers me wrong as much as 5% of the time.

 

We have a window of opportunity with the developing nations because they do not have the infrastructure we have - they do not have to replace it Instead they can build localised power supplies, something which we should have investigated YEARS ago

India is pushing forward with small cars Tata Nano for a start cheap cheerful and every economical to run

China on the other hand is really investing in electric cars - remembering that China has more incentive for electric

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomkonrad/2012/09/25/the-chinese-key-to-electric-car-adoption/

And again they do not have to n existing structure. If this pans out in China then places like Singapore will start to go electric, maybe with a "Nano" style of car