Warm?

[brenthutch 444]

And your position would appear to be: If it is the eighth hottest year (so far) in the last hundred years, let’s set our hair alight and destroy our economy with tax payer dollars on quixotic "solutions" that would have zero effect on the "problem"

[livendive 8]

Quote

And your position would appear to be: If it is the eighth hottest year (so far) in the last hundred years, let’s set our hair on fire and destroy our economy with tax payer dollars with quixotic "solutions" that would have zero effect on the "problem"

A) If you think that's my position, then you clearly haven't been reading it. My concern is adaptation first (the globe is warming for SOME reason, and we should be prepared) followed by reasonable mitigation.

B) Your position seems to completely ignore the fact that 10 of the hottest years on record have been in the last 11 years, and that one other year is the only one that matters. "Silly" is the least offensive adjective I can think of for such a viewpoint.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[brenthutch 444]

"followed by reasonable mitigation." There is were you go off the rails.

[livendive 8]

Quote

"followed by reasonable mitigation." There is were you go off the rails.

I suspect you wouldn't recognize rails if you tripped over them, or at least wouldn't admit to it. That said, I'll humor you. Can you find one post from me in which I "go off the rails" by promoting economically catastrophic reductions in carbon emissions? Or do you just want to burn every ounce we can get our hands on and insist conservation is the work of Satan?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[blueblur 0]

Church lady says... HMM?

In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts.

- RiggerLee

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

My referanceto the Miocene was to point out that todays co2 levels are what they were 14 million years ago, and yet todays temps. are five to ten degrees cooler. There seems to be more at play than CO2.

Certainly atmospheric CO2 is not the only determinant of global climate. One must consider Milkanovitch cycles, distribution of land masses (supercontinents such as Pangea have a very different effect on climate compared to periods when water levels were higher and land masses were smaller and more isolated), etc. Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas on its own. However, none of these things are currently changing in a manner that accounts for the recent increases in global temperature.

Even if CO2 is not the only factor determining global temperature, it is certainly capable of either adding to or reducing global temperatures. In the Permian, a 2,000 ppm increase in CO2 drove a 14 degree F temperature increase, sufficient to cause the extinction of >96% of the species then alive. Extinction involved not only temperature stress, but also hypoxia from a significant reduction in O2 concentrations.

I assume you would make some effort to land into the wind on days when there is a 10 mph breeze blowing? You likely wouldn't say that the wind is natural, and so it makes no difference if you land downwind or into the wind as your little human-generated canopy can't make any difference to the overall system.

Also, once again, the difference between the past and now is that today there are large human populations living in areas that will be affected if temperatures and sea level should rise significantly. 12,000 years ago sea level was lower and people, in small numbers, lived in areas that are now under water, such as the Baltic Sea. Water levels rose slowly enough that people were able to easily move out of the way, and populations were low enough that there was room for the displaced populations to settle. Even so, events such as the flooding of the Black Sea were dramatic enough to spawn the myth of the world-wide flood that still influences fundamentalist Christians. Today climate fluctuations that would have been easily tolerated in the past are likely to cause the displacement of hundreds of millions, or even billions of people. Anthropogenic CO2 is unlikely to cause the "end of the planet", for sure, but it could well displace hundreds of millions of people, leading to huge conflicts. What do you think will happen if a hundred million Muslim Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are forced to move into territory that is now Hindu India? Why do we want to risk screwing around with that?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[brenthutch 444]

So if gas was $20 a gallon and electric bills were $500 a month, "super storm sandy" never would have happened?

[billvon 3,107]

>So if gas was $20 a gallon and electric bills were $500 a month, "super storm
>sandy" never would have happened?

Not even a good troll.

[brenthutch 444]

It is the logical follow up. If we have to do "reasonable mitigation" to save the planet, Will the planet be saved if we do "reasonable mitigation"?

[billvon 3,107]

> If we have to do "reasonable mitigation" to save the planet, Will the planet be saved
>if we do "reasonable mitigation"?

The planet will do just fine no matter what we do. We do not have the power to destroy the planet, only to make our lives more miserable with our pollution. It would be intelligent to not try to make our lives (actually the lives of our children) as miserable as possible.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

"followed by reasonable mitigation." There is were you go off the rails.

I suspect you wouldn't recognize rails if you tripped over them, or at least wouldn't admit to it. That said, I'll humor you. Can you find one post from me in which I "go off the rails" by promoting economically catastrophic reductions in carbon emissions? Or do you just want to burn every ounce we can get our hands on and insist conservation is the work of Satan?

Blues,
Dave

You go off the rails when you suggest, a carbon tax, solar panels, windmills, electric cars, and the like, will be able to control the climate will somehow mitigate bad weather.

[billvon 3,107]

>You go off the rails when you suggest, a carbon tax, solar panels, windmills, electric
>cars, and the like, will be able to control the climate will somehow mitigate bad
>weather.

Reducing CO2 will reduce the rate at which we are warming. So yes, reducing CO2 emissions will mitigate the extremes of the bad weather.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"followed by reasonable mitigation." There is were you go off the rails.

I suspect you wouldn't recognize rails if you tripped over them, or at least wouldn't admit to it. That said, I'll humor you. Can you find one post from me in which I "go off the rails" by promoting economically catastrophic reductions in carbon emissions? Or do you just want to burn every ounce we can get our hands on and insist conservation is the work of Satan?

Blues,
Dave

You go off the rails when you suggest, a carbon tax, solar panels, windmills, electric cars, and the like, will be able to control the climate will somehow mitigate bad weather.

I haven't stated to what extent I think mitigation efforts will be effective. Prudence suggests that such measures should be well considered and do more good than harm. You, on the other hand, seem to believe all such measures are harmful with no beneficial effects. Personally, I'm going to stick with logic, and evaluate solutions on their own merits rather than your unsupported protests against anything remotely sustainable.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[brenthutch 444]

Familiarize yourself with concepts such as "opportunity cost" and "return on investment"

Not to mention that nothing we do here in the US will have ANY downward impact on CO2, quite the opposite. As we drive up carbon based energy in the US, we reduce our competitiveness with high CO2 use countries such as China. If you haven’t noticed, China has canceled its wind and solar programs. However they are glad to make windmills and solar panels with their cheap coal fired energy, and sell them to suckers like us.

[livendive 8]

I'm quite aware of such concepts, and the global nature and future of carbon emissions, and am becoming more familiar with the relevant technologies. My local PUD gets 11% of its power annually from carbon - based sources, and my bills are affordable. You're the one who seems to think technologies should be fully fleshed out before going to market, rather than letting early adopters help fund further development and refinement. Lucky for us, your approach doesn't garner much support, or we would still be in the stone age.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[brenthutch 444]

I am 100% behind letting early adopters fund further development. I do not support the government doing so. My market based approach is behind the recent boom in natural gas and oil production here in the US. The other approach gave us Solindra, First Solar, and the Volt.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

I am 100% behind letting early adopters fund further development. I do not support the government doing so. My market based approach is behind the recent boom in natural gas and oil production here in the US. The other approach gave us Solindra, First Solar, and the Volt.

It also gave us the Manhattan Project, nuclear power, computers, Apollo 11, and the internet.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

I am 100% behind letting early adopters fund further development. I do not support the government doing so. My market based approach is behind the recent boom in natural gas and oil production here in the US. The other approach gave us Solindra, First Solar, and the Volt.

It also gave us the Manhattan Project, nuclear power, computers, Apollo 11, and the internet.

The difference being all of the projects you cited were defense related. One could also include the interstate highway system. Taxpayer supported windmills and golf carts hardly rise to the level of the moonshot.

[popsjumper 2]

Everything you said is right and reality.

"The trick is knowing who to listen to."

OK...I'm gonna get on my kumbaya stump...

The problem is knowing the trick that tells you who to listen to. Unfortunately, nobody at any level is immune to being wrong.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Which data set is the guy using? It's been 28 years since a below normal month? Is that by the old data set or the new data set effective Sept. 2012 http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/GHCNM-v3.2.0-FAQ.pdf

Now, now now young sir. you can't be cherry-picking your data.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[brenthutch 444]

Money = resources. Given X amount of resources would you rather feed orphans or give tax breaks to "one percenters" buying $100,000 cars. I vote to feed orphans.

[popsjumper 2]

Who said anything about storms and droughts and heat/cold spells? Is that all that the U.S. reports are saying?

OK. Ya'll win. I got it wrong.

So, you can't combine data generated in the U.S. with data generated in the rest of the world to get a unified picture of climate changes on a global level?

I'm saying not only that you can, but also that you must, and you guys are saying you can't. Is that it?

So if that's true for U.S. data, it is also true for, say, the United Kingdom data and others.... ad infinitum and that leaves no place on earth that can be used to track climate changes.

Sound to me but if you guys really believe that I'll bow to your superior knowledge.

Thanks for the input.

So, if you can't use data generated at the local station level, just where do the numbers come from?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Money = resources. Given X amount of resources would you rather feed orphans or give tax breaks to "one percenters" buying $100,000 cars. I vote to feed orphans.

Not a good comparison there but...

Hmmmm...if it was a choice of death of orphans or the death of our planet, I'd choose the planet. Hands down.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[brenthutch 444]

Please explain what "death of our planet" means.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Please explain what "death of our planet" means.

Unfit for human consumption.

to be clear for jakee ....I'd let the orphans go and save the planet.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239