Post #322,555
3/8/10 9:24:51 PM
|
sorry no wikiagwing allowed
when wikipedia has a full time editor pushing agw and culling anything to the contrary please use other sources
well I tend to mean out a carbon flask collection site parked next to an active volcano
if you notice I posited a 550 ppm in 200 years higher than the targeted numbers but meets the inclusive ghg mentioned in your cite. Giving us 50 years to cleanup how and what we burn starting now isnt a HUGE problem. Very solvable in the time frame. Nuke plants would cover most of that by then. Pity all the greenies grew up on 50's and 60s grade B horror mutation movies. We could have had them by now.
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
|
Post #322,558
3/8/10 10:26:08 PM
|
Hmmm.
That Wikipedia link is to a graph. Here's the source, if Wikipedia scares you. http://www.ncdc.noaa...emp-anom-larg.jpg It's from NOAA - http://www.ncdc.noaa...monthly/index.php
CO2 isn't like cigarette butts pollution. It sticks around and has long term effects with long lags.
If nothing is done, the atmospheric CO2 level is predicted to reach 500-550 ppm in 2050 (40 years, not 200 years). But it won't stop there, it'll rise to 700-900 ppm by 2100 - http://www.climatesc...-1a-final-ch4.pdf (p.8 of the 52 page .pdf)
As the previous link pointed out, to stop the atmospheric CO2 level from rising, significant cuts in emissions are required. In addition, the temperature keeps rising long after the CO2 level stops rising - http://www.pnas.org/...12721106.abstract
This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years. Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450Â600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the Âdust bowl era and inexorable sea level rise. Thermal expansion of the warming ocean provides a conservative lower limit to irreversible global average sea level rise of at least 0.4Â1.0 m if 21st century CO2 concentrations exceed 600 ppmv and 0.6Â1.9 m for peak CO2 concentrations exceeding ≈1,000 ppmv. Additional contributions from glaciers and ice sheet contributions to future sea level rise are uncertain but may equal or exceed several meters over the next millennium or longer.
The message isn't "it's hopeless, so why bother", but rather "it's an important problem that we need to start to seriously address sooner rather than later."
Nuclear power isn't a solution to transportation, where most of the oil goes (it's the 2nd largest source of the US's CO2 emissions and only slightly less than coal burnt for electricity - http://www.epa.gov/c...ns/co2_human.html )...
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #322,566
3/9/10 9:01:04 AM
|
if c02 has risen by 65 ppm in the last 40 years
and to reach 550 we need another 182 at the current rate that adds up to 120 years so 2130 is where it hits, but we are working on mitigation as we speak. Patents are being issued, companies going public in the next 5 years that will be busily sequestering c02 so I think it will take a lot longer to get to 550 than 2130
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
|
Post #322,567
3/9/10 9:49:42 AM
|
And why are those companies doing that work?
--
Drew
|
Post #322,575
3/9/10 11:48:13 AM
|
because they are AGW folks and want to make a dollar as well
why does anyone do any work? To get paid
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
|
Post #322,598
3/9/10 2:14:10 PM
|
Let's see if I've got this straight
1. There is no global warming (hereafter "GW").
2. If there is GW, there's no evidence that it's man-made.
3. If GW is man-made, the coal industry's got nothing to do with it.
4. Whether or not coal is implicated, GW can't be stopped or slowed.
5. If GW can be stopped or slowed, any such measures would cost too much.
6. Besides, what evidence is there that GW is necessarily a bad thing? Carbon dioxide is good for plants! Carbon dioxide means a greener world!
And now ...
7. In any case, the problem -- not that there is one -- is already being addressed by companies sequestering carbon. So we don't need government programs to pay anyone to do anything. (Please don't notice that those companies sequestering carbon are doing it because of existing government programs.)
--
Drew
|
Post #322,600
3/9/10 2:31:49 PM
|
beating the straw man with the red herring again?
I did not post any of your assertions 1-6
7 is a bogus premise made upon a false assertion
payment for carbon sequestering is fine. Payment to algore and swiss banks for 3rd world dictators is not. The second was/is the copenhagen plan
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
|
Post #322,602
3/9/10 2:59:36 PM
|
Cap and trade is trying to appease Republicans
If someone proposes that the government pay directly for a specific solution to a problem, "free market" supporters argue that central planning doesn't work. Cap and trade has always been a bastardized mess designed to "allow the market to find the best solution".
If someone proposed a way to directly pay companies to reduce emissions and/or increase sequestration, it would get shot down on a strict party-line vote.
--
Drew
|
Post #322,627
3/9/10 9:50:11 PM
|
Herein you see the issue
"Payment to algore"
If Gore is for it, Box is against it. Science doesn't enter into it at all.
|
Post #322,629
3/9/10 10:01:22 PM
|
if gore wants money for it Im against it science be damned
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
|
Post #322,631
3/9/10 10:04:07 PM
|
Point made.
|