Climategate

[Ozme52]

I agree steelish... the Vikings (with inifinite humor?) named a northern island Greenland, settled there, and also settled in the then balmy climes of Newfoundland.

It's been warmer, it's been colder. We've been keeping close track all of what, 200 years?

The Sahara was lusher when it was warmer and less water trapped in the icecaps. Even some 2300 years ago. Remember Carthage? (Well probably not, thanks to the Romans. Who says violence doesn't solve anything?...) Well, they were every bit as powerful and prosperous, in the Sahara. It was a different climate.

Remember that neolithic "Iceman" recently uncovered by a retreating glacier, who fell and died in the Alps... wearing relatively mild weather garb? He was far far higher than need be unless the climate offered opportunity based resources.

And the dinosaurs must have been farting a lot of greenhouse gases back in their time.

Remember Krakatoa? Vesuvius? Mt. St. Helens? A volcano can pour far more tonnage into the air in mere moments than can humanity despite all our efforts. Remember the Dark Ages? Many historians now believe it really meant dark ages. When the amount of light getting through the volcanic dust clouds sent into the air was reduced in the northern hemisphere. I can see it now, a really big volcano goes off, reducing captured heat, and we have to shut off all the CO2 scrubbers to help keep greenhouse gases high to retain more heat.

All that said, do we have an impact? Of course we do, but we are neither the cause nor the solution. Can we do some things to mitigate the impact? Of course we can and should. Are there things we should be doing for other reasons, (like getting off of foreign oil,) that we are promoting as a cure for global warming? Yes, we should, so I don't have an issue with many of the conference's goals...

But mostly I think it is our very hubris that somehow we are to blame that will get us in trouble again later, when the sun cools again, or we miss an opportunity because we're blinded by our own conceit.

[VaAugusta]

Maybe it is natural for the earth's climate to fluctuate. Maybe it is natural for species to die out. But in the face of this, as a human, would you not want to attempt to preserve the human race from going extinct?

I find it strange that people can be so against trying to retain the world in a way that is suitable for humanity.

[DuncanONeil]

And what do we do when the changes necessary to meet the imposed requirements of CO2 reduction make it impossible to live where we do, accomplish our work, feed even our own people, or support a planet of 6 billion?

Maybe it is natural for the earth's climate to fluctuate. Maybe it is natural for species to die out. But in the face of this, as a human, would you not want to attempt to preserve the human race from going extinct?

I find it strange that people can be so against trying to retain the world in a way that is suitable for humanity.

[Lion]

And what do we do when the changes necessary to meet the imposed requirements of CO2 reduction make it impossible to live where we do, accomplish our work, feed even our own people, or support a planet of 6 billion?

What does CO2 reductions have to do with being unable to live, work and feed ourselves?

Some places have done this successfully. Myth or not (climate change), but being able to live in a more environmentally friendly does not require us to stop eating, or living.

[DuncanONeil]

The levels required to satisfy the believed "necessary" reductions in CO2 are such that they will also have, in themselves, an environmental impact.
Plants require CO2 to live. The proposed reductions could adversely affect food production. Also adversely affect the amount of O2 produced. Sufficient reduction in plant life can progress to a reduction in animal life.
The need to reduce CO2 emmisions is very likely to seriously affect the ability of large percentages of people to actually even get to their jobs. Thereby forcing an major shift in the population demographics, likely resulting in crowded conditions. Said crowding can have its own problems.
Other requirements to support the planned levels of CO2 could necessitate rationing of many things we take for granted now.

All of this taken together paints a picture of a society that can not be supported at its current levels. How could the world population be effectively culled under this scenario?

What does CO2 reductions have to do with being unable to live, work and feed ourselves?

Some places have done this successfully. Myth or not (climate change), but being able to live in a more environmentally friendly does not require us to stop eating, or living.

[Lion]

The levels required to satisfy the believed "necessary" reductions in CO2 are such that they will also have, in themselves, an environmental impact.
Plants require CO2 to live. The proposed reductions could adversely affect food production.

Where did you get this from? (That the reduction will cause adverse affects to food production, not the photosynthesis bit)

[DuncanONeil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
The levels required to satisfy the believed "necessary" reductions in CO2 are such that they will also have, in themselves, an environmental impact.
Plants require CO2 to live. The proposed reductions could adversely affect food production.
Where did you get this from? (That the reduction will cause adverse affects to food production, not the photosynthesis bit)

I believe that you have made an error in transcription. If you will note I did not say what you claim.

[Lion]

I believe that you have made an error in transcription. If you will note I did not say what you claim.

The proposed reductions could adversely affect food production.

This is what I'm asking. I haven't changed any words around.

[DuncanONeil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
I believe that you have made an error in transcription. If you will note I did not say what you claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
The proposed reductions could adversely affect food production.
This is what I'm asking. I haven't changed any words around.

The point is that a forced reduction in CO2 reduces the amount available for plant respiration. With sufficient reduction plant life would need to produce less offspring to survive. Hence less to support other life on up the chain.

[DuncanONeil]

Getting off foreign oil? Does that mean we can use our own?

[Ozme52]

Getting off foreign oil? Does that mean we can use our own?

Do we need to?

Switch to coal, we have plenty. (I know, it doesn't solve the CO2 issue.) Switch to wind and hydro and solar. Use the electricity to split H2O and burn it as mobile fuel.

Save the oil for petrochemicals.

Grow more plants and trees and recapture the CO2, replenish the O2.
Capture and burn methane for fuel (it does more harm per given quantity than the CO2)

Lots of solutions that will help mitigate greenhouse gases, that would be good for the economy and the environment. I'm not against moving these technologies forward. I'm in favor. I just don't think it will have an impact on the overall climate.

The sun warms this planet's surface and atmosphere. Nothing else has even a percentile of the sun's effect. And the sun's is HUGE. A small change in the sun is all it takes. We're fortunate on this planet to have so much water. The oceans are a huge heat sink. Otherwise these "minor" solar flucuations would have wiped the earth of life a long long time ago.

But given that, we haven't been around long enough (and certainly not keeping records, and even more certainly, not understanding the mechanisms,) to understand, let alone predict, what's coming next.

[DuncanONeil]

You have some interesting ideas in there!

Do we need to?

Switch to coal, we have plenty. (I know, it doesn't solve the CO2 issue.) Switch to wind and hydro and solar. Use the electricity to split H2O and burn it as mobile fuel.

Save the oil for petrochemicals.

Grow more plants and trees and recapture the CO2, replenish the O2.
Capture and burn methane for fuel (it does more harm per given quantity than the CO2)

Lots of solutions that will help mitigate greenhouse gases, that would be good for the economy and the environment. I'm not against moving these technologies forward. I'm in favor. I just don't think it will have an impact on the overall climate.

The sun warms this planet's surface and atmosphere. Nothing else has even a percentile of the sun's effect. And the sun's is HUGE. A small change in the sun is all it takes. We're fortunate on this planet to have so much water. The oceans are a huge heat sink. Otherwise these "minor" solar flucuations would have wiped the earth of life a long long time ago.

But given that, we haven't been around long enough (and certainly not keeping records, and even more certainly, not understanding the mechanisms,) to understand, let alone predict, what's coming next.