Climate Change - what to expect for cruising life

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Thanks... but it's probably my third time saying so. And it changes nothing.

YES. Like over-reliance on fossil fuel when it's not necessary, is materially harming the environment, and alternatives are feasible. Oh, and by ignoring the problem and slagging the experts because one don't like the news. That's only part of the solution, and not the biggest part, which is policy. Acknowledgement of a serious problem, which should transcend partisanship and biases, and working together to solve it.

Yes I know this is ridiculously naive, especially in the current political climate.

made easier by the actual climate i.e. A Cooling planet.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

My answer was, and remains: I don't think it's germane to the issue. Climate change requires a coordinated, large-scale, policy-based response. If you feel virtuous about publicly discussing your personal actions... that's your prerogative.

In other words, "No, I haven't done diddly squat with solar. I'm just preaching the eco freak mantra."

[CatNewBee]

Think out of the box.

What causes your aledget MMGW?
It is not Carbondioxid. Otherwise it woukd be CO2GW and not MMGW, right?

So the only working solution is to eliminate the cause or at least reduce it.

There is a simple, non lethal way to do this.

make all pay tv stations free and globaly receivable. TV works in developed countries as contraceptivum, population declines, while in poor countries with less free programs people reproduce all day/night long.

Fewer population leads to fewer problems.

And stop reproducing to save the world!

[franksingleton]

As ever, discussions on climate go into many and various diversions. Sometimes these lead to political opinions. Invariably, they get away from the main issue. Some while ago I wrote an overlong page on what happens in the total climate, oceans/atmosphere/earth system. The conceptual problem is that weather is complex, climate doubly so. It is inevitable that lay people make statements obvious on the face of it but usually flawed. It is inevitable that there will be many distortions and misquotation of fact.

So, back to basics,

There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time over the past 800,000 years. 40% more.

Therefore the atmosphere will absorb more hear than at any time over that period.

We, you-all and I, cannot know what the end result can be. We can only guess.

Experts have come up with answers on the best science currently available.

The science will improve and estimates will be improved.

Governments and planners have no option but to take the agvice seriously - and cautiously.


Now, please put silly arguments about gravy trains etc aside. Scientists would be studying climate come what may. They would all be in jobs. If you do not like their findings, hard luck. They should not keep results under wraps. They should publish and let other scientist challenge, examine, test and repeat the work.

Most young scientists want to make a mark. If anyone can show that climate is not changing in the way currently foreseen, they would make a name for themselves. Governments would be highly delighted if the predictions could be proved to be wrong. Nobody can do so at present.

[CatNewBee]

Second, global accords and concentrated actions you are calling for WILL cause unpredictable damage to the chaotic, but stable ecosystem, because an significant concentrated impuls is something the system cannot swallow fast enough.

I fear more the uncontrollable results of an global effort than the alledged problem.

[franksingleton]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Second, global accords and concentrated actions you are calling for WILL cause unpredictable damage to the chaotic, but stable ecosystem, because an significant concentrated impuls is something the system cannot swallow fast enough.

I fear more the uncontrollable results of an global effort than the alledged problem.

I am only suggesting that governments take the science seriously and consider and take action, thoughtfully and carefully being prepared to adjust plans as the science and observed facts dictate. Your do nothing scenario could result in damage to all our eco-systems. You are putting your head in the sand.

That was your “second”. What is your first?

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by franksingleton

I am only suggesting that governments take the science seriously and consider and take action, thoughtfully and carefully being prepared to adjust plans as the science and observed facts dictate. Your do nothing scenario could result in damage to all our eco-systems. You are putting your head in the sand.

That was your “second”. What is your first?

Birth control by free TV programs for underdeveloped countries...

As silly as any other proposals, but more efficient as proven to work in developed countries with falling population rates.


Also, do not recycle plastic and paper, just dump it with the containing carbon to get it out of the system... [emoji12]

Ban Coca Cola, Pepsi and all the other sofdrinks, that contain cabon acid.

And finally - no sports! Sport is bad for the co2 concentration, unnecessary efforts burn more energy, just lay on the couch when not working.

[gonesail]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

In other words, "No, I haven't done diddly squat with solar. I'm just preaching the eco freak mantra."

yup. I don't believe he is really interested in such individual pursuits. no he wants policy. in other words he will pass laws and hire government agents to force his plan on others. oh .. does that sound familiar?

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

The true issue is, the republican platform deniers just really don't give a damn about any of this, as long as it's not them. Screw everybody else, we're exceptional.

I think the term “denier” (like “non-believer” before it) is losing its oomph. Might I suggest the more dramatic term “heretic” (or “agnostic” or “ atheist” if you want to be polite).

[NoShoes]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Climate change has been observed continually for centuries. Actually, for millennia. Nothing new about it.

My feelings exactly. Well said, and lets move along.

Just remember, no matter what, everything on this planet goes extinct or evolves(mutates) eventually, just ask the dinosaurs...oh wait...did they cause climate change in their time with flatulence?

people have been sailing the oceans for centuries, and thus adjusted considering conditions without ALL the fancy do-dads we have today, so why should it matter about climate change, sail when u have a window, or be dock queen. No matter 1000 years ago to today, the ocean is still as unforgiving.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

In other words, "No, I haven't done diddly squat with solar. I'm just preaching the eco freak mantra."

Thanks. You're adorable too.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by gonesail

yup. I don't believe he is really interested in such individual pursuits. no he wants policy. in other words he will pass laws and hire government agents to force his plan on others. oh .. does that sound familiar?

You're adorable too. I haven't brought up my own personal adaptations because they are irrelevant. Individual, voluntary action will not address the problem.


Heaping scorn and derision on anyone trying to raise awareness of the problem doesn't exactly help either, and more than cancels out what little personal action has been taken, if you actually thought that was relevant.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Group9

I think the term “denier” is losing its oomph.

Don't be so quick; reactions here clearly indicate that the word still stings. Good. Also, given that most actual climate change deniers hold that position due to political, partisan anti-scientific influences, their position has a much more "religious" basis, so "heretic" is hardly appropriate as a substitution. In my experience, real agnostics don't invest much time bashing any position, so I'm not seeing many agnostics here, either.

[GordMay]

“Individual, voluntary action will not address "solve" the problem”, on it's own, but it may begin to address the problem.
Of course, it all begins with recognizing the problem.

[franksingleton]

Originally Posted by NoShoes

My feelings exactly. Well said, and lets move along.

Of course, climate has always been changing. BUT, we are now in uncharted waters compared to anything over the past 800,000 years. We have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%. That is increasing the heat in the climate system above pre-industrial levels. CO2 has a very long lifetime in the atmosphere. That means that further warming is certain whatever we do. That is basic physics. In a previous post, I called a flywheel effect.

What you and I do not know is how much warmer will our climate become. The question really is, do we sit back and just hope? Or, for the sake of future generations, do we take the science seriously? We cannot stop further warming. We may be able to limit it. We should be thinking about adaptation. It has been said that the next major war will be about resources. Global warming brings that closer.

Given that conditions in the amosphere are unprecedented over the last 800.000 years, is there really an opti0n? You may think so. That is your right. Others are more far seeing.