Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yes, no question. BUT... introduce proportionally increased radiation into space, the increased effects of evaporation which both moves latent heat into the upper atmosphere and produces more reflective cloud cover along with literally zillions of other influential factors and it all starts to become somewhat less "basic".

Wow, I bet he never thought of that. He'll thank you, I'm sure.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you're saying that you think the choice is between "throw[ing] trillions at researching and combating" AGW, and not spending trillions... then you're confused. You're leaving your kids a big bill one way or the other. One of the ways leaves your descendents with more resources and less mess to deal with.

In the 25 years at least since the AGW scare gained momentum, my kids have all grown up. They can pay the bills themselves.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wow, I bet he never thought of that. He'll thank you, I'm sure.

Don't shoot the messenger. It wasn't me that called the process "Basic".

I could have added a reminder about the Al Gore/Bill Nye high school CO2 greenhouse experiment that doesn't work as well, but chose not to.

[tp12]

I like how you think you've got the scientist covered. This is just hilarious.

Only it's really sad. This thread has turned into train smash tv

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by tp12

I like how you think you've got the scientist covered. This is just hilarious.

Only it's really sad. This thread has turned into train smash tv

Nice of you to drop by and offer another non-opinion. It's amazing what one can do with limited cognitive abilities.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Nice of you to drop by and offer another non-opinion. It's amazing what one can do with limited cognitive abilities.

And you moan about 'alarmist attacks' you're are 100% hypocrisy.

But then that's how trolls work.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by tp12

And you moan about 'alarmist attacks' you're are 100% hypocrisy.

But then that's how trolls work.

You're right. I was moaning about an alarmist attack.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You're right. I was moaning about an alarmist attack.

You think that was an attack? Does your Mum know you're here?

The wink as well, to make yourself feel intelligent. I was wrong, you're not 100% hypocrisy ... there's a mix of pathetic in there too.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by tp12

You think that was an attack? Does your Mum know you're here?

The wink as well, to make yourself feel intelligent. I was wrong, you're not 100% hypocrisy ... there's a mix of pathetic in there too.

So who got out of the wrong side of bed this morning...?

[conachair]

The physics being discussed here is getting awfully complicated...

[Dauntlessny]

Originally Posted by conachair

The physics being discussed here is getting awfully complicated...

Not really. But that is the problem. 115 pages and virtually no physics or any science for that matter.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Dauntlessny

Not really. But that is the problem. 115 pages and virtually no physics or any science for that matter.

Yep. Mostly alarmist scaremongering.

[SailOar]

Eating less meat essential to curb climate change, says report | The Guardian

Curbing the world’s huge and increasing appetite for meat is essential to avoid devastating climate change, according to a new report. But governments and green campaigners are doing nothing to tackle the issue due to fears of a consumer backlash, warns the analysis from the thinktank Chatham House.

The global livestock industry produces more greenhouse gas emissions than all cars, planes, trains and ships combined, but a worldwide survey by Ipsos MORI in the report finds twice as many people think transport is the bigger contributor to global warming.

“Preventing catastrophic warming is dependent on tackling meat and dairy consumption, but the world is doing very little,” said Rob Bailey, the report’s lead author. “A lot is being done on deforestation and transport, but there is a huge gap on the livestock sector. There is a deep reluctance to engage because of the received wisdom that it is not the place of governments or civil society to intrude into people’s lives and tell them what to eat.”

The recent landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that dietary change can “substantially lower” emissions but there is no UN plan to achieve that.

Past calls to cut meat eating by high-profile figures, from the chief of the UN’s climate science panel to the economist Lord Stern, have been both rare and controversial. Other scientists have proposed a meat tax to curb consumption, but the report concludes that keeping meat eating to levels recommended by health authorities would not only lower emissions but also reduce heart disease and cancer. “The research does not show everyone has to be a vegetarian to limit warming to 2C, the stated objective of the world’s governments,” said Bailey.....

[Dauntlessny]

Soylent Green would certainly reduce CO2 and solve a whole bunch of issues at the same time.

That makes as much sense as most of the other solutions I've read here or there.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dauntlessny

Not really. But that is the problem. 115 pages and virtually no physics or any science for that matter.

You can lead a horse to water...

There has been a lot of info posted in this thread, even a lengthy post from someone in the field, and more importantly, links to the sources.

But the main interest of most participants in this thread is to bark out their opinion and belittle that of others, occasionally supported by some nugget gleaned online. Quotes and links are just so much noise to them, as a few have stated.

The real problem is that the politics has trumped the science in this issue. Acknowledging the problem, and acting altruistically and proactively, is simply too 'soshulist' for many. For them, it's easier to find (or fabricate) fault with the science or its advocates, than it is to engage meaningfully with it.