It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Here I though I posted on the inability of the present proposals to make a serious impact and called for an answer as to why more logical plans are not forthcoming. instead I must have posted something about not liking consequences...
My apologies. I think maybe I'll try re-reading a dictionary. I hate it when they change the language...
TheRedneck
Assuming this is true, would the wise solution be a) to raise taxes, implement a commerce-based system to tax those who produce CO2, force people to spend their tme and money on a myriad of proposed projects to reduce the amount of CO2, or b) scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere?
I say (b). But that hasn't even been put forward as a solution by anyone I have heard. Instead, we have a carbon footprint cap and trade system, basically a way to allow CO2 production as long as someone (the government) gets paid for the privilege, a demand that newer, more expensive technologies are used under penalty of law, and cries for additional taxes.
Want to convince me that this is a problem? Show me someone who is trying to solve it rather than milk it. Until then, I will not believe.
I interpreted you comments as, and I paraphrase - Assume it was true that CO2 is an issue. Two things can be done to reduce impact. Because I see people suggesting the one I don't like. I don't believe it.
That is, you are assesssing the integrity of the science from its implications and consequences. But maybe not, that might just apply in the UK.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
It's not that I don't like the solution of reducing emissions, as much as I don't see that as having as substantial an impact. After all, the concern is that CO2 levels are too high now, not just that they will become too high (I know, this is also a concern). The point being that cleaning the air of CO2 will solve BOTH, while simply reducing emissions will only affect the latter.
Cap and trade is nothing more than a money-maker for a government that wants money and power more than solutions. An Inconvenient Truth is so full of scientific inaccuracies and downright misrepresentations of data that it should be labeled a comedy. And as far as climatologists saying what will happen in 100 years, I'd be happy if they could just tell me if it's going to rain Saturday. They keep getting that wrong.
and observations/assessments that do not have a solid root in verifiable scientific fact. It's not a question of not liking a solution. It's a question of honest assessment of that solution.
TheRedneck
Originally posted by melatonin
They probably are too high now, but I think maintaining current levels would be bearable. Indeed, most efforts to reduce impact are aiming to just level off our impact. It's where we are heading that is the big problem. But it's not just a GHG thing, we are having impacts in other ways too.
Various solutions have been proposed. I'm not an economist or a politician, just a plain scientist, so I don't know the best solution to mitigate our impact. But we do need to do something. I don't care whether we cap and trade, introduce carbon tax, use sequestration etc etc, but a solution is required if we want to ameliorate our future impact.
I think Gore's documentary was less than perfect, but it wasn't that bad - he overstated the science on some issues. But, ultimately, Gore is not a scientist - so what you perceive as his failings has no impact on the scientific position.
You also appear to equivocate weather prediction and climate prediction. I think chaotic noise is more a factor for weather prediction. For example, a prediction that the temps on the 21st august will be higher than today, is more likely to be correct than a prediction of today being colder than next thursday. Same for a prediction that all being equal, doubling the levels of CO2 will result in a warmer climate.
Originally posted by melatonin
But the solutions and the science underlying the problem are different things. For instance, the recent suggestion of sequestration of CO2 to produce more fuel sounds great. But it also requires a lot of energy. Unless we find cleaner methods to fuel this process, there is no benefit. But this has no impact on the scientific fact that GHGs result in warmer temps due to radiative processes (in laboratory experiments).
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Italicized parenthetical comment added by me.
Oh, but the solutions must be based on the science! Otherwise the solutions can actually make things worse.
And as stated before, I see no benefit in raising taxes, unless of course, that money is to be used to combat the problem itself. Nowhere hve I seen anything addressing this, in any form other than catch phrases with no details. Giving up your money will not affect the CO2 levels, nor their impact.
TheRedneck
Originally posted by TheRedneck
According to Gore, they are higher than they have ever been. And I don't like the idea of allowing a major problem to remain at the 'bearable' stage. If something is broken, especialy to thepoint that some people are becoming hysterical, or to the point where entire economies are being threatenend, it should be fixed. If it is 'bearable', it is not so great an emergency.
Since this is a scientific issue, would not a scientific solution be preferable to a political/social solution? Is the real question not one of preventing GHG-induced warming? That would appear to be a scientific concern to me.
But I disagree as to his impact on the situation. An Inconvenient Truth has become a social call to arms for anyone who promotes the catastrophic side of the GW argument. As the spokesman for this issue, I believe he carries some responsibility for being accurate.
CO2 also is heavier than air, and tends to remain close to ground, thereby minimizing the greenhouse effect.
This is not to say GW isn't real, but rather to say that we do not have perfect knowledge of the situation as of yet.
Originally posted by forestlady
..
Also: of course CO2 causes warming, we've known that for a very long time. I was taught that in sixth grade over 40 years ago. We knew it then, and we know it now, it's just that there is so much disinformation out there, some don't believe it is true.
Originally posted by Long Lance
the fact is that all truely dire warnings are based on computer simulations, which may or may not be true
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L06704, doi:10.1029/2005GL025259, 2006
Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity
J. D. Annan
Frontier Research Center for Global Change, JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Japan
J. C. Hargreaves
Frontier Research Center for Global Change, JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Japan
Abstract
Climate sensitivity has been subjectively estimated to be likely to lie in the range of 1.5–4.5°C, and this uncertainty contributes a substantial part of the total uncertainty in climate change projections over the coming century. Objective observationally-based estimates have so far failed to improve on this upper bound, with many estimates even suggesting a significant probability of climate sensitivity exceeding 6°C. In this paper, we show how it is possible to greatly reduce this uncertainty by using Bayes' Theorem to combine several independent lines of evidence. Based on some conservative assumptions regarding the value of independent estimates, we conclude that climate sensitivity is very unlikely (
Heheh...too funny. It might be a good idea to at least deal with the most recent, credible scientific findings - instead of wallowing into these bizzare analogies that clarify nothing to anyone. You can fool some of the people some of the time - but you can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time my friend..
Originally posted by melatonin
...a CO2 molecule is a CO2 molecule. It's physical properties don't change between the lab and the atmosphere. That's why we have a 'greenhouse' effect which ensures the earth is not a snowball.
It's no different to saying that cancer doesn't exist because you don't like the idea of having chemotherapy.
If the money that could be raised from taxes was being fed into new technological and scientific research etc, then that would be cool. But ultimately, the idea is to motivate people to use less fossil fuels. I don't think it will work that well, especially as we appear to readily absorb 300% increases in oil costs with little real impact. So it doesn't appear to be the best approach.
Way to miss the point. Also, Gore doesn't say what you think he does. He uses the ice-core data to show it hasn't been this high for either 650,000 or 400,000 years depending on what core he used. If we can hold temp increases at 2'C, that would be better than 4'C, or 6'C, or 8'C.
At this point we don't have a scientific solution. Lots of possible ideas. But none are ideal. For instance, we could pump out SO2 aerosols to introduce cooling - but this has negative secondary effects, plus we'd need to keep pumping out sulphur to maintain this level.
The most effective method is just to reduce our emissions. Like a fat lazy man with an addiction to big macs, the most effective way to protect from future diabetes and heart disease is for him to lead a healthy lifestyle, not pump him full of ACE-inhibitors and statins.
He isn't the spokesman.
Originally posted by melatonin
CO2 also is heavier than air, and tends to remain close to ground, thereby minimizing the greenhouse effect.
Heh, where did that come from? It is heavier than air but that doesn't really matter. It is well-mixed throughout the troposphere due to convection etc. And plant growth stuff is not going to be our saviour - the biosphere is already taking in about 50% of our emissions.
This is not to say GW isn't real, but rather to say that we do not have perfect knowledge of the situation as of yet.
We don't have perfect knowledge of anything, tbh. That's just an attempt to set a high bar for climate science that doesn't apply elsewhere.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yes, the molecule remains the same, but not the conditions surrounding it. Paper is flammable, but in a laboratory under water, it would not burn. The paper is still paper...
Letters to Nature
Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001
Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo and Richard J. Bantges
Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).
The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.
I hope I am wrong here, but you sound like you are in favor of higher taxes first, and solving the problem second.
Also, Gore doesn't say what you think he does. He uses the ice-core data to show it hasn't been this high for either 650,000 or 400,000 years depending on what core he used. If we can hold temp increases at 2'C, that would be better than 4'C, or 6'C, or 8'C.
Here again, apparently I have no grasp of the English language. My bad. I could have sworn that I earlier claimed he said just that.
According to Gore, they are higher than they have ever been.
My point exactly! No scientific solution is being presented! I am simply calling for a scientific solution to a scientific problem.
At this point we don't have a scientific solution. Lots of possible ideas. But none are ideal.
Really? A major motion picture is made from his presentation. He wins the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to educate the people about GW. And he's not a spokesman for the argument? I'd say he is definitely a spokesman.
As the spokesman for this issue, I believe he carries some responsibility for being accurate.
He isn't the spokesman
Originally posted by TheRedneck
I'm not going to even try to describe density and it's effects...
Plant growth isn't going to use up the CO2. And we are not going to remove the CO2. Where does the CO2 go? You have just refuted your own argument.
I started posting in this thread with the simple suggestion that a way to scrub the excess CO2 from the atmosphere was preferable to taxation without any proven benefit. You disagreed. Now you state that the only known natural absorber of CO2 will not be sufficient. Please, please, explain to me how you plan on solving abnormally high CO2 levels without removing the CO2. Please.
Assuming this is true, would the wise solution be a) to raise taxes, implement a commerce-based system to tax those who produce CO2, force people to spend their tme and money on a myriad of proposed projects to reduce the amount of CO2, or b) scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere?
I say (b). But that hasn't even been put forward as a solution by anyone I have heard.
It does apply elsewhere. It applies in all branches of science. One cannot repair a system without knowledge of how that system works. It doesn't matter if you are trying to fix a toaster, an automobile, a human body, or a planet. One cannot fix what one does not understand.
Also not considered are the recent reports of other planets in the solar system heating up. Mars, Titan (a moon before someone thinks ponting that out will discredit me), Saturn, Neptune, just to name a few have shown signs of higher temperatures in recent years. I promise you, this is not due to humans driving too many SUVs on planet Earth.
If the planet is warming, as recent data could be found to suggest, the best course of action is to find out why