Climate Change: Why aren't more people concerned about it?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1401 - 1420 of total 1541 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 11, 2017 - 06:28pm PT
The impedance of IR is logarithmic rather than linear, meaning the effect of the first 20 ppm above the industrial level of 280 ppm is greater than the rise from there. Additionally the density of the atmosphere and the gravity field of the planetary body has much more to do with the median temp of lower tropospheric temps than atmospheric content. Just look at Venus and Mars for confirmation of this. Both bodies have a 97% atmospheric Co2 content, but the atmosphere of Venus is orders of magnitude denser than Mars, or Earth for that matter. The gravity field of Venus is 3 times stronger. You might ascribe the temp difference due to solar isolation differences, but that is clearly not nearly enough of an effect to account for the 1000 degree difference.

As far as human co2 emissions; they amount to less than 4% versus 96% natural. The residence time of either type of emission is 5-7 years- meaning the hundreds or thousands of years for sink uptake claimed by some wack job climate scientists is BS.

In recent years the recognized ECS of a doubling of CO2 has been steadily declining as per numerous credible peer reviewed studies. You have nothing to fear from a 560 ppm (the much hyped doubling) CO2 content. Without negative feedbacks the consequent temp increase is probably less than 1.2c. Much less than the range of natural variation and even with the temp increase less than the global average temp of most of the holocene.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Mar 11, 2017 - 06:34pm PT
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/03/09/dr-gavin-schmidts-epic-response-to-scott-adams/

http://www.realclimate.org/
monolith

climber
state of being
Mar 11, 2017 - 06:48pm PT
Sumner's residence time denial argument is easily debunked. CO2 concentration has risen 40% since man started emitting vast amounts of CO2. Natural, I think knot.

The global temp has already risen .8C even with just a 40% increase in CO2 concentration. Since ECS equilibrium takes hundreds to thousands of years, the temp will continue to rise, even with holding CO2 concentration at present levels

The range of ECS estimates:

NutAgain!

Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
Mar 13, 2017 - 12:01pm PT
Saw a nice story today about a guy who walked the length of the Keystone Pipeline path, and he had an insight that strikes at the heart of the topic in this thread:
It’s not just education, though. It’s about their identity and economic situation. On the Great Plains I came across countless ghost towns and abandoned homes. The folks out there realize the sense of mortality when it comes to community. So any project that’s going to bring in a bit of money is not going to be questioned on the grounds of climate change or pollution. It’s going to be greeted with open arms if it can help their community last a bit longer.

These are folks who see themselves as hardy, self-sufficient, small government individualists. If you believe in climate change, you’re giving in to the idea of government coming in to fix things, collective action to impose greenhouse gas limits, and reining in the evils of the free market with stricter regulation. This conflicts with so much of that heartland identity.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/keystone-pipeline-trespassing-across-america-ken-ilgunas/
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Mar 20, 2017 - 01:42pm PT
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/03/15/mother-earth/

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/03/20/climate-change-footprint/
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Mar 22, 2017 - 06:14am PT
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/21/record-breaking-climate-change-world-uncharted-territory




By the time your generation starts voting, marrying, and having children of your own you will be plunged into adapting to a new, more uncertain world – a world where Arctic sea ice might be all but gone, where desertification could be marching across the planet, where marine ecosystems like coral reefs may be collapsing altogether, and where seas will continue to swamp coastal and island people. You and your peers will face challenges as a society we can’t even imagine now.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2017/mar/14/trump-and-climate-chaos-a-letter-to-my-daughter
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Mar 22, 2017 - 05:38pm PT
Coral reefs are already collapsing on a massive scale.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching-again/

Sea level rise is already a problem.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

Sea level rise is tracking the worst case prediction from the IPCC-3
https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/30/antarctic-loss-could-double-expected-sea-level-rise-by-2100-scientists-say/?utm_term=.a6c0a9d7ba81


At least 17 Republicans in Congress are not completely sticking their heads in the sand.
https://skepticalscience.com/19-house-gop-call-for-climate-action.html

Info that Trump, Pruitt, Koch, Inhofe, and Exxon don't want you to see:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/future-climate-change

More Koch kooks:
https://thinkprogress.org/the-koch-brothers-are-now-funding-the-bundy-land-seizure-agenda-901b90b3e1c6#.px5qkyaxp


Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Mar 22, 2017 - 07:21pm PT
http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/684/ArtMID/1768/ArticleID/12102/Research-shows-ocean-acidification-is-spreading-rapidly-in-the-Arctic.aspx

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n3/full/nclimate3228.html
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Mar 27, 2017 - 08:36pm PT
A roadmap for rapid decarbonization

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6331/1269.full
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Mar 27, 2017 - 08:52pm PT
The global temp has already risen .8C even with just a 40% increase in CO2 concentration. Since ECS equilibrium takes hundreds to thousands of years, the temp will continue to rise, even with holding CO2 concentration at present levels

You can move on to your next calamity in this case.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 27, 2017 - 09:47pm PT

alarming inconsistencies remain between science-based targets and national commitments.

it really sounds like a religion. Jus tryin to pull more money to their plate.

sure if you wanna lower the co2's to 1%. Tax the shitt out of it so the 99% can't afford it
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 27, 2017 - 09:48pm PT
A roadmap for rapid decarbonization

When scientists go outside their narrow, specialized fields of expertise, such as into politics or economics, they have no more credibility (nor do their journals, peer-reviewed or popular) than people in any other field, including astrology. This article is so filled with wishful thinking and economic disasters that it would take a book-length treatise to entirely rebut the piles of ridiculousness.

By contrast, if you libs REALLY want to take the subject seriously, then you are going to have to get SERIOUS about things like halting rainforest destruction (which you have NO more chance of accomplishing than of getting China to stop using fossil fuels), and alternative energy sources that you have typically rejected out of hand (which I expect you will do with the video clip below).



There are excellent methods for dealing with waste at this point, and there is no other mode of energy production we know of that packs so much output into such a small space... all without using water or generating greenhouse gasses.

If you really want to get serious, then you have to seriously consider widespread nuclear power.

Is it a "perfect" solution? Of course not. There IS no "perfect" solution. But it is a better solution than others.
Byran

climber
Half Dome Village
Mar 27, 2017 - 09:49pm PT
As far as human co2 emissions; they amount to less than 4% versus 96% natural.

You don't say...
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 27, 2017 - 09:56pm PT
Another reactor approach we could seriously develop instead of wringing our hands and imagining some economic carrot/stick approach is going to work a miracle....


Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Mar 28, 2017 - 12:33am PT
mini-nukes are a very interesting technology idea, one of the outstanding issues is security, and I think your a little glib in stating that "there are excellent methods for dealing with waste at this point..." more an assertion, but then again, maybe you studied nuclear engineering and can comment with real expertise on the matter.

The major issue with nuclear power is the proliferation problem. While no commercial nuclear power plants have been used to make fissile materials for weapons (usually dedicated reactors specifically built for this purpose do that job), there is an abundance of fissile material made during the normal fuel cycle of a power plant.

So the adoption of nuclear power will have to go hand-in-hand with various non-proliferation agreements. This is especially true considering that the "nuclear waste" contains a lot of fuel in it, a small fraction of the material is detrimental for power production. Reprocessing "spent fuel" greatly reduces the total amount that has to be sequestered in waste repositories.

Reprocessing the "waste" into fuel is possible, but one has to contend with the very same proliferation issues. These sorts of ideas were kicked around not too long ago under the program GNEP, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
https://energy.gov/downloads/global-nuclear-energy-partnership-fact-sheet-develop-advanced-burner-reactors
but that didn't get very far, Congress didn't share the administrations interest at that point.

Later in that same administration, which promoted nuclear power, and the DOE extended loans to build two new reactors under Moniz, who is a proponent for nuclear energy.

I don't see how political point of view figures into the discussion.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 28, 2017 - 04:04am PT
more an assertion, but then again, maybe you studied nuclear engineering and can comment with real expertise on the matter.

One doesn't have to be a nuclear engineer to follow the technology, and I do. Your snide comments should better be directed at the scientists and editors of Science magazine for going FAR outside their expertise to make sweeping claims about how to "fix" global warming via utterly ridiculous political/economic "plans" that can at best cherry-pick arbitrary punishments.

The major issue with nuclear power is the proliferation problem.

Your education in physics makes you no more qualified to make such an assertion than Joe-Blow on the street. And mere assertion it is, while the facts of the successes of nuclear energy all around the world belie it.

Right now, in 31 countries, commercial nuclear plants are supplying over 11% of the world's TOTAL power needs. France supplies over 80% of its energy needs with nuclear plants and has been doing so for decades. Seems that a LOT of nations have managed to get their heads around the supposed proliferation problem. And if WE can't address it, you can count on getting nowhere in solving the FAR more complicated problem of global warming across its multifarious causes! Making nuclear energy successfully work for US is trivial by comparison!

Seriously, if FRANCE can make nuclear energy work for them, you're going to claim that WE can't???

If WE can't responsibly manage nuclear power, then we SURE don't have what it takes to solve global warming!

Making nuclear energy work has been done effectively all around the world, and there is no good reason it can't go FAR toward solving our dependency on fossil fuels in the short term while we continue to do research on additional technologies. Even 20 years ago, nobody imagined how much cheaper and more efficient solar power has become today! China already supplies about 22% of its energy needs, and the US supplies about 13% of its energy needs with solar. And it's not like we've "capped out" on what THAT technology can do for us.

So, let's get more serious about technologies we already know work, while continuing to develop others. Don't nit-pick about actual solutions that could very quickly get us off of fossil fuels almost entirely.

What I see on this thread is the same thing again and again: You libs have only doomsaying as your argument to force everybody into a political/economic mold that cannot work, but you have nothing but nit-picky vagueness to gainsay technologies that could QUICKLY and DIRECTLY solve the ACTUAL problem: the widespread burning of fossil fuels.

You are unwilling to get serious about FAR less invasive and FAR less difficult measures that already have a track-record of working. IF you are serious about global warming, then you will get SERIOUS about halting the destruction of the rainforests. If you cannot accomplish that, you CERTAINLY will not accomplish anything significant toward the grand master-plan espoused in that Science article. And keeping vast swaths of CO2-consuming forest alive HAS to be a top-priority in the grand battle against greenhouse gasses!

If you can't even muster the political clout to address the reasons why the rainforests are getting mowed down, you SURE are not going to solve global warming by screwing over the American economy while non-compliant nations laugh up their sleeves.

So, rather than to snidely nit-pick the FACT that nuclear energy CAN be (and IS) effectively and properly handled, all around the world, why don't you come up with something better than a vague assertion about "proliferation"?

Oh, and a nice side-effect to QUICKLY getting OFF of fossil fuels is that just so quickly the Middle East becomes nothing more than an irrelevant land-of-sand that we don't need to keep fighting about.

But what we must not do is penalize the average person for "consuming" fossil fuels, when the GOVERNMENT keeps us dependent on oil/gas/coal (FEEDING the fossil-fuel industry instead of MAKING the needed changes).

WE the people really do not choose whether we drive a gas-powered car, when all-electric cars lack the needed refueling grid, and while fossil fuels are still burnt to create the electricity that fuels them! Until our government gets serious about ENDING subsidies to fossil-fuel companies and MAKE an electric-refueling grid as available as gas-stations, penalizing PEOPLE for simply doing what they must do to remain productive is just ridiculous!

IF you are serious about global warming, then the MOST pressing political issue is not the cherry-picked, arbitrary, carrot/stick economics purported in that Science article. By stark contrast, the most pressing political issue is non-partisan and it is to FORCE our representatives to abandon fossil-fuels as quickly as possible in favor of the quickest possible ramp-up of alternative electricity sources, a revamped grid, all-electric cars (and other transportation), and entirely renewable powering of our houses and businesses.

We presently subsidize the oil/gas/coal industries to the tune of about $37 billion per year (actually, a pretty low estimate). You know, over a ten-year period, you can rework a LOT of power grid for approaching half-a-trillion dollars! Just END the subsidies. Oh, and by LAW tell the fossil-fuel companies: "Guess what. The era of profit is over. You saw the writing on the wall for decades and instead just kept buying off politicians. NO MORE. And you will not raise prices. Instead, you'll quit making obscene profits for forcing us to keep using something that's bad for us!"

And that commitment to energy-transformation MUST extend right down to the level of community HOAs, as just one example. The HOA for my condo-complex (as well as almost all other HOAs) explicitly disallows solar panels. Despite solar companies being willing to sign bonded contracts to do no damage, remove/reinstall in the case of any reroofing project, insure their work and the panels themselves, etc., HOAs flatly deny their residents to benefit from solar. In one fell-swoop, State and Federal governments could overnight outlaw this sort of denial, thereby allowing people like me to install solar to mostly or fully satisfy our own energy needs.

In fact, just as soon as I tried and discovered the whole HOA issue and how ubiquitous it is, I have started looking for a stand-alone house with NO HOA, so that I can move into a place where I can implement a whole-house solar system without being arbitrarily denied.

The little hurdles, like HOAs, to widespread adoption of solar power are everywhere! And it doesn't take a LOT of political will to eliminate these hurdles and encourage adoption of alternative energy sources right down to the level of individual homes. The fear and hurdles keeping us from quickly adopting MUCH more nuclear power are also everywhere, but they can be eliminated. Oh, unless we're awash in physicists speaking outside their expertise to continue the fear-mongering without offering any real solutions.

Seriously, if we can go from rockets doing nothing but blowing up on their launch pads to placing men on the moon (repeatedly) within a decade, I believe that with a united will revolving around getting OFF of fossil fuels, this nation could accomplish that (or very close to it) within a decade. And nuclear energy should be a significant part of that rapid transition.

Perhaps we could go straight at the problem and get OFF of fossil fuels, rather than to dink around with indirect manipulations and STUPID things like "carbon taxes" that actually do NOT even TOUCH the primary offenders on this small planet. If WE went straight at the problem, WE could solve it directly and again position ourselves as the ground-breakers of the planet. Where are our representatives who will COMMIT to this doable and direct solution?
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
Mar 28, 2017 - 06:40am PT
Wall of text alert...
new world order2

climber
Mar 28, 2017 - 07:13am PT
Thanks for posting that up, mad.

Sadly, those hoping to control every aspect of our lives have the attention span of a fly,
and only hang on to every word their own leaders spew.
photo not found
Missing photo ID#493444
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Mar 28, 2017 - 07:55am PT
more an assertion, but then again, maybe you studied nuclear engineering and can comment with real expertise on the matter.

Just another not so subtle dig at those that disagree with him

Maybe not the smartest kid in class but likely the most passive aggressive. Mommy sit you in the corner one too many times Ed?
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Mar 28, 2017 - 07:55am PT
Your education in physics makes you no more qualified to make such an assertion than Joe-Blow on the street. And mere assertion it is, while the facts of the successes of nuclear energy all around the world belie it.

And there you have it, plainly stated. The current conservative worldview that actual expertise is elitist and has no more value than uninformed opinion.

Right now, in 31 countries, commercial nuclear plants are supplying over 11% of the world's TOTAL power needs. France supplies over 80% of its energy needs with nuclear plants and has been doing so for decades.

Maybe France isn't the best example?

The discovery of widespread carbon segregation problems in critical nuclear plant components has crippled the French power industry—20 of the country’s 58 reactors are currently offline and under heavy scrutiny. France’s nuclear safety chairman said more anomalies “will likely be found,” as the extent of the contagion is still being uncovered.

With over half of France’s 58 reactors possibly affected by “carbon segregation,” the nation’s nuclear watchdog, the Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN) has ordered that preventative measures be taken immediately to ensure public safety. As this story goes into production in late October, ASN has confirmed that 20 reactors are currently offline and potentially more will shut down in coming weeks.

http://www.powermag.com/frances-nuclear-storm-many-power-plants-down-due-to-quality-concerns/

Curt
Messages 1401 - 1420 of total 1541 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews