Fix for global warming

Here's a little test for you which I have stated many times in the past; Place your car in your garage (cars without emissions controls work best), close the garage door, open all the windows in your car, start your car and leave it idling, turn on the radio, recline the seat so you are comfortable, then after about 30 minutes report back to us your experience. And to extrapolate your experience to how we treat the Earth, factor your experience by about one billion equal events per day! Of course Earth's atmosphere is larger than your garage, but over enough time and 24/7 carbon polluting, it's only a matter of time before we achieve the same results.

I personally don't need AGW to inform me how badly we treat the Earth! It is 100% fact that humans are polluting Earth, doing so with arrogance and entitlement, and most are too stupid to connect the dots. Obviously we can do better! Can we keep from annihilating ourselves...IMO I doubt it.

BTW: The test mentioned above is a mental test, not a test to be physically experienced...

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe you can read Post #51...

 

Write an Executive Order that all Federal vehicles run on flex fuel. This will spur the manufacturing of cars able to run on natural gas (which we have in abundance) and eventually every new car will be able to run on it and the infrastructure for fuel delivery will follow. Natural gas emits 50% less CO2.

Take draconian environmental restrictions off nuclear energy and build more plants. Nuclear energy emits 0 CO2 and is less radio active than coal. This could completely eliminate the need for coal-fired energy plants as well as lower the background radiation in the atomsphere.

 

Why not put the same effort into buying hybrids?

 

Sure, they could manufacture natural gas fueled hybrids. Or flex-fuel hybrids. The problem is, until manufactures tool up the expense is too high for the average driver. The POINT is, an executive order would cost nearly nothing compared to all the environmental legislation piled upon gasoline and gas fueled vehicles AND spur the manufacture of such cars. Now why can't everyone get behind this? Why doesn't Obama do this? Why don't Republicans propose such a program?

We don't have any magically 'clean' energy and never will for the near future but we surely can cut CO2 emissions in half. What's wrong with that? In the meantime research and development could continue on the elusive 'alternate' energy.

 

Why not just make the government vehicles Teslas and other all electric vehicles?

 

Remove c02 from the atmosphere using natural means. Plants. Which is why freeman dyson said we could address much of the co2 level by worldwide land management. Plants trees and such, and plants that extract lots of co2 from the air. That this isn't even talked about, proves there is an agenda involved here, that is not really that serious about co2, but as a mean of a flow of income, to particular people, while extracting it from other people.

As that nasa scientist said, if we reduced co2 levels by 80 percent today, the earth would continue warming for at least 500 years. Things like this and land management are oddly never mentioned in this debate. Again, an agenda is in place, and it involves dollar signs.

 

Gosh, you're right! It's too expensive to save the planet, by gum. Let's destroy civilization instead, because that's so much cheaper than saving it.

Once again the denizens of Denierstan prove themselves incapable of thinking further ahead than breakfast.

There is no industry on earth that cannot function without fossil fuels, except the fossil fuel extraction industries themselves. Airlines have already successfully tested biofuels, and the US Navy has already tested aviation synfuels.

The cost of significantly mitigating climate change amounts to roughly 3% of global GDP by 2100. The cost of doing nothing amounts to about 15% of global GDP by 2100. (Stern Review.) Only the denizens of Denierstan think that the 15% is the better deal.

As already stated, there are non-fossil alternatives to every fossil fuel, already out there. The environmental effects from the switchover will be minor compared to the massive destruction caused by climate change.

- - - Updated - - -

You can decide to quit smoking immediately, and you can decide to quit fossil fuels immediately. See the similarity here?

 

Utterly inadequate. The amount of fossil carbon we have released into the air is greater than the total amount of plant mass currently living on Earth. In other words, even if we were able to double the global amount of plant mass -- a highly dubious proposition in itself -- that wouldn't be enough to fix the carbon problem that we have so far created.

 

The problem with using trees is then you have to have a viable forest industry, and build using wood instead of concrete and steel. Environmentalists are against that.

 

Environmentalists are against cutting down old growth forest not new plantations of trees

 

Good idea - how come not-one thought of it - Bali Road Map 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Road_Map

 

Basing energy policy on "ifs" is a fools errand. Base your life on "ifs" and you ill never even get out of bed much less leave the house, just too many unknowns out there.

 

And there you have it, the extreme oversimplification and lack of understanding of all the dynamics present on the planet earth.If only life were so simple.

 

So there is no hurry. AGW is not a real concern or threat any time in the near future.

 

First thing they need to fix is toss all of their climate models in the trash. Observations now suggest Earth’s ECS is a bit more than half of what the IPCC has proclaimed as settled science. There are some papers out now with one line formulas that are more accurate than the billion dollar computer models. Unfortunately for the AGW crowd those models use an exaggerated ECS in order to come up with their doomsday scenarios which after 25 years of "the sky is falling" pronouncements have been proven to be just a load of manure meant to scare granny and pilfer billions for the public

 

Meanwhile, in all realms besides Denierstan, the models are very accurate.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100322194954/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/models-2/



It is kind of funny to see deniers focus almost entirely on making up stories about models, as if they think that's the focus of the science. It's not. All the direct evidence shows AGW science is correct. No models are required. The success of the models is just icing on the cake.

 

I am not an AGW believer I'm just proposing solutions for the hand-wringers. Apparently they don't WANT to actually solve their faux problems as shown by their complete lack of response while they keep promising some kind of miracle 'green' fuel.

 

There is data everywhere, there are new climate patterns, there is sea level rise, there is 24/7 pollution...the scientific community can give you a million scenarios based on current data, trends and computer models. When we begin to see consensus in the scientific community, when we see empirical evidence of changes to Earth's systems, when we evaluate the potential economic, social and national effects of change, people better pay attention! Everyone who believes they are smarter, have more data, more science peer involvement than the majority of scientists who support climate change potential and the 'if's'...they are obviously displaying arrogance. Arrogance will never solve any problems...

 

It is this simple but you refuse to budge from your annoyingly biased and political positions. My example is not extreme! There are billions of fossil fuel burning machines on Earth and all of them are polluting Earth...the ONLY difference between the garage and Earth is it will take longer to destroy ourselves. However, before we destroy ourselves, we are going to suffer great economic and personal pain. The question is, from area to area, nation to nation, person to person, how much pain can we tolerate? If we can mitigate some of the pain isn't this a better scenario? Why don't you have any interest in breathing fresher air? Why don't you have deep concerns about the Earth we are leaving to our kids and grandkids? Can you proclaim that you have done the best you can do as a steward of Earth? There's an old saying about 'never messing with Mother Nature' yet this is precisely what we are doing! Humans are stupid to believe we are invincible since the fact is humans at best are merely along for the ride. Like it or not, Earth is a finely honed machine, every square inch is interrelated, finely balanced, and when you change the variables you potentially change all of Earth...and no one knows where the tipping points might be or how the dominoes might start falling or when...but all scientists understand the POTENTIAL...

 

You do realize that is 8 years old don't you?

 

Five years old, and the models keep getting better.

I hope you weren't snookered by Goddard's fables, the way he fudges the data to hide the incline.

 

Lets see, you think the measured data is fudged somehow yet you think it is correct? BTW, Antarctica sea ice did exactly the opposite of what the models predicted.



AR5 Chapter 9 Box 9.1

So the models are tuned so as to describe past observations. Michael Mann now states the hiatus is caused by natural variability but the IPCC attributes no natural variability to warming.

 

There is nothing humans could possibly do to reroute the course of the global environment.

They can blame all they want.... but global whining doesn't fix whatever global warming may exist.

 

OMG, you know so little.

Tell that to all the loggers in the Pacific Northwest who lost their jobs that logged other than old growth.

Even at that, old growth is best to log. The replacement young trees take in so much more CO2 than old trees. The incorrect claim was birds like the Spotted Owl, which simply nest in the tallest trees around. Cut the tall ones, the move on to the shorter trees.

Don't pretend you know what you speak of. You don't. You are really showing yourself as a fool when you speak of logging.

Rather than making responsible regulations, the pendulum went nearly full opposite and almost completely killed the lifestyle generations had.

 

OMG! I think global not local

World wide mate - not just 'America
for the rest

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080910133934.htm