Fix for global warming

Antarctic Sea Ice grew exactly as Dr. Manabe's model predicted from way back in 1991, marking yet another correct prediction for global warming science. You really need to brush up on the basics here.

Oh, didn't I just tell you not to use fudged data?

 

mI
Nah! Burning 83 Million tons of oil per day is not going to affect anything

 

Manabe's 1991 paper does not predict cooling at the surface due to increased CO2 but a 'reduced rate of warming' due to fluid dynamics in the Southern Hemisphere.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(1991)004<0785:TROACO>2.0.CO;2

 

So stop burning it today, come up with the replacement (without burning oil to do so). And let's see what the climate does...... over the next million years.

Or should we just burn less, because we have all the scientists telling us exactly how much is safe to burn, but will warn us when we're one ton too many....



zzz... so many overused talking points, and not one realization that it doesn't matter what we do.

 

WOW! Sounds like we are in deep trouble here. What was your fix again? What will save mankind from himself? All I can think to do if things are as bad as you say is turn the car in the garage OFF and quit using fossil fuel NOW. Is that your fix?

 

Interesting links. The first one talks about how fast old growth trees grow but they are really talking about mature trees not old growth. Old growth trees are trees that are done growing and are in the dying stages of their life. Trees don't keep growing and then suddenly die, they get old and start withering away much like people do. Look at an old growth forest and you see mostly dead tops in the trees.

The second link is about one study that defies 40 years of previous studies so you have to take it for what it is, one study. Not only that but it runs counter to the first link which shows actively growing trees consume lots of C02. Old dying trees are not growing and it stands to reason use little C02. Interesting reads though and as a life long logger it is an area of study that interest me.

 

Your car-in-garage comparison is fatally flawed because it lacks the wider perspective of the Earth vs the number of cars on the earth. There is approx. 5 quadrillion sq.ft. on the face of the earth. The population of the Earth is approx 3 billion. If every human had a garage the total sq.ft. of garages would be approx. 5 million sq.ft. The ratio of sq.ft. on earth to sq.ft. of garages (IF all humans had a garage) turns out to be (.000000001).

Your example of 1 car in a garage would have a ratio of approx. (.22). So you see, your example is not even close to being relevant. Even if you consider all the fossil fuel burning machines on Earth you still would not be able to come up with a significant ratio.

Insects have more of an effect on Earth.

 

Right - the old magic wand approach

Can't fix it in 5 minutes not interested

I blame TV

 

but but but....who will plow for the Liberals?

 

It is the leftie-environmentalists that claim to have a 'magic wand' of 'clean energy.' There is no such thing but there are decades of promises. Meanwhile, environmentalists hold US hostage to 'carbon credits', higher fuel costs (because of draconian environmental regulations), higher overall energy bills and alternate fuel that doesn't exist.

I proposed that all federal vehicles be made to run on natural gas (50% LESS CO2) and to build more nuclear generation plants (virtually 0% CO2 emissions). In the meantime we can still research viable alternative fuel replacement. The lack of response tells volumes about the fact that so-called 'environmentalists' do not want to solve the problem, no, they want to make money on the misery of the taxpayer.

 

All I ask is that you prove that I'm to blame.
Shouldn't be that hard to do.

Unless all you have is:

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

So, wait that is all the DEMONS who are out to steal money from the 'Mericans

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/glob...d-impacts/global-warming-science#.VPg-0pX9nX4

Gee more people running a conspiracy!!!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/

That is just the LIBRUL media
http://www.wwf.org.au/our_work/people_and_the_environment/global_warming_and_climate_change/science/

Bleeding hearts

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/

Oh! Noes! It is the dreaded Gubmint

So all these people are just part of some world wide conspiracy - yes??

 

In order to do that, I would need your real name, address, and income. I don't think I'm going to get that.

So, what we have here is yet-another case of Climate Denial Tactic #3: impossible expectations.

 

Here's a very interesting partial solution that not only stops desertification but also increases carbon storage capacity in a big way.
sometimes its simple things like livestock management that can make significant contributions.




[video=youtube;vpTHi7O66pI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI[/video]

 

Have you even read that report? Its complete fantasy, they just assume there will be massive increases in efficiency, the report says things like this:

"Through improvements in efficiency, commercial final energy use remains relatively flat over 2014-(*)&#8208;2050, despite a more than 40% increase in commercial floor area."

And that's after transitioning to various alternative energy sources. How is all this going to happen? Unknown. I guess they just think it will just happen, no need to plan anything.

 

I was suspicious but watched the video anyway, and was I surprised. Good presentation, and one that actually offers a solution to both poverty, hunger, and manmade global warming (if you believe in AGW, and I don't). Its reasonable, backed with actual data and has been done multiple times, it doesn't require massive sacrifice, nobody is shoving it down peoples throats, and is a net positive for people.

But the warmist's won't like it because it is good for people and it uses cattle.

If the warmists were more like Allan Savory then they would get a much better hearing.

 

I don't think we are going to "fix" global warming. I think it is already too late but my suggestion would be to prepare.

We must conserve water and it would be a very good idea for Americans to quit throwing away 60% of the food we produce.

But as far as the global effect of global warming is not written in stone because no one has a crystal ball. We may learn how to produce much more food in a lot less space. Instead of letting vacant land just sit there it may be put to use.

So...a solution to the warming ...really don't think so....a way to survive and thrive....maybe.

 

I don't think we can "fix" global warming without extreme efforts, but then I also believe most of what we see is natural.

Regardless of how much water conservation we do, we will still not meet the needs of a growing population. Expensive measure will need to be paid for to desalinate water, harvest it from the air, or other methods. Perhaps we should desalinate for farming and use the river/rainwater for drinking. No matter what we do, prices will escalate unless we stop growing in population.

Well, in this regard, most agree that the increased CO2 helps plants grow faster.

I have always been a proponent of maintaining greenspaces. As a kid, I wondered why we weren't required to maintain a parkscape on top of block size buildings. Such areas could be used for growing food as a greenhouse space. However, today, we will likely move to solar cell space.

I think we can mitigate or reverse the small effect we have on warming, but is warming really a bad thing? The alarmists tell us the equatorial regions will warm very little while the northern and southern latitudes will warm much more. Wouldn't this increase the viability of the earth to sustain growth? Wouldn't the extra warming cause more ocean evaporation, hence, more precipitation for water?

The oceans will rise regardless of our efforts, and if it is simply accelerated, then really... So what... Don't buy beachfront land. Those nation islands will disappear sooner rather than later.

 

well first you could prove why CO2 is bad.

- - - Updated - - -

why are you all freaked out by global warming? what evidence have you seen that it's bad/ Please share!

 

Believe it or not, people are smart and inventive. Efficiency happens all the time in a million little details of everything we do. Chart the amount of energy needed to create $1 of real GDP, and you see it's been going down, down, down at a steady pace for decades.

 

My point is that Obama believes in global warming but will not do the simplest thing (executive order) to start cutting CO2 by half. Most environmentalists will not relent on building more nuclear generation facilities. Seem that the warmist believers won't do the simplest things in order to alleviate so-called 'global warming.'

There is more money and power to be had by environmenalists in holding American citizens hostage to environmental regulations while they keep promising some kind of magic alternate energy.

 

Come on, energy to GDP is not what we are talking about here, that's apples and oranges. That report states that energy production efficiency will improve I some cases 300-400% by 2050. Do you think the generator in a wind turbine is going to go from about 30% efficiency to 99%? No way. Or solar panels, or insulation of buildings, or cars, are going to become 99% efficient in the way they generate or use energy?

The report assumes everything is going to become amazingly, unrealistically efficient.

 

why are you all freaked out by global warming? what evidence have you seen that it's bad/ Please share![/QUOTE]


I am not "freaked out" by global warming but I do prepare. When you go out and pay very high prices for beef I will pay very little. I raise my own beef, chickens, eggs, and a lot of my own vegetables. I am in the process of filling a 1600 gallon tank for my 300 channel catfish and I have a tank of 2,000 gallons for bluegill and red ear sunfish. I also have a show tank for goldfish and Koi...about 2000 gallons.

I do it mostly because I like it....but I spend little on food...after start-up cost.

So...come fall I will buy no pork, no eggs (ain't bought an egg in several years), no beef, and no fish.

That means I can spend more money on other things. That also means that everything I eat will only be transported a couple miles (for processing) and no travel to the grocery store except for items like bread, milk, salt, etc.

It works for me...and I work for it.

 

Damn but that was worth watching!!!!!

 

IF you did follow the "warmers" arguments you will see that land management is a very very significant part of strategies to mitigate the climate change

I kept thinking of Australia where we have decimated the herds of Kangaroo that used to graze here. THEY do not produce methane but instead produce nitrogen