Keep global warming under 1.5C or 'quarter of planet could become arid'

Ok, fair enough.

Tell "we" that I listened and still don't believe that .5C makes that significant of a difference. But hey, believe what you want.

 

"Can 'antacids' tackle climate change? Scientists say aerosols could cool the planet without ozone damage"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...erosols-cool-planet-without-ozone-damage.html

"New research suggests that pumping the equivalent of 'antacid' tablets into the air could be the answer."

guess we should try it, according to republicans man can't have any effect on the climate ... right? so what could go wrong?

 

My experience to date has been that when I added a whole host of landscaping (trees, shrubs, etc) My liberal lawyer neighbor go all bent because he said I had diminished his ability to enjoy his view of the lake since my property line investment in CO2 reduction blocked his previously unrestricted view of the lake..... Oh, but by gosh he drives a smug mobile (prius). But dude can't be bothered to install better windows or improve his roof, or make other necessary home improvements to lower his utilities bill.... Good news is the HOA allowed the landscaping, so dude just has to sit there and, well, appreciate it...

 

All you had to do was to point to any useful theory or law of natural sciences or any invention we use and show that it uses proxy data.

Any means not 3, not 2, not many, but just one to debunk my point.

How much lower could be the plank?

Just one.

Understand?

Just one experiment demonstrating that CO2 absorbs more radiation energy during the day than it emits during the night.

How much lower could be the plank?

That is if any believer in GW had ability to some basic understanding, basic rational.

Yet if a direct measurement of temperature with a thermometer is the same as proxy data with no measurement with a thermometer, I hardly can expect even basic understanding, basic rational.

 

Taxes for air you inhale are coming after taxing CO2 which the base of all life on the earth.

Total control over masses brainwashed for 12 years in schools and than 4 years in college in the insane belief that something can be warmed without heat or mechanical work.

Change the atmosphere of Earth to CO2 and it will become as hot as Venus.

Change the atmosphere of Venus to O2 and it will cool down to the earth temperature.

No input of heat, no mechanical work, no heat sink are needed.

And this insanity is called science.

 

If you want to cool the planet, why not just wait? Seems the past has shown the planet does both.

 

I know. I call it religion. And greed. A lot of greed....

 

It sounds preposterous though analyzing it is loose. a 2 degree C increase water vapor by about 16% by mass. That sounds like a lot but it is only about 0.18% of the earths water by mass. Seems picayune, but in this business you never know -- it might not be insignificant.
Then I get lost in the dry vs arid. 20% of the land mass today is classified as dry (and unfarmable). If the 2 degree rise makes 20% of the land dry, well that is what it is today. Moving it to 30% would be significant. It is all loose, but with these rough numbers it seems very hard to predict regional calamities.

 

We are currently at a CO2 concentration which has not occurred before three million years ago. And it rises every year. And it will continue to rise for several years even if we stopped producing any industrial CO2 today.

And again, we can measure the isotopes of the CO2 in the atmosphere to see much of the addition is human caused.

 

Freeman Dyson? Why the **** should I listen to Freeman Dyson above the ~97% of climatologists who do agree with the basic tenets of AGW?

And people are adding flora worldwide to combat CO2 levels, but that can only do so much and it can only work in certain areas because much of that flora dies, decomposses, and then adds to the CO2 again.

FFS man.

 

Are we still at .038 PPM? How much of that was Human caused?

 

for the last 600 million years the world has oscillated between freezing cold and boiling hot. A person would have to be a pompous ass to think they can change that . Of course politicians and academics tend to be pompous asses so it makes sense that libs think they can change mother nature

 

not much considering this is one of the low points in history for CO2. For most of Earths history it has been well above 1000 ppm

 

No one is trying to claim that the Earth is in trouble. What we are saying is that most of the currently existing plants and animals, including humans, are in trouble. And those species existed for a much, much, MUCH shorter time frame than the "last 600 million years."

 

Because Dyson, being of the scientific academic community, states that the consensus of the 97 percent was in reply to the question of...does co2 effect warming? Of course it does, but water vapor is a greater driver.

Dyson does not deny the climate is changing, warming up a bit, but he thinks it may very well be a good thing, not a bad thing for humanity. If we cannot predict weather past 5 days, what makes you think you can use a limited climate model and predict the future? Gross arrogance is what we are looking at given the vast limitation in knowledge on climate change. A fact.

Another nobel prize physicist says that this AGW has become a religion. I think he is right. All of the marks of it.

 

so let the scientist try to manipulate the climate, per you they can't, so wont hurt to let them try... right?

 

We are over 400 ppm. About 100 ppm is caused by humans. The carbon imbalance is about +2 ppm/yr right now.

 

Dumb. That article completely misrepresents the research. They aren't saying the Earth is cooling. They are saying that aerosols produce downward pressure on the temperature. If we eliminate aerosol production that downward pressure goes away making the net effect of global warming more positive. It's not that hard guys.

 

WV acts more like an amplifier than a forcing mechanisms. It can't kick start increasing temperatures on it's own.

 

Because we've done it and it worked.

 

The earth was a molten rock for about a billion years or so.

I don't want to live under those conditions either.

 

First, if Dyson thinks the 97 percent claim is solely in relation to whether CO2 affects warming, then Dyson is a moron or at least needs to do more research. The 97 percent claim is specifically on relation to the basic tenets.of AGW: 1) The Earth is warming and 2) Humans are a significant cause of that warming.

But nothing you said gives me a reason to accept Dyson's opinion that maybe significant warming is a good thing when compared to the thousands of climatologists and computer models which predict that significant warming is a very bad thing.

 

You're making things worse.........

It looks to me like the eliminating the human emission of aerosols could very well be responsible for the latest warming.

 

In addition, I've read that the 97% refers to the scientists who bothered to respond. It wasn't a large percentage of them.

 

Sorry I mis-spoke, meant the percentage.