It's all over but for the sweating?
 

Global Warming “Irreversible”, Warns Scientific Body | Care2 Causes

Governments, corporations and individuals could cut greenhouse gas emissions today, and it would still be too late to stave off disaster. What is left to us now is mitigation and adaptation. That is the conclusion of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) in an Information Statement published August 20, 2012.

Their conclusions are yet more confirmation that the dire predictions of the 1972 report, “Limits to Growth”, were accurate. The MIT researchers who prepared that publication had entered a variety of population and economic scenarios into a computer model. Most of the scenarios resulted in the same outcome: the collapse of the global economy in 2030.

...

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate.

The Climate Breakdown Is Right Here, Right Now | Alternet

Our governments do nothing. Having abandoned any pretence of responding to the environmental crisis during the earth summit in June, now they stare stupidly as the ice on which we stand dissolves. Nothing – or worse than nothing. Their one unequivocal response to the melting has been to facilitate the capture of the oil and fish it exposes.

And LAST, but not least...you can even vote for MORE of it: :D

Romney's New Energy Plan Would Doom Humanity | Alternet

So what does a Romney-Ryan ticket look like for the environment? It looks like we'll be on the fast-track to the top of the list for more "hottest" and "driest" records for our climate, while making sure Big Oil continues to top the "richest" lists as well. And the feeling's mutual -- the AP reported that Romney pocketed $7 million just this week from industry executives in Texas.

Personally, I expect to be near to or have passed on to the great beyond by 2030...but I will pass with the knowledge that there are forum members in their 20s who are going to be able to enjoy the full impact of all this in their 40s...all the while trying to DENY it is even happening. :thumbup: And good luck with that.....:D:D:D

Thanks for reassuring us there is no point to try to curb CO2 emmissions, in addition to all the other reasons.

We aliens...just like Mitt Romney...are always trying to be helpful. :rolleyes:

And...on the bright side (well maybe NOT so bright?)...you might even have 20 yr old children by then. Hunger Games anyone?

Isn't 2030 about when the carbon cap and tax takes full effect over in europe, at least for the countries that got scammed into it?
Because cheap energy and economic collapse in developed countries are two terms that you normally never see together.
Cheap energy was one of the main driving factors in the economic super boom in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

If they slap taxes on everying carbon related and shut down any commerce that involves long distance phyical movement then yes I agree there will be an economic collapse.

The only “Limits to Growth” I see on the horizon are those that ration what domestic soured cheap energy we do have for irrational reasons and encourage hyper expensive under producing "alternatives" or "renewables".
I dont think people realize these hyper expensive alternatives eat up capital that could be invested else where.
That cheap energy pumps water and makes fertilizer for crops, makes steel and concrete.
Now by rationing energy you effectively reduced food production and slowed national growth/development. I don't believe for a second that this is unintended.

When all anybody can think of as remedies are more taxes, more regs, and transferring big bucks through the hyper-corrupt UN, did you really expect anyone to bite on that?

I guess we'll find out if the AGW crowd was right or full of it. I think the latter.

Make no mistake, the US could reduce CO2 emissions by converting our electric power generation to nuclear (getting over Fukushima hysteria) and electrifying our mainline freight railroads and Interstate truck lanes.

Can anybody really visualize China (the world's No. 1 emitter) reducing CO2 emissions?

But the enormous reductions some of the AGW crowd was calling for would simply bring about certain economic collapse. Better to chance AGW than the remedies proposed. Possible disaster is better than certain disaster.

Well they were nearly dead wrong with the "hole in the Ozone" and I expect this movement to fall pretty close to that one.

Visualize me rolling on the floor laughing.

oil pan 4 -- II thought the ozone hole mended because *we did something*. Kind of like Y2K.

My money's on runaway greenhouse effect punctuated by an asteroid and new Ice Age. One or the other might not get us, but the whiplash will.

Tell the hole in the Ozone that. Even with upper atmospheric CFC levels down the hole seems to be larger and more erratic than ever.
People have only been observing it since 1978, so we really have no idea what normal even is up there.

So your saying that all those people who'd bought into air conditioning made the change-over to R-134a, and it didn't help?

Interesting reading here:
Refrigerant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IMHO the only thing that could sequester CO2 fast enough to save our sorry ... selves is Terra Preta on a massive scale:
Terra preta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are some tiny inconsistencies with the CFC caused hole in the Ozone:

The hole was first observed in 1978 and it was assumed that man caused it, I believe it was the mid 1980s and the bans were in place.

Nearly all of the CFC were released in the northing hemisphere, but the main hole is to the south. Problem is the north and south hemispheres dont have much air flow between them.

Ozone is a by product of regular O2 when exposed to higher energy photons.
No matter how big the hole was no increase in UV was ever detected at ground level at inhabited latitudes this would seem to be true.
So Ozone is likely not nearly as important as we thought it was.

The 2 largest holes in the Ozone were observed years after CFC levels had been declining. Problem is the largest hole to date was observed in 2010 CFC levels had been on the decline since about 2004.

NASA claims it will take up to 80 years for the damage to be repaired, this was after they claimed a drop in CFCs would would reveres the damage.
Problem with that is Ozone only has a half life of like 90 minutes. So the Ozone up there is broken down and remade on a daily basis. So I understand the original reasoning behind them thinking lower CFC levels would lead to higher Ozone levels right away. Don't understand the 80 year delay. I think its just a way to buy more time before they have to admit they were wrong on just about all counts.

Why would any one want the world to cooler earth anyway?

I dont think any of the people panicing over global warming realize the black death was on the down stride of "midevil warming peroid".
As long as we are moving away from those conditions I wont call it all bad.

Sounds like you've thought about this more than me. :)

What about bubbling ozone through water to purify it?

I think houses should be habitable from -180° to 180° F. When I get the eco-modding bug out of my system I'll go back to working with low-cost energy-efficient and aerodynamic housing. (almost said sea-going semi-submersible geodesic domes) Had a career in that. I built houses, one town and one factory.

"...I believe it was the mid 1980s and the bans were in place."

The US implemented the Montreal Protocol using the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. The CFC regs are in 40 CFR 82.

I completely agree with oil pan. The CFC regs were a knee jerk reaction and have been a complete failure. The US consumer paid through the nose and got no benefit whatsoever. We have no reason to believer the global warming thing is any different.

Now these guys tell us its too late. OK. Don't worry about it. We'll adapt. Adaptation is what humans are really good at.

Mmmm.
Chlorinated and Fluorinated (hydro)carbons aren't the most healthy things around.
You don't really want them in the atmosphere, regardless of the condition of the ozone layer.

And all ACs leak during their lives

CFCs were used in asthma inhalers up until a few years ago.
One of the good things about R-12 besides besides being very chemicly stable is its lack of toxicity.
Also R-12 inhalers were so generic they were almost all between $4 and $8, The R-12 replacement inhalers were $60+ when they came out.
If the let people with weak or messed up lungs or are alergic to everything breath in a little R-12 then it cant be that bad.

Now thats not the case with the replacement for R-134a. Its called HFO-1234yf and it is neither stabile or non-toxic. But it is very expensive as you can imagine.

As far as I can tell the only ones benefiting from the refrigerant change overs are the patent holders of the new refrigerant.

An article in the current issue of Wired places this in a broader frame:
Apocalypse Not: Here's Why You Shouldn't Worry About End Times | Wired Science | Wired.com

Whatever happened to the Original Poster? Can't take the heat? :)

I think post #4 pretty much shut it down.

As Rome rose to predominance, the planet was entering a warming period like now. The Romans conquered Britain, and due to the warmer weather, grew wine grapes (the Romans loved their wine).

When the warming period ended, northern tribes moved south due to the inability to grow native crops. People from Saxony and other northern German tribes migrated to Britain. And wine had to be imported through trading centers like Tinatagel (the legendary birthplace of Kin Arthur). Britains drank beer and mead.

And the dark ages remained in place until the end of the ninth century. And the "High Middle Ages" began. Things warmed up, swamps dried up, people had enough food, and disease waned. And Britain again developed a wine industry. In fact, it almost caused a war between France and England. The wealthy winery owners petitioned the king to put an embargo on English wine.

Then the thirteenth century came along, and it got cold again. People began to starve as crops could not grow in the colder climate. The weakened populace were easy prey for the plague. And again, the wine stopped flowing. People began to drink alcohol from grains again. But this time, a new science that preceded chemistry was in play, and the drink became harder. Scotch was made in one of the coldest and most inhospitable places in Britain.

By the second half of the nineteenth century, the place began to warm up again. But by then, science and industry had solve the problems of dealing with the cold climate. Crops grew in the upper half oh Europe, Russia, the USA. The whole world had adapted this time.

As of 2007, England is making wine again.

"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." - Terry Pratchett

I see we have people who are not fans of preindustial age climate change.

History has shown us a cooler climate only results in more famine and petulance.
So why anyone would wish for cooler climate with more famine and petulance seems to defy all logic.

I hate to be a *pest* :)

Petulance?

At the individual level its the irritation and distraction that being cold, hungry, not knowing when your next meal will be or having to eat bugs or tree bark provides.
At society's level over time it could lead to an angry and frustrated populas that turns to to rioting or ill conceived government actions possibly starting a war.

Nope, probably just another news piece from a "well respected, independent source" like the WWF or GreenPeace.

Or perhaps from a well respected broadcaster not unduly influenced by these non-expert NGOs (although claiming they only "refer to scientists") who spent £000s refusing FOI appeals on it even though someone just found it on the wayback machine.

Geniuses :thumbup:

Still its only taxpayers money, not their own :rolleyes:

Oh baggah. Have you ever tasted English wine ? :o

Info from people NOT affiliated with right-wing think(?) tanks.....
 

Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

Global Warming

The Earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause. Climate disruptions put our food and water supply at risk, endanger our health, jeopardize our national security, and threaten other basic human needs. Some impacts—such as record high temperatures, melting glaciers, and severe flooding and droughts—are already becoming increasingly common across the country and around the world. So far, our national leaders are failing to act quickly to reduce heat-trapping emissions.

...

Global Warming Contrarians

Why has it been so difficult to achieve meaningful solutions? Media pundits, partisan think tanks, and special interest groups funded by fossil fuel and related industries raise doubts about the truth of global warming. These deniers downplay and distort the evidence of climate change, demand policies that allow industries to continue polluting, and attempt to undercut existing pollution standards. UCS fights misrepresentations of global warming, providing sound, science-based evidence to set the record straight.

...

Remember: it is difficult to distinguish between the indoctrinated and the ignorant on a forum and those who are misinformation/disinformation specialists who may be paid to misinform. :rolleyes:

...

So are you being paid for this ? Wow - where do I apply. :eek:

I SAID it was difficult. If you show me your pay stub...I'll show you mine. :cool:

Except my posts are derived from my own opinions and not much else...though most probably have little real effect. That's why I try to put the emphasis on making real substantive changes in my own life where possible. That is what is really difficult. Like getting off my *ss and exercising....:D

The only post you have used your owns words was to callout those who disagreed with you calling them ingnorant and misinformed at best. And I even smelled the distinct tone of religous superiority in those words... embarassing.

You drive a 86 K20 truck that kicks out so many emissions I bet your Focus could run on the unburnt gas. So franky, you don't really care about emissions.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

The geological timescale to make a proper understanding of what is happening on earth will take much much longer to understand than the limited timeframe of observations the scientists have at their discretion. And those scientists should know that.

I don't have to worry about your paycheck, because I know where the scientists are getting theirs. From likeminded individuals who are bankrolling their studies.

There is only one conclusion to make when you start with the answer and look for data to support it. :eek:

The conclusion I deduct from those who start with the answer is they believe they have superior knowledge, which presumes my ignorance, as well as their complete knowledge of the subject.
Since complete knowledge of any subject is impossible, as knowledge is a constantly expanding endeavor, then their objectives become irrelevant.

regards
Mech

i didn't read the thread, but here's my 2 cents. Are we warming the earth by creating co2, yes. has the earth ever warmed before, yes, multiple times. can we survive? nobody knows, but i find it hard to believe we could not. but i suppose we should go stick our heads in the sand for good measure.

alligators survived, are we smarter than that?

What is difficult, or are you saying I am being paid now ? :confused:

I'm sure your *ss will save the world. :rolleyes:

Because there was no preindustrial age climate change - unless you go back about a quarter of a billion years to the Permian-Triassic extinction. I'm not a fan of that, are you?

Now note that by "climate change", I don't mean the ongoing variation produced by things like the Milankovic cycles, but change produced by dumping large amounts of CO2 into the system.

Sure, and this explains why sub-Saharan Africa and the Amazon Basin are historically the most prosperous places on Earth, doesn't it? And why the Industrial Revolution started in NORTHERN Europe, why the North won the Civil War...

And what you have against petulance is beyond me. Could it be that you are as ignorant of spelling, vocabulary, and the use of dictionaries as you are of basic science, and really meant to say that cooler climates create more pestilence, "a contagious or infectious epidemic disease that is virulent and devastating"? Well, this may surprise you (that ignorance showing again) but pestilence & infectious disease in general is far more common in hot climates than in cooler ones.

*cough

Medieval warming WAS global ? new science contradicts IPCC ? The Register

Which is why I think the built infrastructure should trend toward withstanding both hotter and colder conditions. A house could be inhabitable from -100°F to 150°F if it were designed properly. And in 250mph winds. Consider the extremes an airliner's fuselage is subjected to.

If world wide climate warming and cooling periods are not climate change, what is?

OK, then by that definition the cooling we are experiencing now (in the northern hemisphere) is climate change, as is the warming trend that will start around March or April :-)

Of course there are warming & cooling cycles in nature, ranging from it generally being warmer in the afternoon than in the middle of the night up to the ~10,000 year long Milankovitch cycles Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that drive ice ages. We understand these things (or at least those of us who bother to learn anything about science instead of indulging in wish fulfillment fantasies do), and we know that they're all normal & natural, and have very little to do with the current & future climate change being driven by CO2 from fossil fuels.

I think im gonna buy a truck soon, how about a lifted excursion. Thoughts?

...the difference is WHO or WHAT gets the BLAME as the cause...rightly or wrongly!