[SolarCross]

Disregarding science and the difficulty of getting there,
tell it to the dead bacteria on Venus.
Or maybe some still live 100 miles below the surface.

Venus is a lot closer to the Sun. Earth in the past had FAR higher CO2 levels than today.



Moreover the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures is extremely weak.

[Rancid]

I would bet $500 that you are not a scientist.

I was being sarcastic. I'm not a scientist, but I am an engineer.

Disregarding science, I must wonder about the wisdom of living on a marble in the middle of a vast coldness and worrying about retaining too mush heat. It would seem the universe will naturally absorb our excess heat. We are not separate from it and are too small to overwhelm its coldness.

The universe will naturally absorb our excess heat. The problem is, will it absorbed it after or before we're dead from all the localized heat?

If you boil water, the bacterial will die. Sure, the surrounding environment will absorb the head, but the bacterial will have already been killed.

[One Degree]

I was being sarcastic. I'm not a scientist, but I am an engineer.



The universe will naturally absorb our excess heat. The problem is, will it absorbed it after or before we're dead from all the localized heat?

If you boil water, the bacterial will die. Sure, the surrounding environment will absorb the head, but the bacterial will have already been killed.

I said I was ignoring science. I just wonder if a universe made for us would let that happen? Are we important to the universe or not? I don’t know.

[Rancid]

Moreover the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures is extremely weak.

Did you know that the strongest green house gas is water vapor? This is why the desert gets so cold at night. There is no water vapor to act as a blanket to keep the heat from escaping.

Ya tu sabe (Now you know)

[Rancid]

I said I was ignoring science. I just wonder if a universe made for us would let that happen? Are we important to the universe or not? I don’t know.

Ok, I understand your point.

My feeling is the universe doesn't care about us. Thus far, it has not cared to show us why we exist. I would add, that the universe is under no obligation to make itself understandable to us.

[Steve_American]

Personally, I think we should release more CO2.

Sorry Rancid. How was I too know?
This a perfect example of why you should have used the idea of putting such opposite of what you really think stuff in red ink.
Then I would have known you had not lost your mind.

[Rancid]

Sorry Rancid. How was I too know?
This a perfect example of why you should have used the idea of putting such opposite of what you really think stuff in red ink.
Then I would have known you had not lost your mind.

What's the fun in that?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Steve_American,

If climate change is real, I want it.

Even if we burned up ALL our fossil fuels at once, right now, it would not yield a "d-day" scenario type hot-house. In fact, most hot-house scenarios of the past with Co2 ppb much higher than our own, were basically paradisaical. Extinctions in climate-change transitions are normal and human migration will be expected, but we will get on quite nicely.

I look forward to my beach-front property here in western Pennsylvania.

For more on this, check out this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=174394

Yes, you seem to think there is a correlation because one article described one era as having more biodiversity.

That is not how it works.

[Rancid]

As usual, those that will be most negatively affected by climate change will be the poor.

Thus I say, FUCK THEM.

[Steve_American]

Venus is a lot closer to the Sun. Earth in the past had FAR higher CO2 levels than today.



Moreover the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures is extremely weak.

Nice graph. It is a little too (I'll call it) averaging, for lack of a better word.
That is the width of the lines for temp. and CO2 levels covers a lot of smaller variations.
So for example all the variations in the last 2 million years doesn't show at all.

However, as an engineer, who can read graphs better than you can, I can see what you missed.
That is, the earth has 2 dominate climate states.
1] Is the flat horizontal line at the 3000 level on the left axis. I corresponds to the 22 deg. C level on the right axis. This is 10 deg. C above where your arrow points to "Now". For your information, humans can't survive this climate. Our bodies are not evolved to get rid of the heat that our big brains create fast enough in this climate and we die.
2] The other is the one we have now. It is down at the bottom of the graph, near the 12 to 13 deg. C level.
These 2 levels account for about 85% of the time in the earth's climate history, according to your graph.

If we heat the earth too much it will jump up to the other dominate climate and we are fucked. This is what 'tipping points' means.

The other thing your graph fails to show is methane levels. Since methane is 150 to 180 times worse than CO2, this is significant. Yes, methane changes into water and CO2 in 100 or so years. But, a sudden vast & fast release of methane can cook us all before the required 100 years removes the methane.

BTW --- today I saw a 3 year old youtube video that says that fracking for gas is releasing 4 times more methane than the industry admits too, and I saw that Trump has stopped the EPA from measuring this. This amount of methane is enough to heat up the world another 1 deg. C over the next 10 to 15 years on top of all other sources of heating. And strangely, none of the companies who are doing it are making any profit, because natural gas prices are down. Too bad the page got dumped suddenly when all my google chrome pages got dumped. So, I can't easily link it.

[Steve_American]

As usual, those that will be most negatively affected by climate change will be the poor.

Thus I say, FUCK THEM.

I point out again,
that you forgot the
RED INK.

For those who think this ruins the joke, put just the period in red. Like below.

.

[One Degree]

More rules?

[Truth To Power]

Please explain how the Transaqua project will neutralise the rising sea levels.
Is it because less river water will reach the sea ?

Yes, the idea is to refill Lake Chad, which will keep thousands of cubic kilometers of water out of the ocean. Lots of other worthwhile hydrological projects can be expected to have similar effects.

[Truth To Power]

I corresponds to the 22 deg. C level on the right axis. This is 10 deg. C above where your arrow points to "Now". For your information, humans can't survive this climate. Our bodies are not evolved to get rid of the heat that our big brains create fast enough in this climate and we die.

Nonsense. We evolved in the tropics, and 22C is comfortable room temperature.

If we heat the earth too much it will jump up to the other dominate climate and we are fucked. This is what 'tipping points' means.

There is no plausible mechanism for such a jump.

Since methane is 150 to 180 times worse than CO2, this is significant. Yes, methane changes into water and CO2 in 100 or so years. But, a sudden vast & fast release of methane can cook us all before the required 100 years removes the methane.

More alarmist nonsense.

BTW --- today I saw a 3 year old youtube video that says that fracking for gas is releasing 4 times more methane than the industry admits too, and I saw that Trump has stopped the EPA from measuring this. This amount of methane is enough to heat up the world another 1 deg. C over the next 10 to 15 years on top of all other sources of heating.

Again, there is no plausible scientific basis for such claims.

[Ter]

Yes, the idea is to refill Lake Chad, which will keep thousands of cubic kilometers of water out of the ocean. Lots of other worthwhile hydrological projects can be expected to have similar effects.

The refilling of Lake Chad is a temporary measure.
Has this been quantified somewhere ? I would like to read such studies.
By the way, withholding "thousands of cubic kilometers" from reaching the sea would have disastrous ecological effects on coastal areas in those vicinities.

[Sivad]

If you really want to reduce Co2 emissions the way to go about it would be to drop the climate change hysterics altogether and focus on energy R&D, you could sell that to wingnuts as a national security issue. Upgrading the national energy infrastructure would also greatly reduce emissions and there are all kinds of angles to that which would appeal to wingnut fear and desire.

There are no shortage of things we could do that would reduce emissions which are things we should be doing anyway for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with climate change.

The only reason the establishment keeps harping on this shit is because it gives it an excuse to expand its power and control. The transnational technocracy wants the power to tax and ration the lifeblood of the global economy, it's called oriental despotism and it's as old as civilization.

[Steve_American]

@Truth To Power,
Steve_American wrote:
I corresponds to the 22 deg. C level on the right axis. This is 10 deg. C above where your arrow points to "Now". For your information, humans can't survive this climate. Our bodies are not evolved to get rid of the heat that our big brains create fast enough in this climate and we die.

You wrote:
Nonsense. We evolved in the tropics, and 22C is comfortable room temperature.
You didn't think this through, did you?

The graph is about "Average Global Temps." This doesn't mean the highest temp. we will see is 22 deg C. It means the temps. we will see will be about 10 deg. C higher than now, except at the poles where it will be much more (maybe 20 deg. more).

IIRC, our brain uses 40% of our energy. All of this becomes heat in the end. Our bodies have to get rid of the heat or we get sick and die. If the 'wet bulb temp.' gets too high we can't do it. We would need AC or to live underground, etc. We could not work outdoors in the shade in daytime.
. . . [edit to add this --- Also, it is the extremes that matter. The longest hottest heat wave that kills most everyone is enough to make a region uninhabitable after AC doesn't work for lack of Freon, or whatever.]
. . . Wet bulb temp. combines temp. with humidity. It is easily measured. Sew a small piece of cotton cloth around the bulb of the thermometer, wet it, spin it around for a few sec., and read the temp.

The rest of your reply is on a par with this failure to see or understand the facts.
I hope the lurkers pay your uninformed opinions little mind.

[Steve_American]

Yes, the idea is to refill Lake Chad, which will keep thousands of cubic kilometers of water out of the ocean. Lots of other worthwhile hydrological projects can be expected to have similar effects.

How much CO2 would be required to be added to the air to dig the canal to let the ocean pour into lake Chad?
The same for doing this at The Dead Sea and Death Valley, etc.?
It may be worthwhile, but it is just a 'drop in the ocean' in the longer term.
OTOH, it does increase the surface area of the ocean a little and this would allow more evaporation also.
I, personally, don't think we should give a shit about the local climate and most other effects because we are in a fight to save humanity and this goal makes *almost* any (local) means reasonable. Except genocide, etc.]

[One Degree]

Except genocide

brings up a philosophical question. Is it really unacceptable, if it insures the survival of humanity? If climate change is going to kill us off anyway after civilization collapses, then why not consider it before we collapse?
I am not advocating it, just trying to demonstrate our faux concern for the danger if we refuse to accept all solutions. This is what I see the current divide being, “what can we do that does not cause me any inconvenience?” The solutions are often what others should do. Those in power want the common man to suffer the burden while they continue to jet around discussing how to ‘Find a solution that doesn’t require a loss in profit”?

[Steve_American]

This brings up a philosophical question. Is it [genocide] really unacceptable, if it insures the survival of humanity? If climate change is going to kill us off anyway after civilization collapses, then why not consider it before we collapse?
I am not advocating it, just trying to demonstrate our faux concern for the danger if we refuse to accept all solutions. This is what I see the current divide being, “what can we do that does not cause me any inconvenience?” The solutions are often what others should do. Those in power want the common man to suffer the burden while they continue to jet around discussing how to ‘Find a solution that doesn’t require a loss in profit”?

You explained why I took genocide off the table [for me].
If I'm *not* willing to volunteer to die than how can I follow your lead and still call for genocide?