Climategate
#311
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Hi Mesabah,
Greetings to Da Range.
Will respond as you might have a few facts wrong (as I probably do as well) you seem to at least think about some things.
Don't know where you got that 2000 ppm CO2 number from, but NASA website sys its in error.CO2 hasn't been above 400ppm for at least 800,000 yrs and Scientific study in 2009 puts it at 10 to 15 million yrs ago.
It has been below 300 ppm since beginning of what we call civilization and has only started to climb since industrial age.
I agree that runaway global warming is unlikely, though some models can show extremes with feedbacks from methane and other sources.They are acknowleged as highly unlikely.
It probably wouldn't take a venus type runaway to destroy civilization as we know it.
First from NASA web site citing a 2014 climate study.
Delta temps from 1861-1880.
less 450ppm less + 2 degrees c
500 ppm = +2
720-1000 ppm greater than or equal +3
Greater than 1000 ppm greater than a 4 Degree Celcius increase.
Without any mitigations to current trends in carbon emissions we are on track to exceed 1000 ppm before year 2100.
Can humans survive that? Of course they can. But not as we live now, nor where we live now. There would be vast changes in where deserts are. Vast changes in where agriculture is sustainable. Vast changes in water supplies.People will be migrating, as humans have for thousands of years. But now wherever they migrate to, someone else is already there. Wonder how well that's going to work out?
There is no way with the loss of croplands and probable collapse of societies that we will not have a massive mortality rate.
Since everything, and I mean everything, is connected, events will occur that we can't predict. Wars are almost a certainty World wide economic collapse?Depends how fast these changes occur. Huge famines? Probably.
I could go on, but you get the idea. It won't take global warming runaway to cause immense chaos and suffering.
NASA has a bunch of pretty smart people. I don't think they live in a fantasy world nor indulge in wishful thinking.These are their projections.
Its a pretty grim future for our descendants should mankind continue with business as usual.
Greetings to Da Range.
Will respond as you might have a few facts wrong (as I probably do as well) you seem to at least think about some things.
Don't know where you got that 2000 ppm CO2 number from, but NASA website sys its in error.CO2 hasn't been above 400ppm for at least 800,000 yrs and Scientific study in 2009 puts it at 10 to 15 million yrs ago.
It has been below 300 ppm since beginning of what we call civilization and has only started to climb since industrial age.
I agree that runaway global warming is unlikely, though some models can show extremes with feedbacks from methane and other sources.They are acknowleged as highly unlikely.
It probably wouldn't take a venus type runaway to destroy civilization as we know it.
First from NASA web site citing a 2014 climate study.
Delta temps from 1861-1880.
less 450ppm less + 2 degrees c
500 ppm = +2
720-1000 ppm greater than or equal +3
Greater than 1000 ppm greater than a 4 Degree Celcius increase.
Without any mitigations to current trends in carbon emissions we are on track to exceed 1000 ppm before year 2100.
Can humans survive that? Of course they can. But not as we live now, nor where we live now. There would be vast changes in where deserts are. Vast changes in where agriculture is sustainable. Vast changes in water supplies.People will be migrating, as humans have for thousands of years. But now wherever they migrate to, someone else is already there. Wonder how well that's going to work out?
There is no way with the loss of croplands and probable collapse of societies that we will not have a massive mortality rate.
Since everything, and I mean everything, is connected, events will occur that we can't predict. Wars are almost a certainty World wide economic collapse?Depends how fast these changes occur. Huge famines? Probably.
I could go on, but you get the idea. It won't take global warming runaway to cause immense chaos and suffering.
NASA has a bunch of pretty smart people. I don't think they live in a fantasy world nor indulge in wishful thinking.These are their projections.
Its a pretty grim future for our descendants should mankind continue with business as usual.
#312
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 788
My personal opinion is that our collective reaction(s) to the deteriorating world conditions will be the most damaging and the most lethal to the greatest numbers.
#313
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Exactly, the mismanagement of the environment by the left is significantly worse than the warming itself. Look at the wild fires in California for proof of that. When we run out of the rare earth elements to produce alternative energy, the real hurt begins.
#314
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
LOL. So denial is the best way to solve problems. Got it. If only Republicans were in charge of the White House for all of the last 50 years instead of only 28 of them. The cognitive dissonance must be unbearable.
#315
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 788
Um...that's a joke, right? ( I mean your first statement)
#317
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
I'm not speaking as a Republican, but as an engineer. Do you think moving the production of greenhouse gases to third world countries is a good strategy, because that is all you have accomplished. Do you know how you insulate electrical switches for windmill farms, it's hundreds of thousands of pounds of SH6, with GWP 23,000, produced uncontrolled in third world countries. The American society of chemical engineers suggested we switch to iso-butane production over CFCs, the left said no, it's going to be HFCs. Fake Graphene batteries, discarded junk solar panels from China, hiding Bunker oil numbers, the list goes on and on. But it's the thought that counts right?
#318
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
#319
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
A great case study is to look at the Energiewende program in Germany. The switch to a fully renewable energy economy resulted in such a surplus of energy, the resulting market price of energy collapsed. The response, is now to build massive coal and gas plants, which a significant chunk will be supplied by Russia. Their carbon footprint, will soon exceed their 1990 footprint, when they decided to switch to renewables. On top of that, they need to build an additional 60,000 windmills, resulting in an even greater overcapacity. Their heart was in the right place, but it is a complete and total failure. Now they are trying to export as much emissions as possible to save face.
Imagine if Airbus developed an aircraft that didn't run on gas, but some alternative energy. The only catch is the aircraft has 60% dispatch reliability. It's not hard to see that this aircraft would immediately bankrupt every airline that purchased it.
Imagine if Airbus developed an aircraft that didn't run on gas, but some alternative energy. The only catch is the aircraft has 60% dispatch reliability. It's not hard to see that this aircraft would immediately bankrupt every airline that purchased it.