Climate Change

[Viking Sailor]

The Azolla event occurred in the middle Eocene period, around 49 million years ago. This event resulted in the draw down of carbon from the atmosphere that helped transform the planet from a "greenhouse Earth" state, hot enough for turtles and palm trees to prosper at the poles, to the icehouse Earth it has been since. The event coincides precisely with a catastrophic decline in carbon dioxide levels, which fell from 3500 ppm in the early Ecoene to 650 ppm during this event.

This drop initiated a global temperature decline which continued for millions of years; the Arctic cooled from an average sea-surface temperature of 13 °C to today's −9 °C, and the rest of the globe underwent a similar change. For perhaps the first time in its history, the planet had ice caps at both of its poles. It is not until 15 million years ago that evidence for widespread polar freezing is common.

Today's concentration is 380 ppm, and the concentration between the last glacial and the industrial revolution peaked at 280 ppm.

[tyrntlzrdking]

Originally Posted by GordMay

From your contributions, it appears that the only scientist you might believe would be a conservative, capitalist, nationalist, anti-government, anti-UN, defeatist ( we can't affect climate), optimist (what’s the worst that can happen).

These represent an impressive list of scientific credentials.

[camaraderie]

Hahahaha...the Farmers Almanac is now publishing skeptics predictions for their 2009 edition!! You wanted published science...you got it!
The good thing is that more people will read and relate to this than to the real published stuff.
Is Global Warming on the Wane? - The Old Farmer's Almanac

[jzk]

Originally Posted by GordMay

From your contributions, it appears that the only scientist you might believe would be a conservative, capitalist, nationalist, anti-government, anti-UN, defeatist ( we can't affect climate), optimist (what’s the worst that can happen).

These represent an impressive list of scientific credentials.

Actually, my scientific credentials are a Bachelors of Science from the University of Illinois, College of General Engineering.

I make no claim to be a climate scientist, but I do have a brain, and I don't blindly follow hype. My scepticism comes from what I learned in 3rd grade about the history of the world and its climate.

Furthermore, the case for Global Warming is destroyed by the wild claims of all the devastation that will be caused by a slight change in temperature. Like allegations that recent tornadoes and hurricanes were somehow man made. The Earth has seen warming before, and it liked it just fine.

[Robertcateran]

It is probable that some anthropogenic CO2 helps stave off an ice age, but take it too far and we have other problems. Coral reefs are reasonably recent phenomena, that only occurred since the lowering of the CO2. People have evolved quite well in the lower ranges of atmospheric CO2 as have most of our food crops. and the present crop of world species.
An interesting experiment that we humans are undertaking. From the tone of many people around, there is not much chance of slowing down production- WE shouldn't do it as it would disrupt or economy and it is not fair that other countries that are producing tiny amounts per capita than us just to have some basic infrastructure are producing some CO2.- and it isn't happening anyway because I don't understand the science behind it and anything that difficult can't be trusted-
My own analysis, is that if we really grasped the problem , we would actually be better off as we would be much more efficient with a healthier lifestyle.
I guess I'll sail up to the Great Barrier Reef a couple more times with my grandkids and great grandkids while it still exists.
Interesting times- (in the Chinese sense)
Signing off on this discussion
Robert

[Onedaysoon]

This really is my last post on this thread. Honest......

There's just no convincing some people..............

[Amgine]

I mentioned that way back around page 9 or so, OneDaySoon. Some people have religious beliefs about flying spaghetti monsterism, while others believe that the vast majority of people who have studied something all their professional careers have joined into a multi-national conspiracy to convince the world of some nefarious untruth.

You cannot convince someone against their closely held beliefs.

[Ex-Calif]

I am fascinated by all the intelligent and detailed posts on both sides of this discussion - well done to all for keeping it sane!

My issue with the whole climate discussion is that not unlike this 29 pages of forum discussion where we debate if there even is a problem, the world discussion on this is very thin on what people propose we do about it.

So - If you believe Global Warming is happening and we are headed for disaster, can I get the 5 bullet points (or less) of what you really want me on a personal level to do about it? I am a pretty busy guy and I can't really quit my job and go live completely green on an island somewhere.

So - If you believe Global Warming and Climate Change are a myth do you really propose that I make absolutely no changes in my energy consumption habits?

I am not being a smart aleck. I really wanna know.

Problem defined - not agreed to. That's fine let's get past the fact we don't agree. What am I supposd to be doing?

More importantly what do I tell my 10 year old when he comes home from school and says, "Dad. The planet is dying and there won't be any gas when I grow up. What's gonna happen to me?"

[tyrntlzrdking]

Global Warming : What To Do : Discovery Channel

Im going to stop eating meat.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

So - If you believe Global Warming and Climate Change are a myth do you really propose that I make absolutely no changes in my energy consumption habits?

I think that if you are willing to pay for all of the energy that you use, then enjoy and prosper. Hopefully advances in technology will bring us new, cheaper energy sources so that we can even use more and prosper more.

There is no inherent reason to conserve energy just like there is no inherent reason to conserve water. The amount of water on the planet is constant no matter what we do. Of course, we shouldn't render it unusable, but doing things like watering my lawn only contributes to the water cycle rather than hurting it.

[Eleven]

If you went to the river with a bucket to water your lawn fine. Putting drinking water on your grass is a bit daft. So are the laws in the UK that the water that falls on my house belongs to the state.
Trouble is, what if the scientist's have got it wrong again and it's worse than they said!

[sabray]

Can we maintain our current lifestyle and live more efficientely?
The answer without question is yes. As boaters we constantly monitor our resources and do the best we can to balance consumption with supply. A more efficient refrigeration system does not mean our beer is warm. It more likely means that we can have cold beer and ice. If we use Led lighting we can have even more cold beer. Or we reduce our consumption of fuel. Being more efficient opens up more possabilities. It doesn't limit them. Really easy thing to become more efficient at home change your lighting to compact flouresecnts. If your budget is such there are great but expensive dimmable led lights. Upgrade your refrigerator if its more than 10 years old. Do an energy audit and see where you get the best bang for your buck.
I think this number is reasonably close although I have seen wide variances. 20% of a municipalities energy production goes into processing and pumping water. Water at the spigot is energy. I am not saying don't use water lets use it the same way we would on board as neccessary with conservation of our resources in mind. Easy way to save a little use low flow aerators on your sinks and shower heads.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by Eleven

If you went to the river with a bucket to water your lawn fine. Putting drinking water on your grass is a bit daft. So are the laws in the UK that the water that falls on my house belongs to the state.
Trouble is, what if the scientist's have got it wrong again and it's worse than they said!

The problem with watering your lawn with tap water (in the US, tap water is drinking water), is that you are paying for purification and sewer that isn't necessary. Perhaps not the best financial decision, but not harmful for the environment. The other issue, of course, is capacity of the supply and distribution, but again, that is not going to hurt the environment, but rather keep your neighbor from watering his lawn.

Another example would be if I criticized someone that excercises for using more than their "fair share" of oxygen and emitting more CO2 than a lazy person. That would be even worse than using water, because water remains in the environment always as water. The precious oxygen that they used up will remain CO2 in the atmosphere until some plant converts it back to O2.

[Amgine]

Use common sense. Be more-frugal in spending carbon than dollars. Do more sailing, less motoring.

When you're in a position to make decisions, add environmental issues to your decision-making criteria. (example: in the workplace lounge, have people bring their own coffee cups rather than using paper/styrofoam disposables.)

Using your head to make small decisions, or big ones (when building a new home, consider a gray water separation to provide for watering your lawn because filtration systems cost both money and energy, therefore when multiplied by everyone in a city it does hurt the environment) is probably the best way respond to the current climate change.

[anotherT34C]

I tend to think that (when possible) I'd rather solve the engineering problem of getting people more water, rather than solve the sociology problem of getting people to not want green lawns. But then, I'm more engineer than sociologist.

I'm a fan of replacing coal and natural gas with nuclear fission in the electrical grid. I also am a fan of plug-in hybrid cars (the lion's share of whose power will effectively be nuclear). Looking at the breakdown of where the anthro carbon and methane comes from, this is where we can put by far, the largest dent. For my part, I take every opportunity to raise public awareness about the benefits of nuclear fission, and personally vote accordingly. Carbon trading markets are an important part of reducing the free ride that C + NG get, making investment in nuclear more attractive. I vote accordingly. Streamlining the licensing and construction process is important (especially in the US). I vote accordingly.