Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[Gaspar]

More like "my neighbor's house is on fire, but I'm not going to do anything because I didn't start the fire."

Can you put your neighbor's house fire out by unplugging your toaster?

[heironymouspasparagus]

I still don't get why we argue over whether or not climate change is caused by humans or not, though. The right-wing thought process on this seems akin to refusing to build a tornado shelter because we don't cause tornadoes.

We also had a pretty good size effect in the middle of the country from about 1870 to 1920's....culminating in the dust bowl.   We have already forgotten much of that lesson, too....

It's a puzzle.  Goes to what I harp about so much - no knowledge or sense of history.

I have read about how early land thieves came into areas that had been decimated by smallpox, and looked around at the "park like areas" which they were squatting on and were amazed.  Not realizing that the previous inhabitants who kept those lands "manicured" had been killed off by earlier settlers and missionaries.  No knowledge of history again....as if they would have cared, since all smallpox did was save them bullets....and who doesn't want more target practice!!??

[nathanm]

Can you put your neighbor's house fire out by unplugging your toaster?

No, but I sure can go out and hose down my roof so that the burning embers don't catch my house on fire.

[swake]

No, but I sure can go out and hose down my roof so that the burning embers don't catch my house on fire.

That, and the house is actually a duplex that we share.

[Conan71]

This is not the first time we humans have affected the Earth's climate in a serious way, it turns out (old news, but I haven't seen it posted here):

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-manvleaf-010709.html

When the Europeans brought smallpox to the Americas, the resultant mass death resulted in such significant reforestation that it cooled the Earth dramatically. Pre-columbian Americans had a habit of burning forests to keep them healthy, so when they mostly died out, a huge carbon sink was created.

I still don't get why we argue over whether or not climate change is caused by humans or not, though. The right-wing thought process on this seems akin to refusing to build a tornado shelter because we don't cause tornadoes.

Sure, I can accept that humans and their actions have the ability to affect the climate to a degree.  However, those at the political forefront pushing the narrative have blown up speculation into outright lies as to the ultimate consequences in order to enrichen themselves and their cronies.  That's what I cannot stomach about the whole "climate change" narrative.  Stick to facts, not fear, and don't use it as a political tool.  It's real simple.

[Gaspar]

No, but I sure can go out and hose down my roof so that the burning embers don't catch my house on fire.

Poor analogy.  Our proposed climate measures are tied to economic penalties for emissions.  Emissions that represent a fraction of the perceived causal factor, CO2.

So in essence we are treating the fire by unplugging our toaster.  A boycot on toast in our house to fight the fire at our neighbors (China, India, Africa, Russia).  Logically it may help to prevent the chances of a future toaster fire at our house, but our toaster is already far more efficient and safe than their toaster, and we continue to make it more efficient at a faster pace than they do, because we have plenty of toast to eat.

If you want to have a meaningful impact on global warming you have to take meaningful measures globally, and you must prioritize for the most impact. First, you need to kill all of the livestock because they have the largest impact and don't just produce CO2.  Those horrible beasts produce 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide (N2O) and 35 percent of methane (CH4), which have 296 times and 23 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2.

Then you need limit the amount of coal and oil that China, India, Russia, and a dozen other countries use.  I'm sure they will be open to your mandates.

Or, you could just allow the US economy to flourish and come up with awesome new energy technologies that other countries will want to buy because they are more efficient and therefore profitable.

Then kill all of the livestock.  I don't like the way cows look at me anyway.

[Red Arrow]

No, but I sure can go out and hose down my roof so that the burning embers don't catch my house on fire.

You have wood shingles and a garden hose.  Your neighbor's roof is 10 feet from yours and his house is fully engaged with flames and sparks coming out of his roof. Your money and time would have been better spent on a fire resistant roof.

[Red Arrow]

Not really sure why you think that reducing carbon emissions and sequestration projects are "wrong," given that the proximate cause of the warming is known to be (mainly) caused by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

I believe you have even posted charts that show that increased CO2 levels follow increased temperatures rather than precede the increased temperatures.  Decreasing CO2 emissions is a good thing up to the point where it robs resources to pursue more effective mitigation.

[Conan71]

Then you need limit the amount of coal and oil that China, India, Russia, and a dozen other countries use.  I'm sure they will be open to your mandates.

Can't do that.  Then there is no safe haven for all the jobs that used to be done in the US.

Oh wait, that can't be right government regulation and taxes NEVER sends jobs elsewhere.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Sure, I can accept that humans and their actions have the ability to affect the climate to a degree.  However, those at the political forefront pushing the narrative have blown up speculation into outright lies as to the ultimate consequences in order to enrichen themselves and their cronies.  That's what I cannot stomach about the whole "climate change" narrative.  Stick to facts, not fear, and don't use it as a political tool.  It's real simple.

This appears to have gotten all mixed up in the writing....clarify, please...are you talking about Jim Inhofe and the Limbaugh-ists?  Or AlGore?

Since both are doing that - but the Limbaugh-ists have been having better success and making more money on it, so it wasn't quite clear from your note...

[Conan71]

This appears to have gotten all mixed up in the writing....clarify, please...are you talking about Jim Inhofe and the Limbaugh-ists?  Or AlGore?

Since both are doing that - but the Limbaugh-ists have been having better success and making more money on it, so it wasn't quite clear from your note...

No, actually referring to con man Algore and his fraudulent carbon credit scheme.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/

[heironymouspasparagus]

No, actually referring to con man Algore and his fraudulent carbon credit scheme.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/

Again, we get to the perspective point - it's like all those previous discussions where the AlGore types are wasting tens of millions of dollars while the other guys are wasting tens of billions....Al makes a few tens of millions on global warming, while Rush and Rupert make a few tens of hundreds of millions "warning" us against Al....

[nathanm]

Your money and time would have been better spent on a fire resistant roof.

Yep, but now that the disaster is here, it doesn't do much good bellyaching about what could have been or what should have been done. What do we do now? To continue the dead horse of an analogy we've been using, fire retardant foam would be in order. If the analogy were more grounded in reality, I'd say let it burn and build a new house, but sadly the house we're trying to keep from burning down is the only one in existence.

To be honest, sometimes I don't know why I bother worrying about it. The shifting weather patterns will cause shortages of food and water in some areas, probably somewhat more than has been typical so far in my lifetime, but nothing that I have to worry about personally since our fine society insulates me from the consequences. That, almost certainly no more 6 feet of sea level rise is likely the extent of the change I will personally see, and perhaps the extinction and/or increasing rarity of some tasty fish species, at least in direct terms. It's the children and their children and so on who will have to deal with entire countries being submerged and the mass relocation of a billion people or more over the course of a century or two, not me, not us. I don't have kids or plan on having kids, so it's not my problem.

[Conan71]

According to Pat Sajak, you are an unpatriotic racist.

A post from Twitter on Monday:

I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night.

I feel much better now that alphabet man has weighed in.  

[heironymouspasparagus]

Yep, but now that the disaster is here, it doesn't do much good bellyaching about what could have been or what should have been done. What do we do now? To continue the dead horse of an analogy we've been using, fire retardant foam would be in order. If the analogy were more grounded in reality, I'd say let it burn and build a new house, but sadly the house we're trying to keep from burning down is the only one in existence.

I knew this day would come...and it is pathetic that what you say is so true.  Too late to worry about it - it's gonna happen, and the planet will continue.  We still have an amount of time - no telling how much, but previous cycles would indicate that it could be quite a while, so not to worry - we are more likely to blow ourselves up first.  It's our great grandkids that are gonna take the brunt, and you know they are gonna have some choice things to say about us!  And humans are as adaptable as cockroaches, so the species will probably continue....just at a different pace and level.

One path might actually make a small difference - if we were to deploy it quickly.  Nuclear fusion power.  It's only "20" years away....for the last 60 years, so far.  That would put it at 80 years since it was bottled up and decided not to proceed commercially.  But we are still putting out a lot of stuff in the meantime...


And for all the Rupert-Rush-ists;  Somehow, "I told you so" just doesn't quite say it....