DGT said:
The only thing I'm agreeing with the warming supporters on so far is that we should be trying to reduce our impact on the environment, an effort which right now is mostly non-existent, half-hearted, or idiotic, depending on what country/treaty/etc. you're talking about.
What you say is funny because it's the whole point of studying global warming...
I don't know on what continent you live in, but here in Europe efforts to reduce our impact on the environment ARE happening...
DGT said:
The "Cretaceous Greenhouse World" refers to an episode of earth history that lasted from about 110 to 90 million years ago. During this time, submarine volcanic CO2 emissions were released into the atmosphere at rates high enough to cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations in excess of 1,000 ppm. This CO2 buildup resulted from rapid sea-floor spreading related to the breakup and drifting apart of the Earth’s continents2. The buildup lasted for about 10 million years, and the ensuing period of peak warming coincided with an explosive growth in the genetic diversity of flowering plants, social insects, birds, and mammals--organisms that dominate modern terrestrial ecosystems. The consequences of a similar greenhouse buildup occurring over the course of only a few hundred years, however, are likely to be highly disruptive to natural ecosystems. Plants and animals live in zones of predictable temperature and precipitation. If this climate is altered too quickly, the species may not have sufficient time to migrate and adapt.
I.e., some/many species die off, others are created. With modern technology and skills, it seems like it would be easy for mankind to adjust and, indeed, even prosper as a result of such change. As far as sea levels are concerned, I'm freely admitting that they would logically rise -- in fact, they may rise considerably. However, the flooding of coastal and low-lying areas (while highly inconvenient for those therein or nearby) is a small concern when you're talking about the human race as a whole. As I said, some economies would be ruined, and untold millions would quite possibly die -- from such varied causes as drowning, starvation, dehydration (assuming rainfall patterns change, which is a safe assumption), etc. But this is all assuming the worst, which I am admittedly prone to doing.
This is a fallacious argument at best. Yes, we know for sure there were locations with climate that allowed other species to live.
However :
-First, we don't know much about the geographical repartition and proportion of these climates, and this is precisely the problem.
-Second, CO2 is not the only factor of temperature repartition. The whole repartition of continents and oceans was different at the time, so the temperature currents, both aerial and oceanic, were totally different.
It's quite fallacious from a scientifical point of view to compare these two climates and say "So, you see, climate would be pretty okay" because, well the two systems are too different to be correlated so easily.
-Third, what concerns us is not whether the climate was survivable, but whether it is suitable for our economy and way of life. A tropical climate, which is perfectly fine for a wide range of other species, is not exactly best suited for human economy.
That's why the argument dinosaurs enjoyed a really sunny and lovely climate during the cretaceous is laughable.
Yet as I said before global warming is just a small part of our environmental preoccupations, and it at least have the merit of bringing these preoccupations forward.
aronsearle said:
Sorry, what rock are you living under. Billions of pounds are being siphoned of on carbon credit schemes, in a few years this will go up to trillions. Businesses are being closed down because of C02 scares, (and just opening up in other more polluting countries) I could name many examples, but they are quite easily found on the net, please don't claim ignorance on something that is in fact happening right now, and is quite easy to read up on.
I'm still claiming ignorance and would like you to enlighten me, really about the precise devastation.
Numerical large-scale analysis would be better, of course.
the French nuclear power strategy has nothing to do with MMGW, they didnt "switch to" nuclear because of it.
The point was more whether it is a a) devastating or b) economically viable strategy.
Such technology are not suitable for all climates, and are being pushed in some areas where they are not suitable. For instance wind power needs almost 100% backup, this is currently provided by quick firing gas turbine generators, which are inefficient, expensive, and we all know about the potential security issues facing future gas supplies, particularity in Europe. Energy bills are already rising because of the decision to push for such technology.
The big solar facilities being built in America, Spain and Australia are being built in areas 1) pretty suitable and 2) with pretty regular climates.
Also, statistical theory suggests that with a good energy mix and if developped on a sufficiently large scale, energy output is quite stable.
And as far as Wind energy goes, yes, it needs backup, yet as I said with a good mix the period in which you would need backup would be pretty small. I fail to see how it discredit these renewables energies.
Do you really, seriously prefer we continue to rely on fossil energies and not try to research and enhance renewables energies ?
-When you think about it, Nord-European countries are also in pretty bad economic shape, probably because of their low-emission low-consuming houses.
Not even sure what point you are trying to make here.
Yet it's pretty obvious. Depending on the studies, construction related emissions account for a good quarter of the total of our emissions. So enhancing our building standards is in fact one of the most easiest and technologically feasible ways to reduce our CO2 footprint.
Though currently the code for sustainable homes being pushed through is going to mean a big increase in the cost of new homes, (not a good thing when alot of people are already priced out of the market) and there are alot of question marks about the kind of technology's the government is insisting upon in the new standards. There are examples where certain technology is being specified that is actually less efficient than old technology.
Go read up on the subject, you clearly know jack all.
Hum, thank you, I'm actually a student in architecture.
The price for good isolation and solar heating actually accounts for a pretty low percentage of the overall cost of a building, and the reduction in heating needs pays the additional costs in a few years, then it's profit. A photovoltaic installation is also rentabilized whithin a few years.
The fact the standards are being applied in a fucked up way in your country doesn't mean you can generalize it to discredit the whole "let's reduce our emissions" movement.
Go read up on the Iter project, or it's American counterpart, thats the kind of shit we should be throwing money at.
We are actually throwing money at such projects...
Nuclear is not renewable, so stop calling it such. It's just that we have enough fuel to last for hundreds of years.
I didn't say nuclear was renewable. Yet it's cleaner than coal or gas, and resources are plenty.
With the current growth rate in developping countries, a gas or coal based will see emissions sky-rocket and reserves will suddenly seem a lot more limited. So what do you suggest, that we stick to it and just wait the end of the reserves to START searching for solutions ?
Also speaking about gas and coal, you happen to have ressources in England and that's fine.
Yet the case of the other european countries is way different. Europe as a whole depend heavily on importations and it seems it will tend to depend more and more in the future. That's not what I call a sustainaible situation. I'm all for developping an energy mix that makes us independent energetically.
(
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/imports_scenarios.png)
dunno where now...
