Global Warming And Climate Change A serious threat?

[sMASH]

why would we NOT want to reverse global warming?

[meccalli]

what's happens in a hot climate like ours if decades from now the avarage temp increases by 3-5C? EVERYDAY will be what we now consider to be a heat wave

Given our apparent track record of causing immense increase in co2 (fractional increases of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere as compared to historic periods on earth), what happens if we overcompensate? Ice age, reduced production levels in agriculture? Clearly not since there are other compounding factors that serve as buffers such as ocean and it's inherent qualities of absorbing heat while resisting rapid temperature change and solar activity.
The factors that allowed CO2 to be 4000 and 2000ppm in the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods while sustaining glaciation events as compared to our current 411 ppm were a dimmer sun outputting less irradiation and a colder ocean. No surprise there.

[meccalli]

why would we NOT want to reverse global warming?

What we should be asking is if it's even possible at all with controlling CO2 emissions.

[sMASH]

I'm not asking that, cause u don't need to reduce co2, to influence temperature reduction.

I'm asking the climate change deniers why should we not reduce the temperatures a couple degrees?

[screwbash]

[*]is not climate change, its the US of A. they controlling the weather and cause this disaster in trinidad and i sure guyana to distract from the petrotin fiasco so that trini will become dependent on venezuela and then invade trinidad to wage war with venezuela to get all the oil in the region. daz y US $$$ get scarce jus so jus so, in a year time or so we will be considered a us colony and trade in US $ and the 1% know this. the us banks aint go change TT for US as TT aint go worth the paper it printed on and all ah we go hadda start from scratch as we will have NO money and we go hadda sell we soul to take loans or suffer till we get a salary to pay for goods and services. daz y gas hadda buy from outside at the world market price, water and current hadda be the same, local manufacturers will hadda compete with cheap US products like chicken and cereal and juices to name a few.

[Miktay]

I'm not asking that, cause u don't need to reduce co2, to influence temperature reduction.

I'm asking the climate change deniers why should we not reduce the temperatures a couple degrees?

How would u do that?

[sMASH]

because the place too hot.

is there any reason why NOT to do it?

[maj. tom]

How would you do it? Why would you do it?

Humans have been here for a mere fragment of time on earth, and we suddenly believe that the planet owes us certain conditions to survive? I think nature forces adaptation and evolution, or species simply die out. In 50,000 years the Antarctic may be a lush green savannah once again, and the humans that have adapted will still be around, albeit with some evolutionary changes and advantages to handle the heat.

I think we need to focus on reducing pollution by developing more sustainable and efficient energy sources, and focus on reducing and removing our plastic waste in the environment.

Have you ever read Frank Herbert's Dune?

[sMASH]

the adaptation is that species goes extinct. do u want to go extinct?

the adaption that humans have developed is that they have brains to develop and use complex tools, and massive information communication. no physiological adaptation. so, what we can do is manipulate the environment to suit our needs.

but, as the colder places get warmer, the hot places would be uninhabitable, and there is a lot less surface area at the higher latitude compared to the lower latitudes.

but, by then antartica will be overall thawed out, so, new lands there to build on.

[meccalli]

So you're saying as opposed to using our intelligence to develop measures to deal with historically inevitable phenomenon, we're better off spending our time imagining how to stop volcanoes from erupting, how to sustain or control solar irradiation or how to alter the path of meteors or even the latent heat in oceans? Extinction events are another major part of Earth's history. The irony is the fact that we're still in shambles trying to deal with a gas that comprises 0.04% of our atmosphere.

[black start]

Global warming is a hoax....

[Miktay]

because the place too hot.

is there any reason why NOT to do it?

U sounding a lot like a politician....

The question has to be addressed.

I'm not asking that, cause u don't need to reduce co2, to influence temperature reduction.

I'm asking the climate change deniers why should we not reduce the temperatures a couple degrees?

How would u do that?

[sMASH]

It can be done, very quickly, but it ould not be the best way.

The safer, but harder way is co2 reduction and recapture.

[Miktay]

It can be done, very quickly, but it ould not be the best way.

The safer, but harder way is co2 reduction and recapture.

Still sounding like a politician....plenty ole talk....no substance...

And that’s part of the problem: the entire AGW debate has been heavily politicized.

If you’re recommending a scientific or engineered solution to a possible problem...ole talk and environmental nancy stories wont be effective.

[sMASH]

earth was originally a co2 atomoshpere. the cyanobacteria is what took out the co2 to and got it to the concentrations we have now. that would have taken a long time to do. but with industrialized systems, we could use the co2 scrubbers of plants to acheive that same effect. that is the safer 'how' to get it done.
yes, reduces how much co2 we put into the atmosphere, but also sequester some of it.

[redmanjp]

I bet yuh some simple minded ppl go say just use AC and you doh have to worry bout heat.

Of course this contributes to a vicious cycle: A.C. usage >increased power consumption > increased power plant emissions > increased warming> bigger increase in A.C. usage... etc. In the future when temps hit 45C no A.C. bring dat down lower than 30 unless u have massive amts of insulation or using massive ants of electricity which of course worsens the situation.

The other thing is vehicles. Do we really need to have tens of thousands of mostly passengerless vehicles every weekday clogging up the road, creating traffic and more to the point emitting CO2? If we put all those ppl (mostly drivers really) into buses how much less vehicles on the road? The road will be more like on a Sunday and a lot less CO2.

[Miktay]

earth was originally a co2 atomoshpere. the cyanobacteria is what took out the co2 to and got it to the concentrations we have now. that would have taken a long time to do. but with industrialized systems, we could use the co2 scrubbers of plants to acheive that same effect. that is the safer 'how' to get it done.
yes, reduces how much co2 we put into the atmosphere, but also sequester some of it.

Thiz iz the typical alarmist hot air and innuendo.

You should run for parliament...

[sMASH]

any good reason NOT to try to reduce global temps?

[meccalli]

we could use the co2 scrubbers of plants to acheive that same effect. that is the safer 'how' to get it done.
yes, reduces how much co2 we put into the atmosphere, but also sequester some of it.

I'm not asking that, cause u don't need to reduce co2, to influence temperature reduction.

Not sure if you meant something else.

[sMASH]

it have a bad way to do it, and it would drop temps like a brick, but it bad and it might kill every thing.

[meccalli]

it have a bad way to do it, and it would drop temps like a brick, but it bad and it might kill every thing.

That was your solution? Triggering krakatau?

[sMASH]

in a more controlled manner

[maj. tom]

Won't that just release more CO2 in one event than human could ever release in 100 years of man-made pollution? And after the ash winter, the global temperature just increase again dramatically? And not fully understanding what we're doing, won't that be a huge risk of creating an artificial runaway extinction event from which the planet may not recover from for millions of years?

Humans cannot harness the amount of energy like natural events which will enable us to make the kind of difference you're thinking about. We haven't reached there yet. Star Trek is very, very, very far away.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

Moving to electric cars will not solve most of our problems, most of the C02 comes from big power plants burning fossil fuel. I once read a guardian uk report where cars had like almost 0 impact.

[adnj]

Y Combinator's carbon-removal push



The startup accelerator Y Combinator is looking to fund entrepreneurs and non-profit researchers working on "frontier technologies" for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The big picture: Y Combinator is among the most influential organizations in the startup world and has helped launch Dropbox, Airbnb and others. Its new request for applications comes two weeks after a major UN science report concluded that carbon removal — not just a huge expansion of zero-carbon energy — will be needed to prevent the dire consequences of allowing warming beyond 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.


Per YC's website, "While these approaches are not our Plan A, we think it's time to get Plan B ready."

What they're doing: Among other approaches, YC is looking at four broad areas that they say deserve more attention and potential funding:

The use of genetically engineered ocean phytoplankton that sequesters CO2.

Electro-geochemistry, which would use renewable energy to power an electrochemical process that speeds up the earth's natural CO2 absorption in rock formations while also creating hydrogen.

Cell-free enzyme systems that "could fix carbon in perpetuity."

"Desert flooding" to create shallow reservoirs that could be used to grow carbon-absorbing phytoplankton while providing irrigation and freshwater nearby areas.

What's next: YC president Sam Altman tells me that ideally they would fund a "small handful" of companies next year.

He guesses the number will eventually be between 5 and 20 in order to have a "reasonable chance of success."

Under YC's model, they initially provide $150,000 to startups in return for a 7% equity stake, with additional financing possible.

The odds: Altman acknowledges that the chances of success are low, but while the ideas identified are very difficult, they do not seem "prevented by the laws of physics."

The four approaches identified by YC have generally not gotten as much prior attention as other CO2 removal technologies, such as direct air capture and bio-energy with carbon capture and storage.

What they're saying: Noah Deich, executive director of the group Carbon180 (formerly the Center for Carbon Removal), offers a mix of praise and caution.

"This is very much outside of the mainstream of what carbon removal technologies are currently being developed," says Deich, whose group has focused on direct air capture, forest restoration and planting, and other methods.

He adds that diversity is good when it comes to exploring CO2 removal technologies.

But, but, but: Deich tells Axios that applying the venture capital model to large-scale strategies like those that YC is exploring bring risks of "externalities"" — harms and costs that aren’t borne by investors.

This means engagement with a wide group of researchers, communities and other stakeholders is key, he says. "It's important to have their voices heard from the beginning."

I asked Altman about whether the venture model is appropriate here. "I don’t think any private company should make the decision about what to deploy," he answers.

Instead, Altman says, the effort is about seeing whether private industry and researchers can find workable solutions, which would be followed by a wider "global debate" about whether to try and implement them.

While there are risks, he notes that "the path of doing nothing is high risk."

Between the lines: In a blog post yesterday, Altman notes that YC has funded clean energy companies and will continue doing so, but cites the UN report to argue that emissions-cutting is not enough.


https://www.axios.com/y-combinator-carbon-removal-climate-change-1de49418-bf38-42c3-9466-55c708326137.html

[adnj]

Modern sea-level rise linked to human activities, Rutgers research reaffirms
Surprising glacial and nearly ice-free periods in last 66 million years

Rutgers University


New research by Rutgers scientists reaffirms that modern sea-level rise is linked to human activities and not to changes in Earth's orbit.

Surprisingly, the Earth had nearly ice-free conditions with carbon dioxide levels not much higher than today and had glacial periods in times previously believed to be ice-free over the last 66 million years, according to a paper published in the journal Science Advances.

"Our team showed that the Earth's history of glaciation was more complex than previously thought," said lead author Kenneth G. Miller, a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences in the School of Arts and Sciences at Rutgers University-New Brunswick. "Although carbon dioxide levels had an important influence on ice-free periods, minor variations in the Earth's orbit were the dominant factor in terms of ice volume and sea-level changes - until modern times."

Sea-level rise, which has accelerated in recent decades, threatens to permanently inundate densely populated coastal cities and communities, other low-lying lands and costly infrastructure by 2100. It also poses a grave threat to many ecosystems and economies.

The paper reconstructed the history of sea levels and glaciation since the age of the dinosaurs ended. Scientists compared estimates of the global average sea level, based on deep-sea geochemistry data, with continental margin records. Continental margins, which include the relatively shallow ocean waters over a continental shelf, can extend hundreds of miles from the coast.

The study showed that periods of nearly ice-free conditions, such as 17 million to 13 million years ago, occurred when the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide - a key greenhouse gas driving climate change - was not much higher than today. However, glacial periods occurred when the Earth was previously thought to be ice-free, such as from 48 million to 34 million years ago.

"We demonstrate that although atmospheric carbon dioxide had an important influence on ice-free periods on Earth, ice volume and sea-level changes prior to human influences were linked primarily to minor variations in the Earth's orbit and distance from the sun," Miller said.

https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/202 ... 051120.php

[sMASH]

this vid was released BEFORE texas got its ass frozed off.

[maj. tom]

^ Colder, worse winters do fit in with global warming, due to a more turbulent Arctic Oscillation because the region is getting warmer and the ice is melting. The heat ultimately causes a stretching of the polar vortex which then enables extremely cold weather to flow down to the US during the negative phase.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/270/cold-snaps-plus-global-warming-do-add-up/

___________________________________________________________________________________

More real time effects of the Climate Change

Kentucky floods: Death toll rises to 37, hundreds still missing
This is the worst flash flooding the region has seen in decades.
Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear said the death toll would continue to rise as "hundreds" remained unaccounted for.

More than 12,000 households remained without power, and hundreds of homes and businesses have been flooded.

The damage to roads, bridges and other infrastructure will cost millions to repair, the governor said on Monday.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62381798

[death365]

Of all species that have existed on earth, 99.9% are now extinct. Many of them perished in five cataclysmic events.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/extinction/massext/statement_03.html#:~:text=Of%20all%20species%20that%20have,perished%20in%20five%20cataclysmic%20events.

humans think they so in control but statistically we will go extinct too.

[adnj]

More than 12 inches of sea level rise predicted by 2050.



(CNN) Widespread ice losses from Greenland have locked in nearly a foot of global sea level rise that's set to come in the near future -- and new research suggests there is no way to stop it, even if the world stopped releasing planet-heating emissions today.

The study, published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, found that the overall ice loss from Greenland's ice sheet will trigger at least 10 inches of sea level rise, no matter the climate warming scenarios. That's generally the same amount that global seas have already risen over the last century from Greenland, Antarctica and thermal expansion (when ocean water expands as it warms) combined.

The sea level rise from this melted ice will occur "regardless of any foreseeable future climate pathway this century," according to lead author Jason Box, a scientist with the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. "This water is technically already under the bridge."

While the authors did not specify a timeline, they predict that the change in sea levels can occur between now and the end of the century.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/08/29/worl ... index.html