If we just send them money and buy carbon credits then we will all be saved! LOL
BTW. I built a meteor deflector. I'm not going to tell you how to make yours unless you send your money to...
If we just send them money and buy carbon credits then we will all be saved! LOL
BTW. I built a meteor deflector. I'm not going to tell you how to make yours unless you send your money to...
Last edited by carolina73; 12-20-2021 at 07:08 PM.
Let's go Brandon !!!
MisterVeritis (12-20-2021)
So, what is the temperature that the Earth is supposed to be at? How do we know that the Earth is not just moving towards the temperature it considers 'normal'?
There are very few people who do not agree that weather is changing, albeit slowly. It is the means, and what some want to do to 'stop' it that is the contention.
Taxing it will not stop the weather from changing.
Forcing people to do specific actions like a certain type of light bulb is not going to stop it.
Crying panic in the streets is not going to change anything.
With the number of failed declarations, wolf has been cried too many times to take the alarmists seriously. 'Is it too late' is one of those alarmist formats.
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison
MisterVeritis (12-20-2021)
This is the conclusion from a different study (Annual Review of Environment and Resources) on long-term sea level rise. It was published in August of 2018.
" Over two millennia, they project a commitment of 1.4–5.2 m from 1°C of warming, 3.0–7.7 m from 2°C of warming, and 6.0–12.1 m from 4°C of warming."
1 meter = 3.28 feet. With 2.0 degrees C. of warming this study projects 9.8 to 25.2 feet of sea level rise after 2000 years. The sea level would continue to
rise after 2000 years.
Mapping Sea-Level Change in Time, Space, and Probability | Annual Review of Environment and Resources (annualreviews.org)
4.4.5. Multi-millennial projections.
"The effects of climate change on sea level are not felt instantaneously; rather, due to the slow response time of deep ocean heat uptake and the sluggish response of ice sheets, they play out over millennia. The long-term sea-level response to a given emission future is sometimes called a “sea-level commitment” (168). Levermann et al. (168) use a combination of physical models for ocean warming, glaciers, ice caps, and ice-sheet contributions to assess the sea-level change arising from two millennia of exposure to a constant temperature. Over 2,000 years, they find a sea-level commitment of approximately 2.3 m/°C of warming. They note, however, that over longer time periods Greenland exhibits an abrupt threshold of ice loss between 0.8 and 2.2°C that ultimately adds approximately 6 m to GMSL. Incorporating this abrupt threshold yields a relationship, they conclude, that is consistent with paleo–sea-level constraints from the LIG, the MPWP, and Marine Isotope Stage 11 (approximately 411–401 thousand years ago). Over two millennia, they project a commitment of 1.4–5.2 m from 1°C of warming, 3.0–7.7 m from 2°C of warming, and 6.0–12.1 m from 4°C of warming. Over ten millennia, these numbers increase to 1.5–10.9 m, 3.5–13.5 m, and 12.0–16.0 m. Clark et al. (169) use physical models to consider not only the translation between temperature and long-term sea-level change, but also the translation between emissions and temperature."
"They estimate that historical CO2 emissions have already locked in 1.2–2.2 m of sea-level rise, and phasing emissions down to zero over the course of the next ∼90 years will lock in another ∼9 m."
Seas May Rise 2.3 Meters per Degree C of Global Warming: Report - Scientific American
I assume if this is nothing but a bot.
No conversations. no answers. Just posting articles.
Let's go Brandon !!!
Standing Wolf (12-20-2021)
Is it melting.......again?!
"LET'S GO BRANDON!"
Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
--John Adams
MisterVeritis (12-20-2021)
The quickest, easiest, and cheapest way to mitigate CO2 emissions is to plant trees. Freeman Dyson (apparently a right-wing kook now that he's questioned the conventional wisdom of "climate change") has attempted to point this out, but to little avail. It appears the "climate change" fanatics are less interested in real solutions than they are in growing government purely for its own sake.
Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
--John Adams
MisterVeritis (12-20-2021)
Planting trees will help but by how much? It takes much time to plant large numbers of trees and it takes many decades for trees to be mature enough to make a difference. Trees also often die before they mature, and absorb much sunlight therefore warming the Earth's surface. Eventually all trees die and the carbon goes into the atmosphere or soil. I was surprised that none of the articles I read mentioned this. I have read that it makes sense to plant trees in tropical zones but doing that limits a nations ability to make money by planting crops.
Examining the Viability of Planting Trees to Help Mitigate Climate Change – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)
“Planting a billion hectares of trees won’t be easy,” he said. “It would require a massive undertaking. If we follow the paper’s recommendations, reforesting an area the size of the United States and Canada combined (1 to 2 billion hectares) could take between one and two thousand years, assuming we plant a million hectares a year and that each hectare contains at least 50 to 100 trees to create an appropriate treetop canopy cover.”
Even once the trees are planted, says Saatchi, it will take them about a century to reach maturity. Most forests in the United States are less than 100 years old because they are recycled constantly. Trees in tropical regions take a little bit longer to reach maturity, but sequester carbon much faster. We know it will take time for new forests to absorb atmospheric carbon.”
ttps://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/03/the-pros-and-cons-of-planting-trees-to-address-global-warming/
James Temple, senior editor for energy at MIT Technology Review, summed up the view of many experts in a January 28 piece when he wrote:
“It’s great that trees are having a moment. Nations absolutely should plant and protect as many as possible. … But it’s also a limited and unreliable way of addressing climate change.”
Temple raised a few more important points, some of which have been echoed elsewhere. Among them: trees take time to grow and reach maturity – decades and even centuries for redwoods and other behemoths that can store massive amounts of carbon. If you think you’re going to immediately offset your carbon footprint from flying across the country by planting a tree … think again.
Another point Temple made: You really have to work the numbers to get a true sense of the challenge. For example, he wrote, the U.S. produced 5.8 billion gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2019. To offset that much CO2 pollution, you’d have to plant a forest – and wait for it to fully mature – that is more than twice the size of Texas.
The one-trillion tree campaign raises still more questions for forest ecologists – one of them having to do with biodiversity. If the campaign results in what are essentially tree plantations lacking biodiversity and genetic variation, often referred to as monoculture, those artificial forests won’t get very far.