Paris climate Agreement and the 1.5 degree thing.

a reply to: network dude

You can't just go sticking a tower or large boxy thing any old place you want. You have to get permission and hope to get it as close to where you want as possible.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: network dude

Earth has a natural carbon cycle that should, if left to it's own devices, leave a steady 350ish ppm in the atmosphere. Earth has natural carbon sinks and natural releases. Earth also sequesters so much CO2 every year, but now not only are burning carbon for fuel, the extra warmth we have created thus far is thawing frozen CO2 as well as other GHG's.

All of this is overwhelming the natural carbon cycle. The more CO2 and other GHG's in the atmosphere the less heat escapes back into space and bounces back to the surface. Hope that helps.

What about before humans ever roamed the earth... were CO2 ppm levels higher than today at any time? Or do we just not know for sure?

I was reading this paper on the subject..

Abstract:

The carbon dioxide (CO2) content of the atmosphere has varied cyclically between ~180 and ~280 parts per million by volume over the past 800,000 years, closely coupled with temperature and sea level. For earlier periods in Earth’s history, the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) is much less certain, and the relation between pCO2 and climate remains poorly constrained. We use boron/calcium ratios in foraminifera to estimate pCO2 during major climate transitions of the past 20 million years. During the Middle Miocene, when temperatures were ~3° to 6°C warmer and sea level was 25 to 40 meters higher than at present, pCO2 appears to have been similar to modern levels. Decreases in pCO2 were apparently synchronous with major episodes of glacial expansion during the Middle Miocene (~14 to 10 million years ago) and Late Pliocene (~3.3 to 2.4 million years ago).

I wonder what caused the CO2 levels to be as high in the past as they are now.

a reply to: TrueBrit

There is no way you can tell me, with a straight face, that plastics cannot be returned to a raw state by some means, and reprocessed into new items or materials. It makes no actual sense.

I have been recycling for many years now, over two decades I think. I pay to dump my trash and recycling has reduced that cost by nearly 40%.

Some plastics are not recyclable not because they cannot be recycled but because it costs too much to do so and it is cheaper, uses less energy, to use raw materials. Some plastics are made to be recycled after use and other are not, I suppose it all depends on what these plastics are going to be used for.
The idea is to manufacture all materials for packaging with the idea of recycling in mind. This takes forethought and might be more expensive than traditional ways. As a consumer you may also notice that the packaging of some things you buy are made with recycled materials or are recyclable. I know here in the States there are many choices in this regard.

a reply to: Devino

I don't know about other places than the US mainland, but if you look at history, droughts are cycles. They move every few years to different spots. It's why people still live along the big rivers despite the flooding. They have several years of non flooding to help them forget they live in a flood prone area.

originally posted by: Devino
a reply to: TrueBrit

There is no way you can tell me, with a straight face, that plastics cannot be returned to a raw state by some means, and reprocessed into new items or materials. It makes no actual sense.

I have been recycling for many years now, over two decades I think. I pay to dump my trash and recycling has reduced that cost by nearly 40%.

Some plastics are not recyclable not because they cannot be recycled but because it costs too much to do so and it is cheaper, uses less energy, to use raw materials. Some plastics are made to be recycled after use and other are not, I suppose it all depends on what these plastics are going to be used for.
The idea is to manufacture all materials for packaging with the idea of recycling in mind. This takes forethought and might be more expensive than traditional ways. As a consumer you may also notice that the packaging of some things you buy are made with recycled materials or are recyclable. I know here in the States there are many choices in this regard.

As George Carlin once said, plastic is the answer to the meaning of life... God couldn't make it, so he created humans to make it for him.

a reply to: UKTruth

Yes CO2 was higher than now at other points in time and those periods would be inhospitable to humans. Keeping the GHG's at current levels isn't about saving the planet, it's about keeping it hospitable for us.

a reply to: network dude
I think what is unprecedented is the amount of people living on this planet now and the enormous amount of food required to feed everyone. What do you think a sustained 10% decrease in global food production would do? I am under the impression that this is a delicate balance and such a dramatic reduction would be devastating.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes CO2 was higher than now at other points in time and those periods would be inhospitable to humans. Keeping the GHG's at current levels isn't about saving the planet, it's about keeping it hospitable for us.

The question I have is why AGW is non debatable if the pCO2 had risen to the same levels before humans even existed.

The other point from the study (which was in 2009) is that sea levels were 25-40m higher and temps were 3-6 degrees warmer than today, with similar pCO2. If the correlation is so tight, why is that?

a reply to: Devino

Unless you look into how much waste there is in the US alone with regard to food.
www.theatlantic.com...

a reply to: Kali74

Could you provide evidence showing how it would be 'inhospitable' to humans?

Are you saying that humans have no phenotypic plasticity?

I would really enjoy seeing your attempt at an explanation.

a reply to: network dude

Good post. I think we have to have these discussions. The big problem I see is people like Imhofe who brings a snowball into congress to show that Global Warming is a hoax. We first have to at least agree that the earth is getting warmer.

Then we have another problem, like the Governor of Florida, where they weren't allowed to even use terms like Global Warming or Sea Level rise. How are we even supposed to have a conversation when we aren't allowed to talk about it?

The third problem is the entrenched/monopoly Coal/Gas/Oil/Car Manufacturer/Energy Companies. They are taking Billions of dollars in Subsidies and tax breaks, but we only talk about tax breaks for renewable energy? Then they make it hard to put solar panels on houses and buy electric cars etc. It should be about the free market and if someone want's to put solar panels on their house or buy a Tesla, it should be easy for them to do. Let those industries die on their own, without government killing them.

The forth problem is that all we ever talk about is Carbon Taxes when we talk about global warming. We should be able to discuss Sea Level rise and what to do about it or prepare for it. We should be able to discuss more erratic weather and how to prepare for it. We should be able to discuss the military putting up solar farms.

And the biggest problem could be heat waves/Drought and famine. It may not seem like a big problem but we knew there's a refugee/immigration problem in the world it will only get worse. We need to be able to prepare right now for it.

None of those points brings up whether we can effect the environment or who's to blame. But on a side note, almost every single thing proposed to combat global warming is good for us especially in regards to dependence on oil and pollution of every kind and getting us out of the middle east. Wouldn't it be nice to never have a war over oil, like IRAq again?

a reply to: UKTruth

There's about 500 million threads on that topic and honestly it's the very beginning of the conversation, one I'm tired of having. I suspect you know exactly why science says it's different, I have no interest in debating the preface all over again, sorry.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Biologically it's highly doubtful we can adapt fast enough. No I don't have proof... technology may save our asses but our bodies won't.

a reply to: network dude

It was nice discussing this with you and refreshing not to have the hate. Kudos.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: UKTruth

There's about 500 million threads on that topic and honestly it's the very beginning of the conversation, one I'm tired of having. I suspect you know exactly why science says it's different, I have no interest in debating the preface all over again, sorry.

There are none that really explain why it is different. There are theories.
Unfortunately that is not enough to make this subject as closed to debate as some would like us to believe.

Juncker, an un-elected dictator is telling Trump he can't pull out of the Paris accord...

Trying to strong arm the US , just as he is with Britain ref Brexit.

I am a transatlantic, but if the American president says in the next few hours or days he wants to get out of the Paris deal, then it is the duty of Europe to say this is not the case.

www.express.co.uk...

These globalists have no regard for nation states.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: network dude

It was nice discussing this with you and refreshing not to have the hate. Kudos.

agreed!

My problem has always been China and India.Are they going to adhere to the Paris agreement?If they don't,then what the rest of the world does won't make any difference.My 2 cents.

a reply to: UKTruth

These globalists have no regard for nation states.

Uh, well........yea, that's pretty much how globalization works. And they may well be succeeding from what I've seen.

Awesome thread folks!!!

And to add some humor

The sun is the 🔑

We need "not sure"