How or Why we will reverse global warming

[MiloMorai]

Correct Zimme, it is the rate of change.

[bustr]

When you visit enough of the global warming consensus agreement web sites you run into two repeated fixed in stone projections.

1. - The year 2100 as the best estimate when all the bad stuff will start killing us. Just long enough for everyone to make their money and enjoy it. Or accumulate power to "humanitarianly" protect us from ourselves from the coming biblical disaster by the year 2100. Along with the ability to levy taxes on a global stage to redistribute wealth from the first world nations to the less privileged to protect us from ourselves and 2100. These very same groups laugh at the end of the world religious groups who declare the rapture is upon us about every 20 years. Those religious groups ain't got nothing on this world wide religious group called "The Consensus".

2. - A nebulous statement in the vein of what I've included from one of these sites below which is a veiled support of a world government. Local governments are incapable of meeting the looming biblical catastrophe because they are only concerned about local interests. National governments, well many seem to have political parties in the midst of trying to give allegiance to the UN. The end is coming in 2100 and only those who believe in the "Consensus" as globally minded citizens are capable of saving us.

But wait a minute, all them "Consensus" weenies will be long gone and in the grave by 2100....hmmmmm....

-------------------------------------------------------

Below is some beautiful syntactical crapola but, it's the endgame nebulous solution that all of these concerned scientific consensus groups come up with. Local is no longer enough because in 2100 this will be global, and beyond the scope of nationalism. Try this out on China if you don't have a really big army today. But, 2100 is 80 years away......

From: Yale e360

Local governments cannot be expected to take the lead. The problems created by sea level rise are international and national, not local, in scope. Local governments of coastal towns (understandably) follow the self-interests of coastal property owners and developers, so preservation of buildings and maintaining tax base is inevitably a very high priority. In addition, the resources needed to respond to sea level rise will be far beyond those available to local communities.

 Responding to long-term sea level rise will pose unprecedented challenges to the international community. Economic and humanitarian disasters can be avoided, but only through wise, forward-looking planning. Tough decisions will need to be made regarding the allocation of resources and response to natural disasters. Let us hope that our political leadership can provide the bold vision and strong leadership that will be required to implement a reasoned response.

[Zimme83]

Even China is on board the train, 97% of scientist worldwide also. Pretty much US and its oil industry that tries to deny it.

[Zimme83]

But as I see it, they can be right and they can be wrong, and since nothing bad happen if they are wrong but it will be disastrous if they are right only a fool will assume they are wrong.
 Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

[eagl]

I live in a desert that used to be sea bottom before there were even humans.  Sorry, not buying the hype.  I'm all in favor of reducing/eliminating toxic pollution but the climate will change whether we do anything or not.  What makes us human is that we will adapt to the change and thrive rather than simply going extinct.

[Brooke]

The variation of the temperature is not the key problem,

If there are dire things triggered at a particular C02 concentration or at a particular temperature (such as ocean acidification, or melting of methane hydrates, or reversal of ocean currents that warm Europe), it can be more that rate.

its about how fast it goes. And also the fact that a lot of people lives along the coast lines, if the ocean level rise it will have huge consequenses, regardless of whats causing it.

The predictions (according the numerous references cited in this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise ) of sea level rise by 2100 range from 0.2 m at the lowest to 5 m as the highest upper limit.  The average of the values given seems to be about 1.3 m.  I suspect that mankind can handle that over 80 years, given that tidal min to max is more than that in many coastal areas and given that normal beach waves min to max are often that size.

I'm a lot less worried about sea level rise (especially since it is so slow) than the potential catastrophic things listed in the 1st paragraph.  But, given that the earth did just fine during periods of many times the CO2 we have now and much higher temperatures that we have now, and given that an ice age is enormously more harmful for mankind than warming, and given that periodic ice ages are not speculation, I think it is possible that more CO2 is a good thing.

Regardless, a lot of this global-warming furor is based on models.  I've done a lot of modelling both in academia and professionally (various adaptive models, models of neural systems, models of market systems), and as a result I am highly skeptical of the predictive power of climate models.  They have, to first order approximation, one zillion adjustable parameters.  Models with lots of adjustable parameters, while they might fit past data very well, might very well have no predictive power.

[NatCigg]

 

We need a predictive model of food shortages, disease, and social strife.  I bet that would scare everyone. 

[earl1937]

We need a predictive model of food shortages, disease, and social strife.  I bet that would scare everyone. 

At one of our national food chain stores here in my area, I ask the manager one day, how many days food do you have on hand at any one time? His reply, we keep a 7 day supply of food on the shelves at any one time!
Now my question is, should we have a "computer" shutdown for a lengthy period of time, What do we then do for food? I shutter to think what would go on if no one could run down to the groc store and pick up their normal supply of food!

[Zimme83]

If there are dire things triggered at a particular C02 concentration or at a particular temperature (such as ocean acidification, or melting of methane hydrates, or reversal of ocean currents that warm Europe), it can be more that rate.

The predictions (according the numerous references cited in this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise ) of sea level rise by 2100 range from 0.2 m at the lowest to 5 m as the highest upper limit.  The average of the values given seems to be about 1.3 m.  I suspect that mankind can handle that over 80 years, given that tidal min to max is more than that in many coastal areas and given that normal beach waves min to max are often that size.

I'm a lot less worried about sea level rise (especially since it is so slow) than the potential catastrophic things listed in the 1st paragraph.  But, given that the earth did just fine during periods of many times the CO2 we have now and much higher temperatures that we have now, and given that an ice age is enormously more harmful for mankind than warming, and given that periodic ice ages are not speculation, I think it is possible that more CO2 is a good thing.

Regardless, a lot of this global-warming furor is based on models.  I've done a lot of modelling both in academia and professionally (various adaptive models, models of neural systems, models of market systems), and as a result I am highly skeptical of the predictive power of climate models.  They have, to first order approximation, one zillion adjustable parameters.  Models with lots of adjustable parameters, while they might fit past data very well, might very well have no predictive power.

It is a very complex thing to predict and all serious scientist admit that.
 Sea level rising is as you say probably not the worst problem we have to deal with. Pollution of air and water is a much more serious problem today, a lot of cities have an envirorment harmful to humans. Droughts and shortage of water is also at risk of becoming more severe and it will hit poor countries first and might spark armed conflicts.

Other serious issues we will have to deal with is that increased wealth in the 3rd world countries will increase the demand for oil and other natural rescources, if the average human by 2050 use as much oil as the average american does today oil production need to increase by nearly 1000%. Its not hard to figure out that it will be very challenging to do that.

[NatCigg]

At one of our national food chain stores here in my area, I ask the manager one day, how many days food do you have on hand at any one time? His reply, we keep a 7 day supply of food on the shelves at any one time!
Now my question is, should we have a "computer" shutdown for a lengthy period of time, What do we then do for food? I shutter to think what would go on if no one could run down to the groc store and pick up their normal supply of food!

Now that is scary.  No need to worry about co 2 when riots for survival arrive.  Fresh water will also be a problem.  No living in the desert unless you want to drink fog and filtered urine (no whineing either)  .

[DmonSlyr]

We need a predictive model of food shortages, disease, and social strife.  I bet that would scare everyone. 

Food Shortages? Nah, there will be too many poor people who cannot afford to buy enough, and they are using GMO's to grow food faster and better. The whole GMO conspiracy that they are dangerous is a myth, and studies prove that. Humans ability to keep food available is of course sparked by profits more than anything. Think about how many chickens a Chic Fil A goes through and they aren't even fully multinational company yet. They will keep food prosperous for a long time. I don't think we would have to worry about any famines in our life time.

Disease is becoming more and more redundant now than ever before. While the news media my have you thinking differently, vaccines, stem cells, and current medicine technology, and 3D organ printing, are getting 100Xs better. In the next 15 years, I expect we will have a cure for cancer or a treatment that will kill it completely. I have already invested in ISR a Proxcelan Cesium-131 brachytherapy seeds producer company that is doing an enormous job of stopping cancer and killing brain tumors before it spreads. These types of technology are going to continue to develop and continue to rid people of disease. Cancer is the biggest disease we have to face today, it is our generations weakness. We must stop cancer or it will continue to wipe out our population. On the positive side, disease has drastically decreased, HPV and HIV have drastically decreased, and our society is becoming much more aware of disease and prevention.

Social Strife! There is your winner!

This is the BIGGEST problem our society faces today. The social technology and Social Media has changed the way people perceive the world. We can record our every move on social media. We can televise all of the terrible events and tragedies that happen all day long, we have an entire internet at our fingertips to share ideas. This stresses people out and scares them, it puts them in a frantic state of caution and worry. Social mental health will become a big problem facing developed nations. We care too much about what other people think of us. We care too much about being successful in the eyes of other people. What we are seeing is that our benefits are not outweighing the growth in technology or profits. Our perception that higher education = higher pay is becoming a false reality. We have young people paying 25% in taxes and student loans on top of it, this is crippling our young people.  We are killing the growth in our people by providing them with too little. Half of the United States workforce make under 30K, that is preposterous! A medium 57K earnings per household is a sad sad statistic in America that should be a huge indicator of why mental health is such a big issue. Once that makes an impact on a nation you see social strife, stress, ambiguity towards social standards, hatred of our government, the split of right or left. These are issues that our country stresses over and it impacts people's lives. Mental Health and drug usage are becoming KEY indicators that our people are suffering. IF we continue to raise the cost of healthcare, IF we continue to tax our youth at enormous rates, IF we continue to devalue our employment, IF we continue to let social media dictate our thoughts and emotions, We are going to see a mental health catastrophe and a society full of people with no motivation and no prosperity. 

[FLOOB]

Guys shutup and join my clan on Clash of Clans. GLAM REAPERS

[FLOOB]

If there are dire things triggered at a particular C02 concentration or at a particular temperature (such as ocean acidification, or melting of methane hydrates, or reversal of ocean currents that warm Europe), it can be more that rate.

They say that's maybe how the permian extinction got rolling.

[NatCigg]

Last winter I listened to a vice news ad about scientists using viruses to fight cancer. HIV and meningitis I believe.

[NatCigg]

There is also a red guy who speaks logic but I save that for Facebook.