Climate Change

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
that CO2 dump into the Ocean has been discussed but that is only creating another problem. large amounts of CO2 will cause a drop in pH which will not be good. the Ocean is already acidic and must maintain a very small pH range to keep the ecosystem from going topsy turvy
 
To state it in grossly oversimplistic terms - follow the Chinese lead and attempt to control population growth. (Although I understand that they may be backing off a bit on that.) Without explanation, just a few of the musings I've had:
- Natural (and man-made) disasters are killing more people today than in the past because there are more people, living in denser concentrations, to be killed.
- The technologies that have allowed current population levels to be achieved, and to continue increasing, are all in one way or another energy dependent and are increasingly energy intensive.
- Energy production and consumption have detrimental side effects, many of which have been mentioned throughout this thread, as well as benefits.
- Climate change has been going on since the earth was created. Human interventions can influence the rate of change, and perhaps even the direction of change (based on previous climate change cycles, shouldn't the earth be heading towards another ice age?), but is human influence strong enough to control or overcome the natural climate cycles that are driven by other forces?
- The earth presently has a climate that is ideal for homo sapiens and the other species that exist here - homo sapiens in particular proliferating spectacularly well, aren't we? Whatever direction the climate changes in, be it the seas or ice that covers areas that are presently dry land, at some point the consequenses are going to be less than ideal and one way or another the human population will be adjusted accordingly.

Bottom line, as I see it - at some point we are going to need to develop social structures that are based on a stable, not a continuously increasing, population and bring our breeding habits under control. This won't protect us from an asteroid hit, but it can protect us from ourselves.

AndyH said:
What do you think we as a nation should be doing - targets/goals/big picture wise?
 
Yodrak said:
Climate change has been going on since the earth was created. Human interventions can influence the rate of change, and perhaps even the direction of change (based on previous climate change cycles, shouldn't the earth be heading towards another ice age?), but is human influence strong enough to control or overcome the natural climate cycles that are driven by other forces?
Well, according to the IPCC, the National Academy of Science in the U.S. and the National Academies of multiple other nations, the answer is YES, we are influencing the climate in a very negative way by pumping so much CO2 into the air. One has to wonder why you would be "musing" about this rather than accepting what climate science is telling us--unless, of course, you are a climate scientist about to publish a blockbuster paper that disproves 100 years of scientific understanding.
 
Rake said:
If you:
*had 100 people sitting in comfortable chairs
*there was a ticking time bomb 100 feet away
*all you would have to do to stop it is have 10 people get up and push a big button on the bomb

Most people's first reaction is to sit there, dumbly looking at one another to see if 10 others get up.
We all want the change, but most people are just to dang lazy to make any effort.
That's an EV analogy waiting to happen, if I EVER saw one.
:D
TRONZ said:
As everyone saw, yesterday was a record for tornado activity and related deaths across the southern U.S. April has been a record month for these crazy storms and, if history is correct, May should be even worse! It was good to see that alot of news stations and reporters were asking "what is causing all this?", "it's just not normal", BUT none came out and stated Climate Change. Why? I get that some people dislike facts but the vast majority of Americans are very reasonable people. At what point do Americans sit up and say "now hold on a minute, none of this is normal!... we need to do something!!!"

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html
Maybe THIS would be a better topic:
Static Climate ? ? ?
As far as history (geological or otherwise) shows ... hasn't there ALWAYS been climate change ?? Don't our text books teach us to marvel at how quickly the great dinosaurs went extinct ? Doesn't ancient history like THAT, teach us that even quick climate change is a part of the earth's history? Heck, our Montana home is a relatively short drive from Glacier National Park. Part of the glacier in OUR life time, has receded to the point that the Canadian side of Glacier Park, has no more glacier. Yet the glaciers used to run all the way down, deep into the mid west.

So ... perhaps what we're really beating around the bush about is (dare I say the inflammatory dirty word) man-made climate change. Personally - I am NOT gona go there.
;)
 
I am not musing about whether human activity is having a significant impact on the environment - I agree that it is. An I agree that the impact is global warming. What I'm wondering is, if our impact is strong enough that in the long term it's going to overcome the natural climate changes that take place over periods of thousands of years.

Note that the dinosaurs lived in a climate that was warmer than ours, and for a long time they did just fine. (I doubt that we'll last anywhere near as long.) But, if the asteroid hadn't got them the ice ages would have. So my musing in, how is mankind going to cope with a warmer climate, which is the present direct, or with an ice age, which may be where the earth heads for if we do get our greenhouse gas production under control.

Change in either direction presents problems. That's what I muse about.

Stoaty said:
Yodrak said:
Climate change has been going on since the earth was created. Human interventions can influence the rate of change, and perhaps even the direction of change (based on previous climate change cycles, shouldn't the earth be heading towards another ice age?), but is human influence strong enough to control or overcome the natural climate cycles that are driven by other forces?
Well, according to the IPCC, the National Academy of Science in the U.S. and the National Academies of multiple other nations, the answer is YES, we are influencing the climate in a very negative way by pumping so much CO2 into the air. One has to wonder why you would be "musing" about this rather than accepting what climate science is telling us--unless, of course, you are a climate scientist about to publish a blockbuster paper that disproves 100 years of scientific understanding.
 
i think Climate change is happening and we are helping it along. the effect of major lifestyle change maybe no more than "shifting to neutral" in a UIA automobile but i feel that we could be helping our situation by maximizing our impressions of our planetary impact

as far as a warmer place to live, we will survive. half the people in the world now live in a much warmer climate. the Planet will probably not support the # of humans we have now and an obvious population shift will be in order. if you are looking at a get rich quick scheme, i see property in Wyoming and North Dakota going real real cheap right now. if you have 30 years, this might be the way to insure financial security for your family.

our life as we currently know it would be dramatically different, but go back 20 years at anytime during the last 100 years and that statement is true. so it will continue to be true. now, many changes will not be what we prefer. we simply have too many unsustainable habits going right now and they will be curtailed over the next 20 years, most likely eliminated in the next 40 years.

we currently have all kinds of weather and geological events that is causing us to rebuild increasingly larger areas of this country. well, that would be required anyways when the seas rise, at least we are saving money on demolition costs, but that would be another segment of the population out of work...might not be a good thing
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
as far as a warmer place to live, we will survive. half the people in the world now live in a much warmer climate.
Agreed. But note that those who live in a warmer place generally want what we have, and those who live in developing warmer places are getting it - air conditioning. = increasing carbon footprint.


DaveinOlyWA said:
the Planet will probably not support the # of humans we have now and an obvious population shift will be in order.
Agree. This is the point that my musings lead to, and I think it's the essential 'bottom line' that we're going to have to come to grips with.


DaveinOlyWA said:
our life as we currently know it would be dramatically different, but go back 20 years at anytime during the last 100 years and that statement is true. so it will continue to be true. now, many changes will not be what we prefer. we simply have too many unsustainable habits going right now and they will be curtailed over the next 20 years, most likely eliminated in the next 40 years.
Agree again, execpt that I think it's going to take us longer to get ourselves under control. Hopefully not too much longer. But it certainly would be great if we could do it as fast as you suggest.
 
Yodrak said:
Agree again, execpt that I think it's going to take us longer to get ourselves under control. Hopefully not too much longer. But it certainly would be great if we could do it as fast as you suggest.

not a suggestion, its a hope. i am afraid it might take another 20 years for us to decide on how to deal with the problem. the obvious solutions dont seem to work because everyone is only judging the action by its "whats in it for me" quotient.

Think Globally by acting locally; oft quoted but i see very limited action
 
Stoaty said:
--stop subsidizing nuclear power by limiting liability and putting the burden on the government. In a free market, nuclear can't compete because it is too expensive and is uninsurable. If it can't stand on its own economically after 50 years, let it go.

Perhaps its out perverted legal system and stupid fears that is the real problem.. foolproof walkaway designs exist.. or just even small canned nukes that cant do much damage if the worst happen.
 
To me the question really is "how do we deal with the fact that we will never know if any given weather event is the result of carbon/green house gas induced climate change or simply a rare event?"

I believe we should assume the worst in this case since the consequences are so dire and also because getting off of oil has so many benefits. If even a mild version of climate change results from all the combustion that is going on, the cost to world economies, land and ocean ecosystems could still be catastrophic. That said, even without climate change in the equation, the cost of all the wars and the retaliation that result from efforts to keep the oil flowing is huge, perhaps so huge it's incalculable. Every time we fill up at the gas pump we potentially support terrorism in some way. Another major cost is in health care. Asthma is an epidemic among Children and air quality is surely one of the main causes. Chlorinated hydrocarbons from gasoline combustion are nasty toxic chemicals, well known for their ill effects and every day we drive through a cloud of them coming from the tail pipe of the car ahead of us.

It doesn't matter if climate change is a real threat or not, getting off of oil is practically a universal cure for a raft of other problems... the time is now!

oh, and for whatever it's wroth, the installation of the blink charger was ordered weeks after I got the car and was not a contingency on receiving the vehicle.

g
 
I would trust science.. but first I want to see some model predictions (made in the past) that actually come true.. that would really up my confidence levels. I know a bunch of scientists and many of them are not altruistic, they put their pants on one leg at a time and pay their bills every month, just like a lot of other people.. a few of the ones I know leave a bad taste actually.
 
For anyone interested in an easy way to offset your CO2 emissions (for electricity from non-green utilities, ICE, air travel, etc.), I posted some info in another thread. Looks like I was a bit OT there: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=4280&start=31.
 
Herm said:
I would trust science.. but first I want to see some model predictions (made in the past) that actually come true.. that would really up my confidence levels. I know a bunch of scientists and many of them are not altruistic, they put their pants on one leg at a time and pay their bills every month, just like a lot of other people.. a few of the ones I know leave a bad taste actually.
I guess Hansen's predictions - that have been proven to under-report both the effects of and rates of change - don't count?

I come from a military background - and have been trained in and have worked in 'indications and warning' - and can absolutely agree with these gents when they say:
“You never have 100% certainty about anything. And if you wait for 100% certainty on the battlefield, something bad is going to happen.”
Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn
USN, Ret.
Former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqBURjOdOG8[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmv3NAO9sRc[/youtube]
 
The same people who have completely denied the science behind climate change are now selectively picking their own scientific studies that back up their own point...and ignoring the rest. None of these arguments have any sound footing, but they argue them to death anyway.

Some people tell me "Oh, seattle is having a cold summer, so that must mean we are in a cooling trend and there is no more global warming".

One person had to nerve to tell me that a record amount of ice is being formed on the arctic ocean (bad move buddy) and we are entering an Ice Age!! Yeah, well, I am routinely there about 2-3 times a year. I can tell you thats not the case. If anything, the amount of melt is a bit understated, because you'd be called out as a complete kook if you actually reported as is.

And our CO2 emissions are not significant enough for the atmosphere? While there are carbon sinks to balance out natural production, we are only talking about 750 gigatons at any given time. We released 31.8 gigatons of CO2 in 2008. Even with all of the sinks available, we are still rising about 2 ppm per year.
 
AndyH said:
I guess Hansen's predictions - that have been proven to under-report both the effects of and rates of change - don't count?

Is that the hockey stick guy? an activist kook with an axe to grind?.. no I guess they dont count.
 
Herm said:
AndyH said:
I guess Hansen's predictions - that have been proven to under-report both the effects of and rates of change - don't count?
Is that the hockey stick guy? an activist kook with an axe to grind?.. no I guess they dont count.
Must be thinking of a different guy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
James E. Hansen (born March 29, 1941) heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. He has held this position since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.
 
Herm said:
AndyH said:
I guess Hansen's predictions - that have been proven to under-report both the effects of and rates of change - don't count?

Is that the hockey stick guy? an activist kook with an axe to grind?.. no I guess they dont count.
Herm, in indications and warning, 75% certainty is MORE than enough to go on if it keeps people alive (or results in a successful mission). While 'activist' has become the 'profanity du jour' in the faux news world, it means "someone that gets off their a$$es and acts when it's bloody obvious the surface to air missile is closing fast and we've got dates tonight and there's life to be had after we shake this problem coming our way at Mach 2"...roughly...

Climate deniers and a number of our politicians are behaving the same as if a parent, driving home from work and observing that his house is on fire, chooses to stand in the middle of the street with his cell phone hanging in his hand debating whether the kid's bedrooms are upwind or downwind,and whether the smoke will get past the doors, and whether it's best to wait for the flames to die down, or call the police, the fire department, or just have a beer and watch the pretty flame patterns.

The scientific community is in the 98% certainty range that not only is climate change happening, but man's emissions are resulting in rapid climate destabilization. Dude - party with the 2% if you wish - but don't stand in the way of the truth!

By the way... According to this piece and others, Hansen appears to be accurately leading the predictions by about 10 years.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24[/youtube]
 
Herm said:
Is that the hockey stick guy? an activist kook with an axe to grind?.. no I guess they dont count.
No, actually, it's not the 'hockey stick guy' - that title belongs to Professor Michael Mann, paleoclimatolgist from Penn State. ;)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us[/youtube]
 
Back
Top