Global warming?

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Don't worry. The human species has multiplied its natural carrying capacity by many times over in the last 100 years.

Try doing some reading on Rwanda and Burundi. Technology is not always going to save us.

At the same time, an alarming trend towards overpopulation has slowed, and the curve now says we aren't going to grow infinitely.

Nothing grows indefinitely besides, perhaps, a cancer cell. Rwanda and Burundi got their growth under control by bloody civil wars. AIDS happened along to slow population growth in Africa, etc. AIDS and genocide may help the population problem, but they are not exactly the methods of choice in population control.

(Which is good for AGW proponents who want to hurt man's natural carrying capacity by taxing energy. That includes energy for agriculture...)

I’ll give just one example. Ever hear of “eutrophication”? This is what happens to bodies of water when near-by farmland has vast amounts of chemical fertilizer dumped on them. The ferilizers are carried to streams and lakes where the sudden upsurge in nutrients cause algal blooms. The algae use up all the O2 in the body of water and fish die off results. Maybe those fisherman downstream do deserve to have an energy tax to offset their loss of livelihood.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Don't worry. The human species has multiplied its natural carrying capacity by many times over in the last 100 years.

At the same time, an alarming trend towards overpopulation has slowed, and the curve now says we aren't going to grow infinitely.

(Which is good for AGW proponents who want to hurt man's natural carrying capacity by taxing energy. That includes energy for agriculture...)

Now the hurtful question: will an increase in global temperature increase or decrease the amount of arable land on the planet?

I don't know, but it's a tough one innit? Every climate change will have its positives and its negatives, and it's not fair to the question to just focus on the negatives.

Despite the minor dust-up resulting from the hacked e-mails, we know with absolute certainty that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is not up for debate. And despite the "gotcha" claims from deniers, there has still been no evidence released of data being faked. A recent AP analysis is the latest that debunks that claim. ("Science not faked, but not pretty").

To deny that CO2 has an impact on warming one would have to claim that CO2 is the perfect conductor, letting temperatures and radiation go through without any loss. No climate scientist has made this claim.

We also know the fact that because CO2 only makes up a small part of the atmosphere doesn't preclude it from being a major factor. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced that it has a multiplier effect, increasing the likelihood that massive anthropogenic CO2 emissions contribute to global warming. Climate scientists also agree in near unanimity that this multiplier effect does not show itself immediately, but is delayed over time.

There are absolutely no scientists who have suggested that anthropogenic emissions of C02 at the current levels of hundreds of billions of tons a year has any positive value.

So the question remains...what to do about it.

Ignore it and wait for those multiplier effects to kick-in decades from now (at an even far greater rate than they have since the significant anthropogenic emissions of the last 100 years) or begin to act in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner.

The choice is easy for me.

[TheMercenary]

Cap and trade will not work.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

[SamIam]

The Brit's projected $108 tax amount/ per month doesn't sound that high to me That's what they'll have to pay under the new program. What do you wanna bet that even that amount will be reduced if the Brits put in more, efficient safety features, and start sleeping with their pets. Brits are gaga over pets, anyway. What if they start using nuclear instead of coal. What if the Brits start running around in little morris minors?

What if some of the more efficient farming techniques are put into play? By, say nitrates.

The smartest bet is to play it safe. Sure all this or some other thing may be coming down the pike. You never know. Just ask the pre-Columbian Indians if the gamble was worth the price they ended up paying.

Here is a win win situation. If the climate people are wrong, we get increased crop yields with less damage to arable parts of the earth. If a nitrate molecule never approaches arrable ground, well lets put on our doofy Cellar hats and celibrate.

The worst could be saying we were wrong. EEEKK! I have been wrong on one or two occasions and have lived to tell the tail.

[xoxoxoBruce]

A new study published in the journal Geology shows that if carbon dioxide emissions reach extreme levels, the changes in the world’s oceans might result in lobsters 50 percent bigger than normal. Lobsters can take carbon from the water and use it to build their exoskeletons, says marine geologist Justin Ries, who oversaw the study. The theory, he tells NPR’s Guy Raz, is that lobsters are able to convert the extra carbon into material for building up their shells.

link

[ZenGum]

Alas, it is some rather dodgy cherrypicking by whoever wrote the neatorama article.

Ries and colleagues grew 18 different species of economically and ecologically important marine calcifiers (animals that make shells out of calcium carbonate) at various levels of CO2 predicted to occur over the next several centuries, the UNC statement explained. "When CO2 combines with water, it produces carbonic acid, raising the overall amount of carbon in seawater but reducing the amount of the carbonate ion used by organisms in their calcification."

Seven species (crabs, lobsters, shrimp, red and green calcifying algae, limpets and temperate urchins) calcified at a higher rate and increased in mass under elevated CO2. Ten types of organisms (including oysters, scallops, temperate corals and tube worms) had reduced calcification under elevated CO2, with several (hard and soft clams, conchs, periwinkles, whelks and tropical urchins) seeing their shells dissolve. One species (mussels) showed no response.

What, cherrypicking environmental research for an attention-grabbing headline? I would never have expected such shennanigans!

[TheMercenary]

[dar512]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Cap and trade will not work.

Hmm. Hell has not frozen over (see below). And yet Merc and I agree on something. What's up with that?
.
.

[TheMercenary]

Bloomberg makes a carbon contribution.

By JIM DWYER
Published: December 12, 2009
The average New Yorker uses one-half to one-third the electricity of other Americans. Our carbon footprints are just 29 percent of people who live outside the five boroughs, and City Hall has practical plans to reduce even that amount by nearly a third over the next two decades. No wonder that this month, in a talk at the New York Academy of Science, Rohit Aggarwalat, the mayor’s chief adviser on sustainability, said the city was “the most environmentally efficient society in the United States.”

So it makes perfect sense that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is going to Copenhagen on Monday and Tuesday to address the international conference on climate change: his administration is working to head off problems that will not emerge until long after he is gone.

A strong case can be made that when it comes to energy and climate issues, Mr. Bloomberg is the most visionary public official in the country.

And a strong argument can also be made that on a personal level, he ranks among the worst individual polluters ever to hold public office.

Mr. Bloomberg owns a helicopter and two jets, both Falcon 900s. He flies everywhere on private jets, by far the least efficient form of transportation on or above the earth. He takes his jet to Bermuda many weekends. He has flown around the globe on it. He uses it to go to Washington. He is planning to get to Copenhagen for the climate conference by private jet, too.

continues:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/ny...rssnyt&emc=rss

[ZenGum]

Merc, that giant lobster is a hoot. Thanks.

[TheMercenary]

I tried to find a one from a 1950's horror movie but it doesn't look like anyone made one.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

He looks like Zoidberg's grandpa, with a grandpa mustache.

[TheMercenary]

Since it is the season, has anyone ever tried to measure the carbon foot print of Santa, his delivery methods. I think he need to trade his cap.

[ZenGum]

Reindeer-power is bio-fuel, so he should be carbon-neutral. Just fat, materialistic, commercialistic, and given to drink-driving.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And the pounding continues in opinion and blogs. It will be mainstream and received wisdom next.