West Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Doomed

[LogGrad98]

Of course it's not the only thing causing it. Now, what does that mean in terms of confronting the human contributions to global warming? Please keep in mind that the pace of the warming is unprecedented in the earths history, at least since life first appeared.

As a poor analogy, I heard murder is not the only cause of human death. Offer an argument about the former that doesn't have an unacceptable parallel in the latter.

I'm still waiting for the irrefutable objective scientific proof it is undeniably a bad thing and means the end of the human race if we do not act RIGHT NOW!!!1!!

 

[LogGrad98]

Why does converting to carbon-neutrality kill not just a company, but an entire industry?



If we went all-in, I think we could produce energy from solar and wind (available on the surface of the earth) more cheaply than you can from digging stuff out of the ground, and then sell that to other countries.

Yes, over time, the CO2 would cycle back into the soil.

Totally missed the point of the hypothetical. Let me rephrase. If we had a world where magic existed and we could just eliminate with a wand all sources of CO2 polution in the United States alone and leave everything else going the way it's going, exactly what impact would that have on global warming and the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere? Would that be a guarantee that global warming would stop or reverse?


And you've got to be kidding about the bolded right? Carbon-neutrality is a huge farce, you do realize that right? Also, there isn't a single "clean" industry right now. Petroleum comes into it somewhere even if it is just use of plastics. So to rephrase again, if we stopped producing all CO2 pollution in the US by magic or government/army mandate or whatever let's say by Monday you would have to shut down entire industries to do so, right now at this point in time.

 

[LogGrad98]

No, it would not be enough to "reverse global warming", or even the possible/likely anthropogenic portion of it, which I believe it not the major cause of it.

It would be better use of our time, energy, resources, and intelligence to do things on large scale that will help us to cope with it if not prosper with it. But hey, our leading "intellectuals", or as Franklin would put it, our "elite intelligentsia", are paid through the political influence if not the outright private money of our cartelists, and all they really care about is locking up the resources and shutting down the influences of all possible competitors. As Robert Redford with his little Sundance Ski Resort shows by his example, after having his little heaven, by opposing every other proposed development of Utah snow resources. . . .

Somehow, I hope folks like OB will eventually realize their caring is being diverted from actually beneficial action. . . . .

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to babe again.

 

[♪alt13]

From the article:

These data support the idea that the Southern Ocean was an important factor in regulating the CO2 concentration during the last transition. However, the fast increases between intervals II and III and at the end of interval IV show that additional mechanisms in the Northern Hemisphere influenced CO2, presumably through changes in NADW formation.

also

The fast increases of CO2 and methane concentrations between intervals II and III, at ∼13.8 ky B.P. according to the Dome C time scale, correspond to the fast warming in the Northern Hemisphere observed at 14.5 ky B.P. on the GRIP time scale. This warming was probably caused by enhanced formation of North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) (30), suggesting that the sudden CO2 increase could have been caused by changes in thermohaline circulation. The methane increase, on the other hand, is thought to have been caused by an intensified hydrological cycle during the B/A warm phase, which led to an expansion of wetlands in the tropics and northern latitudes.

They appear to be claiming causes that are not anthropogenic.

Wo there. We know that we are thus far mostly to blame for the current rise in atmospheric Co2 because we know how much we are emitting and how much deforestation we are causing. Of course we are not to blame for past increases. Other factors can cause an increase in co2 but right now during this time period we are clearly the culprit. The important bit of this is

The fast increases of CO2 and methane concentrations between intervals II and III, at ∼13.8 ky B.P. according to the Dome C time scale, correspond to the fast warming in the Northern Hemisphere

Remember that the "fast increases of co2 and methane" from the holocene are much much slower and to a lesser degree than the increase we have seen over the last 100 years. Further it clearly links Co2 to increased temperature.

What am I missing? This seems to me to quite heavily support usgenic global warming.

 

[LogGrad98]

I agree with stoked that it is more or less another example of what may be contributing to the problem besides man.

 

[PearlWatson]

I do reuse nut

huh?

 

[LogGrad98]

huh?

Pretty sure it means exactly what you think it means. Or something.

 

[One Brow]

I'm still waiting for the irrefutable objective scientific proof it is undeniably a bad thing and means the end of the human race if we do not act RIGHT NOW!!!1!!

I understand. I'm sure you're also waiting for irrefutable objective scientific proof that the earth is not a flat disc. Meanwhile, those of us who understand how knowledge works will go on talking about things we are 97+% sure of and react to them, unlike you flat-earthers.

 

[One Brow]

Totally missed the point of the hypothetical. Let me rephrase. If we had a world where magic existed and we could just eliminate with a wand all sources of CO2 polution in the United States alone and leave everything else going the way it's going, exactly what impact would that have on global warming and the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere? Would that be a guarantee that global warming would stop or reverse?

Over what time scale? It would not happen immediately, just as warming did not begin immediately in the 1850s. Even if it did not stop or reverse completely, isn't slowing it down also a worthy goal?

And you've got to be kidding about the bolded right? Carbon-neutrality is a huge farce, you do realize that right?

No, I don't realize that. Please expand on that. I'm sure you have "irrefutable objective scientific proof" that carbon neutrality is a farce, right? Becasue I would love to see what your standard is for "irrefutable objective scientific proof".

Also, there isn't a single "clean" industry right now. Petroleum comes into it somewhere even if it is just use of plastics. So to rephrase again, if we stopped producing all CO2 pollution in the US by magic or government/army mandate or whatever let's say by Monday you would have to shut down entire industries to do so, right now at this point in time.

I don't know anyone who is talking about Monday, and last I heard, plastics can be recycled.

 

[cowhide]

I refuse to be afraid of melting polar ice because I am one of the smart ones who chose NOT to live in a city adjacent to the ocean, yet built BELOW SEA LEVEL. Gonna need a lot of fingers in a lot of dykes to hold that place together, not to mention plugging the holes in the sea walls.

So if it doesn't affect you than screw everyone else?

 

[LogGrad98]

So if it doesn't affect you than screw everyone else?

It was all about the **** joke. Calm down.

 

[LogGrad98]

Over what time scale? It would not happen immediately, just as warming did not begin immediately in the 1850s. Even if it did not stop or reverse completely, isn't slowing it down also a worthy goal?

No one has proven whether it is or isn't a worthy goal. If it is undeniably devastating to mankind for it to get warmer, then yes we probably need to reach for it. If not, then why put much more effort into it than we are already, other than the need to get off fossil fuels in general. Still waiting for the proof that it is an unmitigated catastrophe actually.

No, I don't realize that. Please expand on that. I'm sure you have "irrefutable objective scientific proof" that carbon neutrality is a farce, right? Becasue I would love to see what your standard is for "irrefutable objective scientific proof".

I'm not surprised actually. Tell me how exactly does Al Gore and his private plane, multiple homes and vehicles stop emitting CO2 just because he pays for it? Enough money exchanges hands and the carbon credits save the planet. I find it funny that you can't see through this one.

Also, where is the irrefutable objective scientific evidence that "carbon neutrality" does anything at all to stem the tide of CO2 in the first place?

I don't know anyone who is talking about Monday, and last I heard, plastics can be recycled.

Now I think you are purposely being obtuse. If you have this hard a time answering a hypothetical without dancing around it like it will catch you on fire no wonder you still buy into the carbon neutrality/carbon credit farce.