Cause its snowing in Febuary.Hannity/Limbaugh attack "Man Made Global Warming"

[macfan881]

So since were having this crazy weather in the atlantic coast which is normal this time of year Hannity and Limbaugh are now saying that this shows that Global Warming is some how a Hoax..

http://mediamatters.org/research/201002090032

there really getting desperate :D

[Dont Hurt Me]

Those two extremist are just bought off period, tell them to go measure some ice in the Arctic and then listen to their spin & Lies. The planet is warming thats not even a question anymore, mankind has billions of hot little engines running around,factories and on and on and on and they will still tell you lies and spin because for those two its party first,then lies then spin and back to party first and more spin. Extremist of all kinds are just sickening.

[obeygiant]

Breaking News: Limbaugh and Hannity say things that irritate liberal people.

[Badandy]

The planet is warming thats not even a question anymore, mankind has billions of hot little engines running around

It doesn't matter that the engines are hot...

Breaking News: Limbaugh and Hannity say things that irritate liberal people.

Breaking News: Limbaugh and Hannity say things that should irritate everyone, not just liberals. If you're going to argue against climate change, can't you think of something better than "it's snowing"? What they say should irritate anyone who can think for themselves, conservatives and liberals alike.

[Thomas Veil]

Limbaugh and Hannity: poster children for scientific illiteracy.

[Eraserhead]

Breaking News: Limbaugh and Hannity say things that should irritate everyone, not just liberals. If you're going to argue against climate change, can't you think of something better than "it's snowing"? What they say should irritate anyone who can think for themselves, conservatives and liberals alike.

Its like there being one hot day and saying that therefore climate change must be true.

[niuniu]

Am starting to doubt global warming's most popular model now too to be honest..

[.Andy]

Am starting to doubt global warming's most popular model now too to be honest..
Why so? And what is "the most popular model"?



Edit: as for rush/hannity they're just dishing up what their audience wants to hear.

[Dont Hurt Me]

There is a solution to their mindlessness, dont watch and dont listen to these schmucks. It works.

[Eraserhead]

^^ The issue is that too many Americans do listen to people like them. Which allows non-issues like attempting to ban abortion and banning gay marriage to dominate US politics even though they are based on incredibly flimsy and generally religious (which is against the constitution) grounds.

[Lord Blackadder]

Limbaugh and Hannity might believe their own hype, but even if they do they don't really care about it except in the sense that it makes them money and gains them notoriety.

[freeny]

Global warming is not based on a single event or even a single season but a trend over long periods of time. Someone should show them a chart of average temperatures over the last 100 years... The evidence is right there in front of you and undebatable. The real question is what is causing it, man or is it natural?...

[NathanMuir]

^^ The issue is that too many Americans do listen to people like them. Which allows non-issues like attempting to ban abortion and banning gay marriage to dominate US politics even though they are based on incredibly flimsy and generally religious (which is against the constitution) grounds.

Are you stating that the US Constitution wasn't based at all on any religious belief system? Intentional or otherwise?

[hulugu]

Breaking News: Limbaugh and Hannity say things that irritate liberal people.

Probably true. If they didn't have an audience that's reactive enough to set the agenda for Congress, I'd be willing to ignore them completely.

I... If you're going to argue against climate change, can't you think of something better than "it's snowing"? What they say should irritate anyone who can think for themselves, conservatives and liberals alike.

Apparently Hannity and Limbaugh can't. The arguments are complex, but the ideologues are skilled at boiling every issue down to the pan.

Its like there being one hot day and saying that therefore climate change must be true.

Of course, some people do this, but they're also part of the scientifically illiterate.

[Badandy]

Are you stating that the US Constitution wasn't based at all on any religious belief system? Intentional or otherwise?

He's saying that limiting rights which would/should ordinarily be granted to citizens but for religious zealotry is unconstitutional. What if my religion said that due process was a sin? Too bad. I disagree with him in that abortion should be allowed Constitutionally without debate, but being in favor of outlawing gay marriage is an indefensible and reprehensible position, even if you find the concept offensive or immoral.

[gibbz]

They continue to create confusion for their listeners.

I wish people like them would realize the following:

Weather =/= Climate
Policy =/= Science

[Thomas Veil]

They continue to create confusion for their listeners.

I wish people like them would realize the following:

Weather =/= Climate
Policy =/= Science
Option-= is your friend. ≠ ;)

[NathanMuir]

He's saying that limiting rights which would/should ordinarily be granted to citizens but for religious zealotry is unconstitutional. What if my religion said that due process was a sin? Too bad. I disagree with him in that abortion should be allowed Constitutionally without debate, but being in favor of outlawing gay marriage is an indefensible and reprehensible position, even if you find the concept offensive or immoral.

Ok, thanks. I didn't initially read it like that earlier.

[StruckANerve]

Even if Global Warming is caused by C02 emissions, the plan they have to fix the problem is idiotic and a huge scam.

[.Andy]

Even if Global Warming is caused by C02 emissions, the plan they have to fix the problem is idiotic and a huge scam.
What is the plan? Who is "they" who decided on it? Why is it "idiotic"? And why is it a "huge scam"?

[Sydde]

Limbaugh and Hannity might believe their own hype, but even if they do they don't really care about it except in the sense that it makes them money and gains them notoriety.
There is a solution to their mindlessness, dont watch and dont listen to these schmucks. It works.

No, you should listen to them, or at least be aware of what is driveling onto their microphones. Just pretend them into obscurity.

"Rush Limbaugh? Who is that?" That really upsets the "-heads.

[StruckANerve]

What is the plan? Who is "they" who decided on it? Why is it "idiotic"? And why is it a "huge scam"?

Taxing carbon emissions or the cap and trade system. I don't see how anyone could think that would reduce carbon emissions.

[Sydde]

Taxing carbon emissions or the cap and trade system. I don't see how anyone could think that would reduce carbon emissions.

And that is a valid concern. If my factory was going to face a punitive tax for its carbon output, and I could not trade with someone else to reduce the penalty, what would I do? Outsource to Malaysia? This system will only work if it can also capture carbon output that is being generated from imports.

[StruckANerve]

And that is a valid concern. If my factory was going to face a punitive tax for its carbon output, and I could not trade with someone else to reduce the penalty, what would I do? Outsource to Malaysia? This system will only work if it can also capture carbon output that is being generated from imports.

It's nothing more than a huge money making scheme. Al Gore has made a fortune off stupid people willing to buy carbon credits.

[Eraserhead]

And that is a valid concern. If my factory was going to face a punitive tax for its carbon output, and I could not trade with someone else to reduce the penalty, what would I do? Outsource to Malaysia? This system will only work if it can also capture carbon output that is being generated from imports.

The Malaysians will be under pressure to reduce their emissions too and so they will probably have a carbon tax too.

That said a minimum carbon tax on imports would probably be a good idea.

[Eraserhead]

It's nothing more than a huge money making scheme. Al Gore has made a fortune off stupid people willing to buy carbon credits.

Source?

[StruckANerve]

Source?

http://cei.org/node/21602

Washington, D.C., January 28, 2009—In testimony today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former Vice President Al Gore recommended that Congress take dramatic action to combat the threat of global warming, including passing the pending economic stimulus bill which includes billions of dollars in taxpayer handouts for alternative energy. Gore neglected to emphasize, however, that he is the Chairman of a for-profit investment fund that would directly benefit from greater subsidies for so-called “clean” energy projects.

“Former Vice President Al Gore has warned that we need to examine the financial interests of people in the global warming debate. Fair enough,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute Director of Energy & Global Warming Policy Myron Ebell. “What we discover in looking at the policies that Mr. Gore advocated in his Senate testimony is that they will make him and his friends extremely wealthy at the expense of consumers, who will be stuck with skyrocketing energy prices.”

Gore’s company, Generation Investment Management, states that its investment strategy, in part, is to “find, fund and accelerate green business.” The companies targeted by renewable energy subsidies, grants and other federal spending are the same ones Gore and his partners are betting on to turn large profits. There’s nothing wrong with making a profit, but doing so at taxpayer expense rather than in a competitive marketplace is generally considered cynical and greedy – far from the disinterested environmental activist image that Gore presents to the world.

“Gore’s concerns are overblown and his ‘solutions’ remain grossly expensive pipe dreams,” said Senior Fellow Iain Murray. “Global warming is a potential risk, but Gore’s program represents a potentially disastrous misallocation of resources – straight from our wallets to his bank account.”

[Gelfin]

http://cei.org/node/21602

Washington, D.C., January 28, 2009—In testimony today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former Vice President Al Gore recommended that Congress take dramatic action to combat the threat of global warming, including passing the pending economic stimulus bill which includes billions of dollars in taxpayer handouts for alternative energy. Gore neglected to emphasize, however, that he is the Chairman of a for-profit investment fund that would directly benefit from greater subsidies for so-called “clean” energy projects.

CEI neglected to emphasize, however, that their most significant sources of funding include ExxonMobil, Amoco, Texaco and Ford, for-profit enterprises that would directly benefit from lack of governmental support for so-called "clean" energy projects.

There's nothing wrong with making a profit, but enabling businesses to do so at taxpayer expense by externalizing environmental costs of business rather than by market competition is generally considered cynical and greedy - far from the objective analytical image that CEI presents to the world.

[Zombie Acorn]

CEI neglected to emphasize, however, that their most significant sources of funding include ExxonMobil, Amoco, Texaco and Ford, for-profit enterprises that would directly benefit from lack of governmental support for so-called "clean" energy projects.

There's nothing wrong with making a profit, but enabling businesses to do so at taxpayer expense by externalizing environmental costs of business rather than by market competition is generally considered cynical and greedy - far from the objective analytical image that CEI presents to the world.

Quite a few of those listed companies have their hands in both sides already. Once green energy is viable they will simply switch over and become the titans of those industries.

[NT1440]

Quite a few of those listed companies have their hands in both sides already. Once green energy is viable they will simply switch over and become the titans of those industries.

BP has been planning it for years now, these companies aren't stupid.

[Eraserhead]

BP has been planning it for years now, these companies aren't stupid.

And even so they still make hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the lack of clean energy. Even the governments would probably prefer global warming to be a myth as then they don't have to spend any money on it.

Frankly it seems like there are a lot of people with stuff to gain from it all being a myth.

The only neutral people are probably the scientific journals like Nature and Science as they could always publish something else, and their reputations will be damaged if climate change is found to be incorrect.

[Zombie Acorn]

And even so they still make hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the lack of clean energy. Even the governments would probably prefer global warming to be a myth as then they don't have to spend any money on it.

Frankly it seems like there are a lot of people with stuff to gain from it all being a myth.

The only neutral people are probably the scientific journals like Nature and Science as they could always publish something else, and their reputations will be damaged if climate change is found to be incorrect.

The infrastructure isn't even there for them to switch completely green anyways, its easy to blame the drug dealer though. Where is the blame for the consumer? If demand for green energy rises, they will supply it. Since cheap is what we usually go with, it will stay this way until green energy is cheaper than gasoline. Environmental detriment should be factored into the gasoline price via taxes (this is also politically damning though).

[Eraserhead]

The infrastructure isn't even there for them to switch completely green anyways, its easy to blame the drug dealer though.

Oh agreed, I'm just saying that if you're taking Al Gore's word with a pinch of salt as he's invested money in green technology you should take the word of an organisation that is paid for by the oil companies saying the opposite with a far larger pinch of salt as they have far more at stake.

Environmental detriment should be factored into the gasoline price via taxes (this is also politically damning though).

That's a good approach IMO and the Conservatives pulled it off fairly successfully in the UK.

[localoid]

How Global Warming Makes Blizzards Worse (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100210/hl_time/08599196229400)

Climate models also suggest that while global warming may not make hurricanes more common, it could well intensify the storms that do occur and make them more destructive.

But as far as winter storms go, shouldn't climate change make it too warm for snow to fall? Eventually that is likely to happen - but probably not for a while. In the meantime, warmer air could be supercharged with moisture and, as long as the temperature remains below 32°F, it will result in blizzards rather than drenching winter rainstorms. And while the mid-Atlantic has borne the brunt of the snowfall so far this winter, areas near lakes may get hit even worse. As global temperatures have risen, the winter ice cover over the Great Lakes has shrunk, which has led to even more moisture in the atmosphere and more snow in the already hard-hit Great Lakes region, according to a 2003 study in the Journal of Climate.

[Desertrat]

The Climategate Scandal doesn't seem to be any sort of refutation of the concept of a changing climate, but it does cast doubts on some aspects of the issue of warming. The "hockey stick", so beloved of Algore, seems to be fraudulent. There are numerous reports of inadequate data gathering, and erroneous numbers for some data. Insufficient measurements from northern Canada and Russia, per their governments. Temperature recording instruments near hot-spots in the U.S. One of the weirdest is the retraction as a big mistake as to the melting of a glacier in the Himalayas, from the Indian government. These affect the analyses of the actual rate of warming.

An interesting comment I ran across, recently, had to do with cause and effect wrt CO2. Simple question: Why do you pour beer into a frozen mug or glass or put ice in your glass of soda pop? Simple answer: To keep it cold, so the CO2 doesn't go away.

IOW, global warming causes the release of CO2 from the oceans; CO2 doesn't cause global warming.

Datum: NOAA's deep water temperature measuring buoys around the world's oceans are showing a modest amount of cooling.

Overall, then, it's easy to believe that the climate is changing, but it's nowhere near proven as fact that Homo Sap is any sort of major cause or that warming is a given.

Which segues into all these "solutions" as proposed for governmental action. Few if any will actually reduce the world total of CO2--if that is indeed the culprit--to some desired number which would end the alleged warming trend. What they will do is wreck economies and increase the costs of daily life to an amount above what many can afford.

There is nothing mystical or magical about the numbers. Population growth, energy needs for a given standard of living. What we now have and what we will need, measured against Kyoto's limits.

TANSTAAFL...

[Sydde]

The infrastructure isn't even there for them to switch completely green anyways, its easy to blame the drug dealer though. Where is the blame for the consumer?

There is lots of blame to go around. Maybe we should consider the planners who decided we needed suburban sprawl. Not to mention the part of the business community that put so much energy into promoting high-volume consumerism as an economic ideal. Then there are the engineers who cannot seem to get decent efficiency out of a V-8.

All we hear is "where are we going to get the energy we need", when the most readily accessible source is right in front of us: use less.

[hulugu]

...

An interesting comment I ran across, recently, had to do with cause and effect wrt CO2. Simple question: Why do you pour beer into a frozen mug or glass or put ice in your glass of soda pop? Simple answer: To keep it cold, so the CO2 doesn't go away.

IOW, global warming causes the release of CO2 from the oceans; CO2 doesn't cause global warming.

That doesn't explain why the ocean's level of carbonic acid is going up. IOW, the ocean is gaining carbon, not losing it.

Which segues into all these "solutions" as proposed for governmental action. Few if any will actually reduce the world total of CO2--if that is indeed the culprit--to some desired number which would end the alleged warming trend. What they will do is wreck economies and increase the costs of daily life to an amount above what many can afford.

There is nothing mystical or magical about the numbers. Population growth, energy needs for a given standard of living. What we now have and what we will need, measured against Kyoto's limits.

There's an article in this month's Harpers about how the carbon cap and trade may be utterly worthless. It's an interesting read.

TANSTAAFL...

Exactly, which is why you should wonder what will happen when we inject billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in a geologically short-period. Doesn't it stand to reason that there might be a cost?

[NT1440]

There's an article in this month's Harpers about how the carbon cap and trade may be utterly worthless. It's an interesting read.




MIT Technology Review had a GREAT article last summer about why cap & trade simply isn't going to work if it is set up with the input of these industries (I'm over simplifying). Basically if its set up how it will be in the US, it will have corruption built in that will be further exploited, I'm going to see if I can find it.

[Thomas Veil]

Timely article on MSNBC:

NYT: Climate fight heats up in deep freeze (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35343948/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/)
Two sides in global warming debate seize on storms to bolster arguments
By John M. Broder
The New York Times
updated 5:08 a.m. ET, Thurs., Feb. 11, 2010

WASHINGTON - As millions of people along the East Coast hole up in their snowbound homes, the two sides in the climate-change debate are seizing on the mounting drifts to bolster their arguments.

Skeptics of global warming are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change — this looks more like global cooling, they taunt.

Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.

But some independent climate experts say the blizzards in the Northeast no more prove that the planet is cooling than the lack of snow in Vancouver or the downpours in Southern California prove that it is warming.

As an illustration of their point of view, the family of Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, a leading climate skeptic in Congress, built a six-foot-tall igloo on Capitol Hill and put a cardboard sign on top that read “Al Gore’s New Home.”

The extreme weather, Mr. Inhofe said by e-mail, reinforced doubts about scientists’ conclusion that global warming was “unequivocal” and most likely caused by human activity.

Nonsense, responded Joseph Romm, a climate-change expert and former Energy Department official who writes about climate issues at the liberal Center for American Progress.

“Ideologues in the Senate keep pushing the anti-scientific disinformation that big snowstorms are evidence against human-caused global warming,” Mr. Romm wrote on Wednesday.

Recent controversies
It is perhaps not coincidental that the snowstorm scuffle is playing out against a background of recent climate controversies: In recent months, global-warming critics have assailed a 2007 report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have claimed that e-mail messages and documents plucked from a server at a climate research center in Britain raise doubts about the academic integrity of some climate scientists. Earlier this week, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators made light of the fact that the announcement of the creation of a new federal climate service on Monday had to be conducted by conference call, rather than news conference, because the federal government was shuttered by the storm.

Matt Drudge, who delights in tweaking climate-change enthusiasts, noted on his Web site that a Senate hearing on global warming this week was canceled because of the weather.

As the first blizzard howled last weekend, the Virginia Republican Party put up an advertisement on the Web — titled “12 Inches of Global Warming” — criticizing two Virginia Democrats, Representatives Rick Boucher and Tom Perriello, who voted for the federal cap-and-trade legislation last year. The advertisement urges voters to call Mr. Boucher and Mr. Perriello to ask if they will help with the shoveling.

Speculating on the meaning of severe weather events is not new. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and a deadly heat wave in Europe in the summer of 2003 incited similar arguments about what such extremes might — or might not — say about the planet’s climate.

But climate scientists say that no single episode of severe weather can be blamed for global climate trends while noting evidence that such events will probably become more frequent as global temperatures rise.

Long-term trajectory?
Jeff Masters, a meteorologist who writes on the Weather Underground blog, said that the recent snows do not, by themselves, demonstrate anything about the long-term trajectory of the planet. Climate is, by definition, a measure of decades and centuries, not months or years.

But Dr. Masters also said that government and academic studies had consistently predicted an increasing frequency of just these kinds of record-setting storms because warmer air carries more moisture.

“Of course,” he wrote on his blog Wednesday as new snows produced white-out conditions in much of the Eastern half of the country, “both climate-change contrarians and climate-change scientists agree that no single weather event can be blamed on climate change.

“However,” he continued, “one can ‘load the dice’ in favor of events that used to be rare — or unheard of — if the climate is changing to a new state.”

A federal government report issued last year, intended to be the authoritative statement of known climate trends in the United States, pointed to the likelihood of more frequent snowstorms in the Northeast and less frequent snow in the South and Southeast as a result of long-term temperature and precipitation patterns. The Climate Impacts report, from the multiagency United States Global Change Research Program, also projected more intense drought in the Southwest and more powerful Gulf Coast hurricanes because of warming.

In other words, if the government scientists are correct, look for more snow.This is just the kind of article that the global warming critics hate. You put the two positions side by side clearly and accurately, and the global warming deniers come out looking foolish.

MIT Technology Review had a GREAT article last summer about why cap & trade simply isn't going to work if it is set up with the input of these industries (I'm over simplifying). Basically if its set up how it will be in the US, it will have corruption built....Gee, there's a shocker!

[Desertrat]

hulugu, I'm not arguing, here, although it might be "Devil's Advocate": "That doesn't explain why the ocean's level of carbonic acid is going up. IOW, the ocean is gaining carbon, not losing it."

Chicken and egg. It the oceans were warming up until the recent past, they'd have been releasing CO2. If they're now cooling, they'd be absorbing CO2.

I dunno. Maybe I've been around too many geologists to readily jump on a short-term-data bandwagon.

There's minor stuff: "Global warming causes Antarctic ice shelf breakoff." or some such headline. Hmmm. Ice has little strength when cantilevered, same as unreinforced concrete. So I've read that there have been above-average snowfalls in the Antarctic, which adds weight to a cantilevered structure. Crunch. Damfino.

Call me an agnostic, I guess. I'm not much on religion, green or otherwise. Bandwagons. Lemmings. Generally, too much like Mr. Corrigan.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Corrigan) :D

Ah, well. For now, my primary concern is about what in my view is a serious degradation in our quality of life which I envision from the various legislative proposals. Lots of money will disappear from investment capital, but the amount of world CO2 won't appreciably decline.

[hulugu]

hulugu, I'm not arguing, here, although it might be "Devil's Advocate": "That doesn't explain why the ocean's level of carbonic acid is going up. IOW, the ocean is gaining carbon, not losing it."

Chicken and egg. It the oceans were warming up until the recent past, they'd have been releasing CO2. If they're now cooling, they'd be absorbing CO2.

It's my understanding from the scientific papers I've read that the jump in carbonic acid is geologically speaking new, and correlates to jumps in human CO2 production to a high degree.

I dunno. Maybe I've been around too many geologists to readily jump on a short-term-data bandwagon.

Fair enough, but the climate records indicate that climate can shift on a dime geologically speaking, so there's some value in assessing things in both short-term, medium-term, and long-term data analyses.

There's minor stuff: "Global warming causes Antarctic ice shelf breakoff." or some such headline. Hmmm. Ice has little strength when cantilevered, same as unreinforced concrete. So I've read that there have been above-average snowfalls in the Antarctic, which adds weight to a cantilevered structure. Crunch. Damfino.

Well the quick question is, why is the ice-sheet cantilevered? Where'd the bottom go?

Call me an agnostic, I guess. I'm not much on religion, green or otherwise. Bandwagons. Lemmings.

That's uncharitable. I've been reading scientific papers for more than 10 years. I didn't just jump on the bandwagon with Leonardo DiCaprio, I've been here before it was cool.

Additionally, there's a whole 'nother bandwagon heading the opposite direction are you sure you're not on it?

Ah, well. For now, my primary concern is about what in my view is a serious degradation in our quality of life which I envision from the various legislative proposals. Lots of money will disappear from investment capital, but the amount of world CO2 won't appreciably decline.

I tend to agree with you, the CO2 trading appears to be a woefully bad idea as currently designed.

[Huntn]

Regarding the OP, little do the uneducated baffoons of Faux News realize that the warmer it gets the more it snows at least for now. It's as if they think it would have to be 80° F in the Winter before they'd believe in global warming.:rolleyes:

[.Andy]

hulugu, I'm not arguing, here, although it might be "Devil's Advocate"
"Devil's advocate" is the not the right phrase when you are claiming that the hockey stick graph seems fraudulent (no reference), there is a lack of data from Canada and Russia (no reference), that monitor stations are in hotspots ergo the data is unreliable (no reference), and that climate scientist's don't understand high school chemistry. What you are doing is repeating verbatim the FUD that individuals mentioned in the OP spread. Each and every one of the above claims is made by denier media pundits and does not reflect the scientific reality whatsoever.


I dunno. Maybe I've been around too many geologists to readily jump on a short-term-data bandwagon.
And this is certainly not true. In your previous post you claimed:
Datum: NOAA's deep water temperature measuring buoys around the world's oceans are showing a modest amount of cooling.
This is most certainly short-term data. And it is entirely predicted by climate scientists.

What you're really attempting is to cast aspersions on climate change science by spreading FUD. You flippantly attempt to disregard (quite erroneously) the entire scientific field as relying on "short-term data" as a "bandwagon" but will mispresent short-term data to bolster your own argument (again erroneously).

[Zombie Acorn]

Regarding the OP, little do the uneducated baffoons of Faux News realize that the warmer it gets the more it snows at least for now. It's as if they think it would have to be 80° F in the Winter before they'd believe in global warming.:rolleyes:

I wish.

[benlee]

A man brought a glass of water to the desert, therefore there is no drought.

[freeny]

If there is a heat wave this summer will he change his opinion?

[hulugu]

If there is a heat wave this summer will he change his opinion?

$5 says no. He'll back to the opinion that you can't use short-term metrics to understand a geological event.

Or, some other sneaky turn of phrase to indicate that ACC or "global warming" is still not true. This will happen even if all of the worst case model turn about to be true, in which case he'll shift to the phrase "no one could have seen this coming."

[StruckANerve]

I was trying to find some articles regarding solutions and was hoping someone could tell me if there has been any technological advances in a method to draw co2 out of the atmosphere as that would probably be the only solution to this problem.

I really don't think there is any chance of reducing overall output of co2.

[Eraserhead]

I really don't think there is any chance of reducing overall output of co2.

Why? The EU are onboard, the Chinese are onboard, the Japanese and South Koreans are onboard (otherwise they'll lose face) and they make up over 50% of emissions between them.

[StruckANerve]

Why? The EU are onboard, the Chinese are onboard, the Japanese and South Koreans are onboard (otherwise they'll lose face) and they make up over 50% of emissions between them.

Because we would have to reduce total output by 50-80% to change the warming trend. I just don't think that is feasible with the rate that population is increasing now. I think our focus should be on trying to convert co2 into a usable energy source.

I've been doing a little bit of reading on Artificial Photosynthesis and it seems to be the best solution. Not only would it lower co2 levels but it can convert the co2 into usable energy.

[Eraserhead]

Yeah but a 50% reduction is better than no change. And the US will be forced to help at some point - they'll lose too much face if they don't for starters. And its also likely to become a debt condition.

[NT1440]

Because we would have to reduce total output by 50-80% to change the warming trend. I just don't think that is feasible with the rate that population is increasing now. I think our focus should be on trying to convert co2 into a usable energy source.

I've been doing a little bit of reading on Artificial Photosynthesis and it seems to be the best solution. Not only would it lower co2 levels but it can convert the co2 into usable energy.

You'd still need industry to commit to trapping their emissions for use later

[StruckANerve]

You'd still need industry to commit to trapping their emissions for use later

What would be the reason for trapping emissions? The co2 would be drawn right out of the atmosphere itself.

[mcrain]

What would be the reason for trapping emissions? The co2 would be drawn right out of the atmosphere itself.

I'm no expert, but CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The higher the concentration in the atmosphere, the warmer the planet.

The theory seems to be that fossil fuels are carbon based, and are a huge deposit of carbon from millions of years ago when the planet was a lot warmer. Our digging it up, and then burning it, releases it into the atmosphere thus raising CO2 levels at a much faster rate than would happen without the use of such fuels.

There are numerous ways in which CO2 are released and captured naturally. The creation of the Himilayan mountains for example caused a huge weather system to form, causing rain to fall onto the mountain rocks. The acid rain ends up leeching the CO2 out of the atmosphere, and may have been responsible for the Ice age.

Anyway, I think the idea behind carbon trapping is that the CO2 released is trapped and reburied instead of released into the atmosphere.

[NT1440]

What would be the reason for trapping emissions? The co2 would be drawn right out of the atmosphere itself.

Once in the atmosphere different gases go to different layers dependent on things such as density. Unless you can somehow suck it up from miles up, you'll probably want to trap it while its still around us.