OKIsItJustMe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-23-09 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
| 22. Yeah, like I said, GeoEngineering™ |
|
Edited on Mon Nov-23-09 10:23 PM by OKIsItJustMe
This scheme seems about as good as some others I’ve seen.
I'm pretty well convinced that we don’t stand a chance without something like this.
|
| -Oceans rise faster than expected as climate change exceeds grimmest models |
Louisiana1976 |
Nov-23-09 10:07 AM |
#0 |
 -
I guess the Oceans didn't get the "climate change is a hoax" memo |
ixion |
Nov-23-09 10:10 AM |
#1 |
  -
In geologic time, it’s a fairly recent memo, and oceans (frankly) are not very quick on the uptake |
OKIsItJustMe |
Nov-23-09 10:56 AM |
#2 |
| -
Exponential increase. Not to mention the addition of modernization of the remiander of the world. |
Gregorian |
Nov-23-09 11:10 AM |
#3 |
| -
Even population stablization doesn't fix it, we need a concerted effort to go to zero emissions. |
joshcryer |
Nov-23-09 04:52 PM |
#4 |
| -
You know, even if we went to zero emissions tomorrow, that’s still true… |
OKIsItJustMe |
Nov-23-09 05:55 PM |
#7 |
| -
If we stopped tomorrow we might be OK, but since ice melt is a feedback loop.... |
joshcryer |
Nov-23-09 06:07 PM |
#8 |
| -
I guess “screwed” is a relative term |
OKIsItJustMe |
Nov-23-09 06:09 PM |
#9 |
| -
I plan to live a really longtime so perhaps "we" does include me. |
joshcryer |
Nov-23-09 06:11 PM |
#10 |
| -
What we need is negative emissions |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-23-09 06:40 PM |
#11 |
| -
Which brings us back to GeoEngineering™… |
OKIsItJustMe |
Nov-23-09 06:47 PM |
#13 |
| -
I was thinking of a more direct approach. |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-23-09 07:39 PM |
#15 |
| -
If you tax carbon it could pay for it 1:1. Make the tax the cost to remove it. |
joshcryer |
Nov-23-09 08:58 PM |
#17 |
| -
Doesn't need to be zero-emission, though |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-23-09 09:14 PM |
#19 |
| -
Who says it needs to be revenue neutral? |
OKIsItJustMe |
Nov-23-09 10:27 PM |
#23 |
| -
Problem is... |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-23-09 10:31 PM |
#25 |
| -
Hell, I'd rather we actually ban carbon emissions over a decade and spent 100 trillion... |
joshcryer |
Nov-23-09 11:43 PM |
#26 |
| -
Yeah, like I said, GeoEngineering™ |
OKIsItJustMe |
Nov-23-09 10:22 PM |
#22 |
| -
Think I was using a different definition |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-23-09 10:30 PM |
#24 |
| -
Here’s the definition of the National Academies from 1992 |
OKIsItJustMe |
Nov-24-09 10:31 AM |
#34 |
| -
When you say, "I'm pretty well convinced that we don’t stand a chance without something like this" |
GliderGuider |
Nov-24-09 10:37 AM |
#35 |
| -
A good question, to which I wish I had an equally good answer |
OKIsItJustMe |
Nov-24-09 11:04 AM |
#36 |
| -
I've taken the extinction end-point out of my considerations. |
GliderGuider |
Nov-24-09 11:40 AM |
#39 |
| -
I agree that there is a wide (but rapidly narrowing) range of possibilities |
OKIsItJustMe |
Nov-24-09 12:33 PM |
#40 |
| -
The problem as I see it that we may be able to predict an event, but not its impacts. |
GliderGuider |
Nov-24-09 01:34 PM |
#41 |
| -
“others could be ‘turned off‘ if unintended effects occur.” |
OKIsItJustMe |
Nov-24-09 03:03 PM |
#42 |
| -
Making coal seems a pretty good deal too... |
hunter |
Nov-27-09 10:39 AM |
#57 |
| -
My idea, have little solar-powered nano-bots convert CO2 into O2 and pure carbon. |
Odin2005 |
Nov-29-09 11:07 AM |
#63 |
| -
If we don't get a quick handle on population growth, all of the rest is futile. |
Gregorian |
Nov-23-09 07:01 PM |
#14 |
| -
Unfortunately the best method for population ceasation is a higher standard of living. |
joshcryer |
Nov-23-09 08:53 PM |
#16 |
| -
Absolutely. By unfortunate, I suppose you mean higher carbon footprint. |
Gregorian |
Nov-23-09 09:36 PM |
#20 |
| -
Indeed, though theoreticallly a proper high level society need no carbon footprint. |
joshcryer |
Nov-23-09 11:45 PM |
#27 |
| -
Which is why immigration is high in the developed world |
The2ndWheel |
Nov-24-09 11:34 AM |
#38 |
| -
recommended. People don't realize that it's very difficult to gauge the RATE of acceleration of GW. |
JohnWxy |
Nov-23-09 05:43 PM |
#5 |
| -
Hansen said years ago that sea ice melt was going to smack us in the face. |
joshcryer |
Nov-23-09 05:51 PM |
#6 |
| -
And like I keep saying, |
Bigmack |
Nov-23-09 06:42 PM |
#12 |
| -
That produces a local effect, though. Europe gets colder, no more fine wines. |
joshcryer |
Nov-23-09 09:05 PM |
#18 |
| -
I agree...no GLOBAL |
Bigmack |
Nov-23-09 09:39 PM |
#21 |
| -
Really hard to say |
Nederland |
Nov-24-09 02:30 AM |
#31 |
| -
What a lousy article |
Nederland |
Nov-24-09 12:54 AM |
#28 |
| -
Search for the scientists' names. |
joshcryer |
Nov-24-09 01:47 AM |
#29 |
| -
Thanks |
Nederland |
Nov-24-09 02:13 AM |
#30 |
| -
You have to look at that graph in context. The 08 series is La Nina, it should be much lower. |
joshcryer |
Nov-24-09 03:24 AM |
#32 |
| -
I think when scientists say "accelerated" they mean from past or known model predictions. |
joshcryer |
Nov-24-09 04:53 AM |
#33 |
| -
Please note that sea level rise is not uniform |
OKIsItJustMe |
Nov-24-09 11:31 AM |
#37 |
| -
Then it isn't simply due to more melt water? NT |
Howzit |
Nov-25-09 12:04 AM |
#43 |
| -
Thermal expansion. |
joshcryer |
Nov-25-09 12:05 AM |
#44 |
| -
There are other factors as well |
OKIsItJustMe |
Nov-25-09 04:01 PM |
#48 |
| -
In the short run and for small increases, yes |
Nederland |
Nov-25-09 11:36 AM |
#45 |
| -
If future flow increases, as is being observed, the baseline changes. |
joshcryer |
Nov-25-09 02:58 PM |
#46 |
| -
No, that doesn't necessarily follow, although it might seem to be “common sense” |
OKIsItJustMe |
Nov-25-09 03:55 PM |
#47 |
| -
That makes no sense whatsoever |
Nederland |
Nov-26-09 03:46 PM |
#49 |
| -
It's just the way the effects add up |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-26-09 04:17 PM |
#50 |
| -
isostatic rebound |
OKIsItJustMe |
Nov-26-09 11:40 PM |
#52 |
| -
Hmm. Not sure... |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-27-09 12:12 AM |
#53 |
| -
Start your poking here |
OKIsItJustMe |
Nov-27-09 12:33 AM |
#54 |
| -
LOL. I just found that article... |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-27-09 12:54 AM |
#55 |
| -
Err ... what? |
Nihil |
Nov-27-09 06:24 AM |
#56 |
| -
30 gt of CO2 a year = massive fluxes in natural systems = holy crap. |
joshcryer |
Nov-28-09 05:45 PM |
#60 |
| -
The thing is Nederland, the east ice sheet was not expected to melt until well after 2.0C. |
joshcryer |
Nov-26-09 10:28 PM |
#51 |
| -
I take away a different lesson |
Nederland |
Nov-28-09 01:37 PM |
#58 |
| -
IPCC AR4 noted that our dynamical ice flow models were guesses. |
joshcryer |
Nov-28-09 03:26 PM |
#59 |
| -
Good point |
Nederland |
Nov-29-09 09:56 AM |
#62 |
| -
I'm disappointed that that CO2 / temperature measuring satellite didn't make orbit. |
joshcryer |
Nov-29-09 11:34 AM |
#65 |
| -
Interesting thread. |
Quantess |
Nov-28-09 10:50 PM |
#61 |
| -
And when the West Antarctic Ice Shelf goes... |
Odin2005 |
Nov-29-09 11:11 AM |
#64 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread