Abrupt catastrophic climate change a real possibility

futurecurrents said:
It's a great idea. But we don't want to have to force any particular of energy source. We need the free market to find the best solution. A tax on carbon makes nuclear and the others more attractive. The tax can be returned to the consumer. In addition to a tax the govt may need to act as a lender for the nuclear power investment which as you say is the main stumbling block.
More...

Or else stop subsiding the fossil fuel industries. Solar would have been competitive a century ago if oil, gas and coal hadn't been so cheap.
 
loyek590 said:
as far as catastrophic change, the few scientists I respect who don't have a political axe to grind tell me, too much fresh ice melting into saltwater could change the gulf stream which would have a cooling affect on the eastern seaboard. No great loss. They don't grow much there anymore.

at any rate, I am an average American. And an average American isn't going to actually do anything until it affects them personally.

The alarmists have done your side much more harm than good. And you have plenty of idiots on your side, claiming co2 causes asthma and more tornadoes.
More...


Asthma yes, tornadoes no. Asthma because weeds are growing faster and increasing their range. Their pollen can trigger asthma attacks.

Tornadoes are debated within the climate science community with most saying it is too soon to say. Some factors for tornadoes are going up but others are going down. The relatively greater heating of the Arctic is reducing the temp gradient which may actually reduce tornadoes however there is more heat in the air for them to feed on.
 
Maybe the GW cultists can explain why these "abrupt" climate changes occurred when there were'n't any SUV's driving around. No smokestacks. No coal fired power plants. Nothing at all, yet they did occur. A sensible person would then conclude man and his evil ways aren't the primary source of climate change, abrupt or otherwise. To say man may not survive an abrupt climate shift is like saying man may not survive an attack by aliens. Technically correct, and both about as likely. This, from the party of "intellectuals.":rolleyes:
 
CaptainObvious said:
Maybe the GW cultists can explain why these "abrupt" climate changes occurred when there were'n't any SUV's driving around. No smokestacks. No coal fired power plants. Nothing at all, yet they did occur. A sensible person would then conclude man and his evil ways aren't the primary source of climate change, abrupt or otherwise. To say man may not survive an abrupt climate shift is like saying man may not survive an attack by aliens. Technically correct, and both about as likely. This, from the party of "intellectuals.":rolleyes:
More...


Believe it or not, it was CO2. CO2 released from warming oceans caused greater heating which caused more CO2 release ..... Feedback mechanism. Were it not for CO2 the earth would be much much colder and the temp swings not nearly as large.

ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg
 
Last edited:
futurecurrents said:
No algae does not produce CO2. It is CO2 neutral. The CO2 from it comes from the air. It does not make the GW crowd furious, quite the opposite.
More...
explain? Doesn't it produce co2 when the final product is burned? Or are you saying it absorbs co2 while it is creating the oil?
 
yeah - the average of 30 data sets?

the idea of man made co2 causing all the warming is broken. it was based on the record of some weak proxies and failed models which pretended the sun and the currents did not impact temperature.
 
jem said:
yeah - the average of 30 data sets?

the idea of man made co2 causing all the warming is broken. it was based on the record of some weak proxies and failed models which pretended the sun and the currents did not impact temperature.
More...

You don't want people interfering with your threads. Why are you so intent on interfering with those of others?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top