Eat that GW believers!

[rcain]

One organism's toxic waste is another's food.

..now your just being disingenuous TallDave. And I dont want to hear any examples and conteraxamples. I meant 'Toxic', not 'food'.

I do agree with a lot of MSimons points above, esp:

I'd say we had a minimum of a 5 year project (once it starts) to compile a temperature record...

... that and the rest. I'd say we have 5 years to restore any public confidence in 'Climate Science' and data. Its had a lot of damage done to it by 'politicization' and bad practice. We have not even seen the tip of the iceburg, if you will forgive the pun.

In the meantime, I believe we should 'act' with caution and respect for things we admit we dont fully understand. and never underestimate human beings ability to screw things up.

[alexjrgreen]

CO2 has been up to 7,000 ppmv in geological time. No tipping point.

At that level it starts to become toxic to humans.

As that's only 18 times the current level, a combination of increasing human population and increasing per capita energy use will get us there within a century or so if we continue to release CO2.

Time for some alternative sources of energy. Fusion, perhaps...

[seedload]

In the meantime, I believe we should 'act' with caution and respect for things we admit we dont fully understand. and never underestimate human beings ability to screw things up.

What does 'act' mean?

Acting in ways that causes huge economic damage and a significant impact to our standard of living without putting a dent on CO2 output is stupid.

Actiing in ways that do put a dent in CO2 output is suicide!

I guess we can go on paying off the third world to kill their citizens by denying them energy, but beyond that I draw the line!

If, by 'act', you mean supporting projects that provide an economical alternative to current energy technology, like polywell, then I think you will have a lot of support here - even from us deniers.

[seedload]

CO2 has been up to 7,000 ppmv in geological time. No tipping point.

At that level it starts to become toxic to humans.

As that's only 18 times the current level, a combination of increasing human population and increasing per capita energy use will get us there within a century or so if we continue to release CO2.

Time for some alternative sources of energy. Fusion, perhaps...

WOW! All I can say is WOW! Are you trolling or do you really believe that?

regards

[rcain]

What does 'act' mean?

Acting in ways that causes huge economic damage and a significant impact to our standard of living without putting a dent on CO2 output is stupid.

Actiing in ways that do put a dent in CO2 output is suicide!

I guess we can go on paying off the third world to kill their citizens by denying them energy, but beyond that I draw the line!

If, by 'act', you mean supporting projects that provide an economical alternative to current energy technology, like polywell, then I think you will have a lot of support here - even from us deniers.

by 'act' i mean either act, counteract or do-nothing - ie. 'whatever we do'.

i agree with your scepitcism and recognition of the complexity of the dilema.

i mean, we should support the idea that a significant percentage of the profits of the energy industry (for that matter all consumer societies), should be deployed in reducing the impact of those industries on the environment, whatever that impact actually is.

i am further suggesting that further reliable research is urgently required to determine, once and for all, many of the the matters we have been discussing here.

by 'act' i do also mean that i support innovative and efficient (in the widest sense) proposals such as Polywell, FRC, Fi-Fu-Hybrids, etc.

because i also believe in the innate stupidity of human beings, i also believe it important we should have a climate 'movement'/dialectic. and that there should be incentives and coersions to mitigate environmental impact - whatever the final figures we agree on internationally.

my fear is, and i think a great deal of the sentiment expressed here, is tat the body politic has run-away with this issue and is now misrepresenting science, to a greatest or lesser extent. it should be in our interests to restore faith in the science, though i fear there are many powerful parties more intent on hushing things up and rolling along on the gravy train.

[rcain]

...As that's only 18 times the current level...

... it doesnt sound like much of a margin if you use figures like that.

CO2/(warming?) issnt the only environmental peril we face, possibly not even the worst.

if we get on with fusion (or something like it), the whole sordid climate debate becomes far more academic (and hopefully goes away).

[alexjrgreen]

CO2 has been up to 7,000 ppmv in geological time. No tipping point.

At that level it starts to become toxic to humans.

As that's only 18 times the current level, a combination of increasing human population and increasing per capita energy use will get us there within a century or so if we continue to release CO2.

Time for some alternative sources of energy. Fusion, perhaps...

WOW! All I can say is WOW! Are you trolling or do you really believe that?

regards

The US uses five times as much energy per capita as the current world average.

World population is expected to increase by 50% within 50 years.

Bring everyone in the world up to US levels and do the maths.

[TallDave]

..now your just being disingenuous TallDave. And I dont want to hear any examples and conteraxamples. I meant 'Toxic', not 'food'.

No, really. What one organism excretes as a toxin, another utilizes as food. CO2 is a perfect example of this.

As that's only 18 times the current level, a combination of increasing human population and increasing per capita energy use will get us there within a century or so if we continue to release CO2.

I'm not sure all the coal and oil in the Earth get us close to that, even assuming we used it all next century and none was reabsorbed.

To put 18 times in perspective, we've only raised them about 40-50% so far, as best I can tell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbo ... 400kyr.png

[TallDave]

Interesting that your wikipedia link gives numerous reasons why it is thought to be a problem.

No, it gives various reasons why it might be a problem.

Might be a net benefit.... in 10 million years time. Life evolves to adapt to its current environment.

Or de-alkalinization might be a net benefit now. There's no reason to assume current conditions are optimal just because some arbitrary amount of life exists there now. For instance, even if there are certain organisms adapted to Antarctica's -40 degrees, obviously life would see a large net benefit if temperatures rose to temperate levels.

Also, over most of the Earth's existence, the temperature has been considerably higher than is now, so oceans have probably been closer to neutral pH than now for most of the time life has been around (unless there are other overriding effects).

[rcain]

...What one organism excretes as a toxin, another utilizes as food. CO2 is a perfect example of this...

.. i'll not dispute.

however, your reasoning seems to be that this is good and under our control.

whereas, it simply compounds the problem by introducing the food chain and the whole notion of complex systems.

we dont even know whats happening yet. no one can possibly argue that we are currently in a 'confident' position technically to control climate or the biosphere to our will. notwithstanding problems of political self-interest.

imo, the best we can do currently, is agree to moderate our excesses and attempt to convert economic costs into economic (and scientific) opportunity.

[MSimon]

CO2 has been up to 7,000 ppmv in geological time. No tipping point.

At that level it starts to become toxic to humans.

As that's only 18 times the current level, a combination of increasing human population and increasing per capita energy use will get us there within a century or so if we continue to release CO2.

Time for some alternative sources of energy. Fusion, perhaps...

There are not enough available carbon sources to raise the level above 1,000 ppmv or so. Don't forget that at any given partial pressure the oceans hold roughly 50X as much CO2 as the atmosphere (depending on ocean temperatures).

If we are headed for cooling CO2 will be a non-problem (not that it ever was a problem) oceans will absorb it.

I meant 'Toxic', not 'food'.

CO2 is toxic for animals (at high enough concentrations) it is food for plants at up to 5,000 ppmv. Greenhouses inject CO2 for better plant growth.

Excrement is bad for humans - good for plants.

Ocean warm vents are toxic for humans. And yet there are animals that thrive in that environment. Oil is hard on larger animals. And yet some bacteria love the stuff.

Poison depends on dose. And the LD50 dose depends on the organisms.

Dioxin is a case in point. Some animals are quite sensitive to it. Others (humans) not so much. And why not so much for humans? Conjecture is that we evolved where forest fires were frequent enough to evolve our resistance to it.

Or take radiation. Small doses (around background) have a positive hormesis effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

[Jccarlton]

One link Jcarlton gave saying how tiny the size of the Carbon molecule was and how it was "physically impossible" a trace gas could affect climate really made me angry. Because doubling CO2 would cause an increase of 1 degree, maybe that's a factor of 3 away from a scary change in temperature, but its not a factor of 100. Maybe CO2 won't be a problem in 50 years time, but if we go on emitting and growing and relying on fossil fuels for energy we may well double or even treble the CO2 content in the atmosphere over the next 150 and amplification factor of 3 is inside the realms of possibility.

That it is safe to emit CO2 is not some trivial thing that any school child would know the answer to... its a serious question that needs serious investigation (which it seems the IPCC aren't doing) and we don't know what the results will be.

I looked a bit more closely at the credentials of the man who wrote that. I have every reason to believe he knows his stuff. The physics were right. It also looks like he is a heavy hitter in the field where i am currently employed mass spectrometry. I will find out how heavy a hitter tomorrow in my office, which is full of mass spec heavy hitters. In any case you cannot argue with facts. Like it or not these are the facts. A doubling of the CO2 is not likely to have much if any affect on temperature. There is no such thing as Mann made physics based on the Hansen model. There are no magic gases. There are only a bunch of greedy fools who jiggled the numbers to commit a fraud and the even more foolish who continue to believe them.

[MSimon]

And if the "detriment" is longer growing seasons and faster plant growth can we get the third world to pay us for the benefit?

[rcain]

@MSimon - see my reply to TallDave above.

I do think we agree however, that even if we totally moderated/capped human impact on the planet, nature herself has very much greater to throw at us over millenia.

in our short past, we have survived, adapted and thived. we/some of us are better positioned now, than at any time in our history to survive ice ages, drought, whatever.

that does not mean these things are cost free exercizes, thay can cost the lives of millions (who to be fair, would have died eventually anyway).

whether AGW or not, we need to face even/especially natural climate change as a significant, challenge and (probable) peril.

[rcain]

...There are only a bunch of greedy fools who jiggled the numbers to commit a fraud and the even more foolish who continue to believe them.

..that is what i mean by a crisis of confidence in the science. an unholy position.

we must rediscover, and proclaim the real science (read, original data). you never know, it may even hide a worse anwser.