[vtsnowedin]

Nothing but heat radiating out and no solar energy coming in.

Except for that the infrared is reflected by the atmosphere.

Are you trying to imply that vast quantities of heat are not radiated out from the northern hemisphere during the winter?

[Newfie]

Taxing carbon and giving the money back in rebates or building solar parks isn't protecting our cities from the natural disasters that will happen at some point and history has shown us they always do happen.

This elevates the whole conversation to a new level and we have an Adaptation thread and Degrowth thread for such discussions.

Your comment begs the questions of not only What will happen? But When? And Why? And most importantly What do we Do now Ollie?

What we do know is that the climate is changing in percetable ways caused by human activity, specifically release of green house gasses. We are effecting our habitat in other manners as well such as resource depletion (oil, water, etc.) and more factors. It’s a clear case of the Tradgedy of the Commons tuning its course.

What to do? First educating the public to the dangers and then proposing rational measures that fit the problem. I find very little positive in the GND, and much negative, it has made finding a solution much more difficult because it politicized the agenda. That’s gonna make education difficult

We need solutions that reach across the range of problems we are facing, it just climate change.

Ideas for the USA, elsewhere will have different solutions. In no particular order:
Set a max population, cease all immigration until we fall below that population.

Seek to reduce our energy use. We sent many billions aboard annually to buy oil. Stop, keep that money home to pay down the self.

Rationalize our transportation infrastructure to meet our current needs. No more expansion simply to grow undeveloped areas. Make mass transit less expensive or FEEE. It’s an underutilized public investment.

Don’t invest in fighting Mother Nature. Let New Orleans go. Ditto Miami. Stop all development of barrier islands. And quit spending untold billions trying to move people into and out of NYC. SLR will eventually make it untenable. Use our money to build sustainable elsewhere, not pouring it down an inundated subway line.

Cease trying to be the World’s Breadbasket. Not stop all export but why are we depleting our soils to feed places like Saudi Arabia, which has no hope of feeding itself. Obviously this would have to be stepped down over time. But we need to lower the stress on our souls, go towards sustainable agriculture, even if it costs more.

Build out nuclear energy. Figure out how to use the old nukes, make another try at meeting our treaty commitments with Russia. Build out wind and solar where it makes sense. Solar canopies over parking lots, doubles the usage out of a piece of otherwise worthless land. Parking lots scale with population.

Stop trying to export Democracy. Scale back the military. Mind our own business.

ALL new housing needs to be vastly more energy efficient.

Vastly improve our communications infrastructure so we cane make better use of video conferencing vs. flying to meetings.

And maybe even a carbon tax. And much more

To do any of these things we need a national awareness of the need to do them, the advantages of long term planning, understanding of the consequences. It’s not just about climate change, it’s about a whole array of interlocking problems. And many of the solutions are overlapping.

[jedrider]

Nothing but heat radiating out and no solar energy coming in.

Except for that the infrared is reflected by the atmosphere.

Are you trying to imply that vast quantities of heat are not radiated out from the northern hemisphere during the winter?

Of course not. But to compare that to the EXTRA quantity of heat absorbed during an ice free Summer is, perhaps, absurd.

[rockdoc123]

But somehow, Einstein, Heisenberg and Schrodinger managed to get their alternate theories published. Not to mention many Nobel prize winners since.

and somehow many more scientists have spent years publishing critics of said papers and many others. If you are going to suggest Einstein and Heisenberg's theories were "alternative" theories to something then it means each and every theory that has ever been published is an "alternative" to some other theory. That is not what is being discussed here. Simply put someone posits a theory and someone else picks it apart and tests it against empirical and other evidence. If it holds up great, if it doesn't then the theory needs revisiting. Numerous scientists of late have been testing Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, some coming up with support others coming up with further questions...just look up the work of Ozawa, Hasegawa, Rozema or Wiseman. Richard Feynman stated the scientific method very eloquently in his lecture to that subject:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it(audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. 

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.

Einstein stated it slightly differently:

No amount of experimentation can prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.

As I have said previously the Discussion portion of technical journals is for exactly that...critiquing published papers and their theories. The Discussion will generally not get published if you bring forward a new theory (many journals have explicit rules around this). Science has advanced in this manner for many, many years.

[vtsnowedin]

Nothing but heat radiating out and no solar energy coming in.

Except for that the infrared is reflected by the atmosphere.

Are you trying to imply that vast quantities of heat are not radiated out from the northern hemisphere during the winter?

Of course not. But to compare that to the EXTRA quantity of heat absorbed during an ice free Summer is, perhaps, absurd.

To compare two or three weeks (none of which have happened yet) of ice free conditions in late summer when the sun is already low in the sky to 175 days (4200 continuous hours)of darkness is what is absurd.

[Newfie]

Nice article from NASA looking at the thawing Arctic has opened it to shipping. Good graphics.

The annual maximum and minimum ice extents for the Arctic region have become steadily smaller over the past 40 years, and the percentage of thick, multi-year ice has been shrinking considerably. This thinning and retreating ice has opened the Arctic Ocean to new opportunities, but also serious environmental concerns. Shipping traffic fits into both categories.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/image ... ce-decline

[vtsnowedin]

hiwnthe

??

[Newfie]

For something that is supposedly not happening (Arctic ice retreat) it seems a lot of countries and companies are paying a lot of attention.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_resources_race

Climate change is making Arctic resources more accessible. For example, in Denmark the retreating of the ice caps has exposed mineral deposits, such as rare-earth metals, that can be extracted and used for technologies like cell phones or military guidance systems.[54] Another effect of climate change on the Arctic will include the creation of new trade waterways through the north, further exploiting the area. Changes in the Arctic will affect resource competition and conflict in the upcoming years.[55]

[Newfie]

hiwnthe

??

“The”

nit·pick
/ˈnitˌpik/Submit
verbINFORMAL
engage in fussy or pedantic fault-finding.
"the state is nitpicking about minor administrative matters"

[vtsnowedin]

Nah not nit picking. Just poking fun at your fat thumbs and small phone.
I try to read all of my posts as soon as they go up and strain out all the typos I see but that lets quite a few through. A simple or will do.

[Newfie]

Ditto. I have a damn tough time with my fat thumbs. My speellljng is bad enough in its own.

[vtsnowedin]

Ditto. I have a damn tough time with my fat thumbs. My speellljng is bad enough in its own.

Without spell checker and the aid of my Catholic school educated wife I would come across as a uneducated idiot.
Yes I know some will say I still do, but their own post level that field.

[onlooker]

Vts, recommend you read about Abrupt Climate Change on this site or google it. So, I am not so sure about what you are saying. What do other posters say?

I have already read quite a bit about climate change including abrupt versions. Frankly much of that is complete rubbish that ignores the fact that the sun sets at the pole in September and the winter night there is 24/7 for 175 days. Nothing but heat radiating out and no solar energy coming in.

I would not be so cavalier about this
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 021119.php

Arctic sea ice loss in the past linked to abrupt climate events

[vtsnowedin]

Vts, recommend you read about Abrupt Climate Change on this site or google it. So, I am not so sure about what you are saying. What do other posters say?

I have already read quite a bit about climate change including abrupt versions. Frankly much of that is complete rubbish that ignores the fact that the sun sets at the pole in September and the winter night there is 24/7 for 175 days. Nothing but heat radiating out and no solar energy coming in.

I would not be so cavalier about this
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 021119.php

Arctic sea ice loss in the past linked to abrupt climate events

Again that it happened in the past without human activity a possible cause is evidence that it might not be human activity that is causing it now.
Also that sea ice retreat coincided with ice melt on Greenland doesn't prove that one caused the other, that both were the result from the same yet as unidentified root cause is just as plausible.

[onlooker]

Vts, the geologic record is clear that climate change has induced mass extinction events. And the current science is clear that GHG rise is tracking forcings on the climate. Yes, we still lack a certain level of certainty that will come when more information is collected. But, the precautionary principle should mean that humanity should act in light of the grave risks of not acting. Sufficient reasons exist to act.

[vtsnowedin]

Vts, the geologic record is clear that climate change has induced mass extinction events. And the current science is clear that GHG rise is tracking forcings on the climate. Yes, we still lack a certain level of certainty that will come when more information is collected. But, the precautionary principle should mean that humanity should act in light of the grave risks of not acting. Sufficient reasons exist to act.

To act? In what way, at what cost, and with what outcome, positive or negative?

[KaiserJeep]

When the CC fanboys say "act", what they mean is the cessation of burning FF's for the energy they produce.

This means the end of mechanized food production, and the disappearance of 90% of human food. This means the end of industry, manufacturing, and tech. This means the end of personal transport that is not muscle-powered.

After the World population has starved and perished from the cold, the one billion or so that are left can probably figure out if the AGW theory was correct. Which in turn will support the conclusion of whether or not the FUD over CC was ever justified.

In other words, was the genocide of the human race justified by the fear of CC.

Now they will chime in and claim not to be genocidal maniacs. Then they will reiterate that we MUST STOP BURNING FF's. This is the finest example of cognitive dissonance you will ever see, IMHO.

[onlooker]

okay here are 3 links. I am sure you can find many more. Basically, the costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of action is my takeaway. The outcome is us as a species maintaining a livable planet. How much is that worth?

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/climate-change-economic-cost-united-states

 https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/blogs/why-fixing-climate-change-may-turn-out-to-be-a-bargain

 https://eciu.net/briefings/climate-impacts/climate-economics

[onlooker]

No not the cessation but the ramping down of FF. Kaiser would have you believe that it is a better bet for our species for a few of us to venture into space and then once again expand as a population. He would just let our tremendous impacts on Earth continue and even worsen because in accord with his line of reasoning, the juggernaught of humanity cannot be stopped nor should it be. And if that means forsaking our host planet to allow it to become virtually uninhabitable, well so be it. That is simply crazy

[Newfie]

Vts, the geologic record is clear that climate change has induced mass extinction events. And the current science is clear that GHG rise is tracking forcings on the climate. Yes, we still lack a certain level of certainty that will come when more information is collected. But, the precautionary principle should mean that humanity should act in light of the grave risks of not acting. Sufficient reasons exist to act.

To act? In what way, at what cost, and with what outcome, positive or negative?

This is the crux, some folks are very suspicious of the GND agenda and rightly so. It’s BS.

The actions should be toward Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. To try to live within our means. To lay down our debt. Go easy on the things we have, make them last. To learn that happiness and contentment comes from within, once some threshold has been crossed.

Those things in themselves will not stop global warming but the constitute the low hanging fruit, things that are easily accomplished without a WWII effort. And they would also help with resource depletion and other problems.

You know my spiel by now. I’m not supporting the GND or their idiotic agenda, it’s just more, More, MORE. What we need it LESS, Less, less.