Posted on 12/02/2016 4:31:28 AM PST by Kaslin
Let’s assume global warming is real. Correct or not, we will start today with that supposition. Assume with me that there is a problem for a moment so that we may discuss tangible solutions.
Let us start by defining our terminology, as the concept of "climate change" tends to drift to fit the data—the true hallmark of scientific rigor.
The argument at hand is that the earth is warming due to greenhouse gases which man is releasing into the atmosphere; most especially carbon dioxide. This has been culminating since around the time of the post-war industrial boom accompanying and following World War II. Since then, CO2 emissions have continued to expand at an alarming rate. Through this anthropomorphic, man-made increase in warmth the average surface temperature of the earth will continue to climb, the oceans will rise, polar bears will need to learn to surf, and all that jazz. Also, potentially, parts of coastal California will eventually fall into the ocean. This is apparently to be taken as a bad thing, but must depend on one's perspective.
This is a real problem.
Even if it isn't, there is the famous "play it safe" argument. If we can't be positive either way in regards to climate warming, shouldn't we work to reduce our greenhouse emissions just to be sure? Those that argue in this alternative and don't take it to the logical extreme are not serious people.
The case for global warming, as straightforward as it is, should be equally easy to solve. We simply need to return to the carbon levels of 1940, the front end of our carbon production explosion, and all the anticipated pain will go away. Any other suggestion from trillion-dollar, jet-setting, pretend-you-aren't-part-of-the-problem climate summits is a half-measure.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The execution is mediocre.
CO2 is plant food! Free Kale for everyone!
marktwain wrote: “The execution is mediocre.”
How would you have made the author’s point better?
A good article that shows the math for how impossible it is to reduce our CO2 output to 1940 levels.
Of course he makes the poor assumption (I know - he’s just being the devil’s advocate) that manmade CO2 can somehow effect the level of “greenhouse gases” to any significant degree. Natural water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse gas EFFECT. (Not just percentage by weight, but the effect it has. e.g. methane has a greater effect than CO2.
Bottom line - man contributes to about 0.28% of the greenhouse EFFECT. And for a comparison - see what marked changes occur during a period of large volcanic eruptions (on the cooling side due to ash).
The liberal’s assumption to “play it safe” by assuming the worst in global warming is also wrong. To “play it safe”, one must look at what might happen with both warming and cooling in order to anticipate problems and plan for them.
Based on previous earth temperature cycles, I believe that a cold period, probably even an “ice age” with mile high ice over Chicago is coming. Global Warming would be easier to handle than the next ice age.
The earth is cooiing. Geez...
First, the sarcasm in the line “true hallmark of scientific rigor’ is unclear. A great many people do not understand the scientific method. It needs more explanation.
Second, the argument ignores the CO2 already in the atmosphere - it is sort of addressed, but is unclear and the logic is muddy. We would not only need to return to 1940 levels of emissions, but get rid of the carbon dioxide already released.
So, a rewrite could solve those problems.
But the overall point, that the “solutions” offered for the supposed problem are worse than the alternative, is worthwhile and valid.
And green, growing rain forests are a large part of the solution.
The Sahara could bloom again, with verdant lush growth, all it needs is water. And there is reason to believe that the Sahara WAS a lush, green rain forest, not too far into the geologic past.
Just to the west of the coast of Africa, is a HUGE supply of water. Only problem, it is too saline for proper irrigation of fresh-water plant species. Short answer, desalinate the sea water, and use the desalinated water to send freshets of irrigation streams across the expanse of sand that is now there.
How to desalinate the sea water on massive scale? Proposal - build a quantity of Thorium-fueled molten-salt atomic reactors on the west coast of Morocco, and huge condensation towers. Let water in from the Atlantic into reservoirs, and heat this flow with heat emanating from the atomic reactor. As the water is vaporized, collect it in the condensation towers, and shunt the ever more concentrated brine off to the side, we will get back to it later. In large enough quantity, the distilled water collected this way will more than adequately initiate the greening of the Sahara, and where there is enough greenery, rain forests follow. Over time, decades or even centuries, the green belt will reach all the way across to Egypt, and the resulting alterations of weather patterns will continue to spread this higher moisture content even further east across the Fertile Crescent and perhaps as far as Afghanistan. Can you imagine the changes that would bring to the culture of the region?
Now getting back to this ever-growing pile of sea salt. Every element is dissolved in some measure, in sea water, the most common compound, of course, being sodium chloride.
Sodium chloride contains two very useful elements, sodium and chlorine, both of which are valuable industrial chemicals, and may be used as feedstock in the manufacture of a wide range of chemicals. It is only necessary to separate the ionic content and convert it back to elemental form.
This may be done by electrolysis, using the electricity generated by the operation of the Thorium-fueled molten salt reactors, with a portion of the energy used to generate electricity, while the “waste” heat energy is used to distill the incoming sea water. Once the sodium chloride is separated from the rest of the sea brine, (and you chemical engineers know all about crystallization differentials), the remaining brine is VERY high in potassium chloride, a valuable fertilizer component. Again separated by crystallization differentials, the other less common components of sea water, valuable industrial chemicals in their own right, may be successfully separated, even including some small portion of gold and other heavy metals, but that is merely a side product and while its recovery may help the overall economic return, by no means is the primary source of return on investment.
The article seems to imply that to achieve climate change goals, it’s necessary to effect a cataclysmic reduction in human population. If that’s the case, those who want to fight global warming are, perhaps unwittingly, advocates of genocide on a cosmic scale; IOW, Algore is at heart a worse mass-murderer than Adolf Hitler.
Yes, he basically says that.
He should clearly state that the solution is far worse than the stated problem.
You made excellent points that are technically correct, would those corrections improve the article? Yes, they would be for a scientific article. I’m not sure those corrections wouldn’t be too far into the weeds for an article for mass consumption.
There was another point as well that could have been amplified. If one accepts the total of carbon emissions as the goal, then the per capita carbon emission must decline as populations increase implying a continuing decline in the standards of living unless one accepts population control as the only answer.
Thank you for your response.
I suspect this article is tongue in cheek sarcasm.
He ends with something like “let the leftists go first”. That pretty much clinched it for me.
Behind every Warmist is an Over-populationist.
“The real problem is we’ve got too many people” is a meme being taught to our kids.
Someday, to save the Earth, one of those kids will “do something” about that.
Scary.
Let us begin with the assumption that grass is the source of all cancers and heart disease. Correct or not, insanely stupid or not, let’s just give time to any old unchallenged premise as if such an exercise could possibly be worth anything other than mockery and derision...
Nah, let’s not.
Of course, it might very well be that deep inside we all know the left is so full of crap that to demand evidence from them is prima facia preposterous.
In 1875, coal-fired steam engines belching unrestricted smoke powered factories, locomotives and ships. Kitchen stoves were coal-or wood-fired, and lighting was provided by lanterns, candles or gas lamps, all of which polluted the air. Horse manure was also a major pollutant, tons of which had to be removed from city streets daily.
Do we really want to go back to that lifestyle?
I’m pretty much convinced the reductio ad absurdum argument was presented in the spirit of pure sarcasm as such things normally are.
"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."
--Christiane Fugueres, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC
They should lead by example but you know they think THEY should be the ones who get to live.
"Ceterum censeo Islam esse delendam."
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.