We Must Do Something About AGW or We All Die!

[waldo]

Something just happened there... you pointed out the science to someone who apparently already believes in AGW. I am intrigued.

if... if... I have misinterpreted an underlying position held... mea culpa!

[Argus]

In all the hyperbole and discussion about "Global Warming', no one has really been able to show me that we have much of a chance of avoiding it no matter what we do. So if we're going to be spending trillions of dollars it would likely be better spent on doing what we can to ameliorate the likely effects of a warmer world.

Personally, I hate winter. So bring on a longer, warmer summer. I'm all for it.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Argus

[waldo]

In all the hyperbole and discussion about "Global Warming', no one has really been able to show me that we have much of a chance of avoiding it no matter what we do. So if we're going to be spending trillions of dollars it would likely be better spent on doing what we can to ameliorate the likely effects of a warmer world.

and the best qualified scientific minds advising policymakers have/had done exactly that... resulting in over a hundred countries adopting the 2°C target threshold maximum temperature gain for stabilization, premised upon halving CO2 emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. You would at least appear to accept an impact; however, you also (intentionally or not) fall into the delaying/do nothing camp that holds to an adaptation only mentality... a rather up-front, self-serving, defeatist approach to avoiding mitigation on any level whatsoever.

Personally, I hate winter. So bring on a longer, warmer summer. I'm all for it.

even on a most simplistic response level you should recognize the massive, significant impacts expected to Canada's north... huge dollar cost impacts relative to demands on infrastructure... again, touched upon in previous MLW climate change related threads.

[jbg]

... again, touched upon in previous MLW climate change related threads.

Well, this has not been, Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled (link, excerpts below):

Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled

Lawrence Solomon Aug 26, 2011 – 11:37 PM ET | Last Updated: Aug 27, 2011 10:08 PM ET

New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

This article should be a good antidote to AGW buffoonery.

[Michael Hardner]

I read a more sober and less biased summation of the science, and there are a few steps to go ... big big steps ... before this means anything.

[Bonam]

Personally, I hate winter. So bring on a longer, warmer summer. I'm all for it.

Hate winter? Really? I love ski season, myself. Best time of the year.

[waldo]

... again, touched upon in previous MLW climate change related threads.

Well, this has not been, Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled (link, excerpts below):

This article should be a good antidote to AGW buffoonery.

well... let's see... you must have something to say since you just called me out in two threads on this exact same link you're offering up. It's a shame you can't follow through and actually offer your own personalized thought/commentary as to significance, relevancy, impact, etc., - really, c'mon, there's already one guy on MLW who has this same "ta da" move trademarked... blindly dropping (denier flavoured) links, sans personal thought/commentary. Be original, man!

in any case, you're wrong as we actually have touched upon a degree of this same theme through various MLW threads... do a search on Svensmark and Solomon (yes, Solomon, the same "denier journalist" now fronting this bullshit piece you're linking to)... cause, ya see, the denialsphere actually believes this is the "holy grail" that finally... finally... brings forward the magic bullet that finally validates the life-long string of repeated Svensmark failures over his alternate theory on the cause of global warming.

in fact... this is a most significant first release from CERN/CLOUD... one that's been anxiously waited upon these last few years by real legitimate scientists, particularly in regards to the science and modelling relative to atmospheric aerosols. Unfortunately for deniers, like you, jbg, this is being absolutely, and completely, incorrectly interpreted and spun wildly throughout denialTown! Equally, the heads of the most fervent hardcore deniers are exploding... because, for them, to presume to get any mileage out of this... they must first acknowledge actual warming... in order to presume to refute it!!! Heads exploding!!!

in any case, let's play! Since you're so hesitant to actually say anything... to actually put yourself out there... perhaps I can offer-up an initial teaser... now, I know you're an expert on eyeballing trends... tell me, what do you see in my lil' teaser... what can you eyeball, hey?

[waldo]

c'mon... jbg, looks like you've been posting up a storm today - you're numero-uno on the Top Posters listing..... and yet... nuthin from you over here - crickets! Clearly, you wanted to be stroked with your 2 separate thread call-out on me. Have you nothing to say... have you nothing to add over and above your dropping a "ta da" link, throwing insults and scurrying away? You clearly touted your referenced link as an, as you stated, "antidote to AGW buffoonery". How so, oh denying one? How so?

[jbg]

More schoolyard bullying eh?

[waldo]

c'mon... jbg, looks like you've been posting up a storm today - you're numero-uno on the Top Posters listing..... and yet... nuthin from you over here - crickets! Clearly, you wanted to be stroked with your 2 separate thread call-out on me. Have you nothing to say... have you nothing to add over and above your dropping a "ta da" link, throwing insults and scurrying away? You clearly touted your referenced link as an, as you stated, "antidote to AGW buffoonery". How so, oh denying one? How so?

More schoolyard bullying eh?

I'll just reply to your continued victimization ploy with the same quote-stream from the other thread. Overall, across these two threads, where you purposely went out of your way to throw down a challenge... the same challenge... in each respective thread; overall... was this the type of response/reaction you hoped for? Really, c'mon, it was clear you had much more to say - that you wanted to say... more! Or, did I misconstrue?

no need for you to post the same link twice, in separate threads... to call me out on the same link twice, in separate threads. Let's play

over here

... c'mon, bring it! You do have something to say, right?

Are you challenging me to go out in the back alley and fight or something? You sound like a schoolyard bully.

so says the guy who went out of his way to find quotes of mine, in two separate threads, and threw down a link to that Solomon tripe... in two separate threads... the exact same linked/quoted post from you, challenging me. You clearly wanted a response/reaction... were you, as you say, "challenging me to go out in the back alley and fight or something? You sound like a schoolyard bully"?

(by the by, how's your eyeballing of my lil' teaser response to your 2-thread challenge coming along?)...

in any case, let's play! Since you're so hesitant to actually say anything... to actually put yourself out there... perhaps I can

offer-up an initial teaser

... now, I know

you're an expert on eyeballing trends

... tell me, what do you see in my lil' teaser... what can you eyeball, hey?

[jbg]

This is downright childish, sorry. I don't respond to taunts.

[Sir Bandelot]

Maybe if we hadn't a hacked so much rainforest down, hey?

Grow

Trees

[waldo]

This is downright childish, sorry. I don't respond to taunts.

well... apparently, when inclined/motivated by certain types... I do. Perhaps you seek a dispensation on what you did, where you quite literally threw down the, as you say, "taunts". Please step-up and explain how else to interpret what you did... please explain why you would, in two distinctly separate threads, go out of your way to find quotes of mine and respond to each quote with the same linked/quoted reference to a wildly incorrect and hyped interpretation... one you touted as the, as you said, "antidote to AGW buffoonery". You clearly sought me out and presumed to tauntingly solicit some type of response/reaction. Why? Why did you do that? What was you aim, what was your intent? Were you/are you satisfied? Was your continued playing the victim a part of the plan, man?

[GostHacked]

Maybe if we hadn't a hacked so much rainforest down, hey?

Grow

Trees

Such a simple thing to do. Cost effective yes (forestry companies do this all the time) and would be the most effective at scrubbing CO2 out of the air compared to any technology we'd develop in the next 100 years.

[Sir Bandelot]

Such a simple thing to do. Cost effective yes (forestry companies do this all the time) and would be the most effective at scrubbing CO2 out of the air compared to any technology we'd develop in the next 100 years.

That's right. Creates shade, oxygen, lowers the surface albeido, and it yields a profitable return in the wood products. We turn the greenhouse gas into a useful substance that everyone needs.

Bandelot's a GENIUS!

[waldo]

Such a simple thing to do. Cost effective yes (forestry companies do this all the time) and would be the most effective at scrubbing CO2 out of the air compared to any technology we'd develop in the next 100 years.

yes... and no... (to a limited, qualified degree, depending on, for example, geographical location and/or chosen land/application).

we've had this discussion before; e.g. prior (extracted) exchange:

Reforestation has many (other) value-add purposes, obviously; however, from the standpoint of this discussion centered on carbon sink impacts, there is a most significant difference between the positive major impacts that can be realized in a tropical climate/latitude, than what can be seen from trees within northern/temperate latitudes... repeating again, for the umpteenth time, "changing albedo impacts coupled with a slow/shortened growth period within northern/temperate latitudes counter, significantly, any appreciable carbon sink gains.

what you perceive as outright dismissal is more a response that questions your reforestation/afforestation approached solution, that on a practical, scaleable level, borders on an almost geo-engineering mindset and applicability, notwithstanding it's viability, merit or subjected political/policy adherence.

in putting your solution eggs in the reforestation basket, you may also want to give consideration to a recent paper -

Ecosystem Carbon Stock Influenced by Plantation Practice: Implications for Planting Forests as a Measure of Climate Change Mitigation

...

a study that finds that reforestation and afforestation may lower the potential for forests to lessen the impacts of climate change - questioning whether large-scale plantation growths have the same ecosystem carbon stock as natural forests; in effect showing that plantations substantially reduce carbon stock in ecosystems in comparison with natural forests. The study challenges the idea that planting non-native or native-improved growth species on historical forest land yields greater carbon accumulation rates. The papers authors argue against the replacement of natural forests by reforestation (plantations), to help stave off climate change. This reforestation on non-forested fields (e.g. agricultural lands) does help with the control of carbon emissions; however, it in turn, has a negative impact in regards to the conversion of farmland to forests and a corresponding decrease in the amount of soil carbon absorption. Additionally, the papers shows that the conversion also has an affect on methane, as converted soil loses 80% of its capability to degrade methane as compared to natural forests.

... re: Cancun COP16 agreements concerning land use and deforestation...

press release from the UN-REDD Programme

(Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)):

The UN-REDD Programme, a collaborative initiative of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), commends the great effort and political will shown at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 16th Conference of the Parties (UNFCCC COP16) in Cancun, Mexico, which has resulted in an agreement on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in

developing countries

(REDD+).

.

.

Tropical forests

store more than half of all carbon found in terrestrial vegetation worldwide and contain at least two thirds of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity, making REDD+ a critical component in the global fight against climate change.

The COP16 agreement on REDD+ is expected to revitalize and increase funding flows to support REDD+ readiness and invigorate donor pledges for REDD+ that now amount to close to US$5 billion for early actions until 2012.

"REDD+ means that farmers and rural people in developing countries can now be compensated for the climate services they provide for us all, helping us to avoid dangerous climate change. We will need investments in sustainable agriculture both to reduce pressure on forest land and, primarily, to secure food for everyone.

[GostHacked]

That's right. Creates shade, oxygen, lowers the surface albeido, and it yields a profitable return in the wood products. We turn the greenhouse gas into a useful substance that everyone needs.

Bandelot's a GENIUS!

Sometimes a really simplistic approach works. People are thinking about this way too much. We breath out CO2, trees and vegetation take it in. Trees/vegetation also help prevent land erosion.

Waldo

yes... and no... (to a limited, qualified degree, depending on, for example, geographical location and/or chosen land/application).

we've had this discussion before; e.g. prior (extracted) exchange:

True, we've been through this before, but it seems that you are more or less making excuses to NOT do it. Sure the benefits may be small at the start, but trees take a long time to grow, if you don't start now, then we are going to be in bigger trouble down the road. Everyone wants to trade credits and put money into technology to scrub CO2 out of the air, when the technology already exists in the forms of trees and vegetation. But I guess there is no money in that.

[Sir Bandelot]

trees take a long time to grow, if you don't start now, then we are going to be in bigger trouble down the road. Everyone wants to trade credits and put money into technology to scrub CO2 out of the air, when the technology already exists in the forms of trees and vegetation. But I guess there is no money in that.

Hemp, of course, grows very quickly. Up to three crops per season. Reintroduces nitrogen into the soil. And you get all that wonderful seed, and fibre...

[Sir Bandelot]

yes... and no... (to a limited, qualified degree, depending on, for example, geographical location and/or chosen land/application).

we've had this discussion before; e.g. prior (extracted) exchange:

"changing albedo impacts coupled with a slow/shortened growth period within northern/temperate latitudes counter, significantly, any appreciable carbon sink gains."

I would think that the changing albedo means that solar energy was absorbed by vegetation, rather than reflected back up into the atmosphere where increased CO2 absorbs it instead, thereby heating the atmosphere?

[GostHacked]

Hemp, of course, grows very quickly. Up to three crops per season. Reintroduces nitrogen into the soil. And you get all that wonderful seed, and fibre...

It is but one small solution! Too bad something of a huge benefit is banned because people think you can get high off hemp.

[TimG]

It is but one small solution! Too bad something of a huge benefit is banned because people think you can get high off hemp.

It is legal to grow in Canada:

Effective March 12, 1998, the commercial production (including cultivation) of industrial hemp is now permitted in Canada, under licenses and authorization, issued by Health Canada. This action was prompted by several years of field research and lobbying by the agricultural and business community. Prior to 1998,

Yet almost no one does.

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/econ9631

[waldo]

... "changing albedo impacts coupled with a slow/shortened growth period within northern/temperate latitudes counter, significantly, any appreciable carbon sink gains.

I would think that the changing albedo means that solar energy was absorbed by vegetation, rather than reflected back up into the atmosphere where increased CO2 absorbs it instead, thereby heating the atmosphere?

notwithstanding the variants of albedo at play (trees vs. ‘no trees’, deciduous trees vs. evergreen trees, trees vs. a varying rate of ground melt, etc.,); notwithstanding a larger (than albedo) impacting radiative effect from enhanced transpiration, one associated with expanded northerly forest cover; notwithstanding an associated positive feedback on this albedo and transpiration, one associated with resultant increased GHG warming... notwithstanding all of that, and more:

you’re speaking specifically to (only) a lowering albedo variant, one resulting in less sun reflection back into the atmosphere, one causing increased earth warming, one resulting in an increase in earth radiated infrared heat, one resulting in the overall atmospheric increase in GHGs absorbing an increase in this resulting increase in Earth radiated infrared heat, one resulting in a re-radiation of some of this absorbed heat back towards the Earth’s surface… resulting in increased earth warming. On the other hand, sunlight reflected back into the atmosphere (associated with increasing albedo), results in minimal heating of the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere… atmospheric GHG gases do not absorb these wavelengths of reflected sunlight.

[waldo]

Sometimes a really simplistic approach works. People are thinking about this way too much. We breath out CO2, trees and vegetation take it in. Trees/vegetation also help prevent land erosion.

Waldo

True, we've been through this before, but it seems that you are more or less making excuses to NOT do it. Sure the benefits may be small at the start, but trees take a long time to grow, if you don't start now, then we are going to be in bigger trouble down the road. Everyone wants to trade credits and put money into technology to scrub CO2 out of the air, when the technology already exists in the forms of trees and vegetation. But I guess there is no money in that.

no, I qualified the limitations, particularly as reflect upon diminishing gains (if any whatsoever), associated with northern/temperate latitudes... I also highlighted the emphasis on tropical forests, latitudes where gains can be realized given the nature of the trees and long extended ('continuous') growing seasons... I also highlighted the recent Cancun COP16 agreements to that end; i.e., REDD & global country commitments to expend monies in developing nations for reforestation/afforestation or compensations therein (again, emphasizing the tropical nature of said developing nations). Of course, as we're both acknowledging, this is not the first time we've had this related discussion... it's not the first time I've brought forward these same points (and more). However, none of this, none of what I bring forward seems to stick... to register... with you.