Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [carfree_cities] Arctic ice disaster looms

Expand Messages
  • Michael A. Lewis
    I see from this content that my message is not welcome on this forum. It s unfortunate that so many are so closed-minded about the possibilities of differing
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 10, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I see from this content that my message is not welcome on this forum. It's unfortunate that so many are so closed-minded about the possibilities of differing viewpoints.

      I have studied climate science and climate variation since 1991 as an archaeologist involved in research on human responses to climate variation in the Arctic.

      With regard to proposition 3):

      "making massive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions" is neither easy nor economical.

      Think about it. How would we reduce fossil fuel burning sufficiently to make a significant difference in total atmospheric CO2 concentration, even if that would reduce global average surface temperature, and assuming that global average surface temperature is a meaningful measure of climate variation?

      Based on IPCC numbers, we would have to stop all fossil fuel burning for 35 years in order to reduce global average surface temperature by 1 degree Centigrade (if those numbers are accurate and meaningful). That means no fossil-fueled transportation, no fossil-fueled electricity generation, no fossil-fueled production of renewable energy technology, no fossil-fueled heating or cooling.

      Even if it were demonstrated definitively that ending fossil fuel burning today would result in a one degree decrease in global average surface temperature, we do not have the technological capability to make this massive change. Furthermore, "probably effective" is insufficient justification for embarking on such an enormous undertaking that would undercut the entire economic basis of human civilization.

      The jury is still out; the science is not settled; we are technologically incapable of knowledgable geoengineering of the earth's climate or transforming the world's energy infrastructure to renewable sources within any timeframe applicable to the IPCC AGW scenario.

      Meanwhile, no matter what humans do, natural climate variation continues apace, on its inevitable course to the next ice age.


      On Oct 10, 2012, at 9:42 AM, J.H. Crawford wrote:

      > Hi All,
      >
      > I let Michael A. Lewis's post through because it has a viewpoint that I think we're going to hear a lot of in the future.
      >
      > The biggest problem is that it sets up a false dichotomy:
      >
      > 1) do nothing and let nature take its course
      >
      > 2) resort to geo-engineering with all sorts of as-yet "unknown unknowns."
      >
      > There is, of course:
      >
      > 3) Set about making massive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. This is easy, economical, sustainable, and probably effective. No wonder this option is off the table.
    • J.H. Crawford
      ... snip Well, the post wouldn t be here at all if that were true. ... J.H. Crawford mailbox@carfree.com http://www.carfree.com Twitter:
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 10, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        >I see from this content that my message is not welcome on this forum. It's unfortunate that so many are so closed-minded about the possibilities of differing viewpoints.

        snip

        Well, the post wouldn't be here at all if that were true.




        ----- ### -----
        J.H. Crawford
        mailbox@...
        http://www.carfree.com
        Twitter: http://twitter.com/carfreecities
        Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/jhcrawford/videos
        YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/CarfreeCities
      • Jym Dyer
        ... =v= Once again, global warming denialism following the tired script of preemptive _ad_hominem_ attacks ( closed-minded ) whenever the substance of an
        Message 3 of 10 , Oct 11, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          >> I see from this content that my message is not welcome
          >> on this forum. It's unfortunate that so many are so
          >> closed-minded about the possibilities of differing
          >> viewpoints.

          =v= Once again, global warming denialism following the tired
          script of preemptive _ad_hominem_ attacks ("closed-minded")
          whenever the substance of an argument is found wanting.

          > Well, the post wouldn't be here at all if that were true.

          =v= This variety of denialism hasn't come up with anything
          of substance since every concern was addressed/debunked
          in the 1990s. Since then it's been the same old same old,
          wearing funny hats and presented as new! different! daring!
          with pepperings of insubsantial preemptive accusations like
          the above.

          =v= Actual substance doesn't matter, the point is an ongoing
          (and very well-funded) whack-a-mole game to distract people
          and keep actual discourse from getting anywhere.
          <_Jym_>
        • Michael A. Lewis
          It was the original response that started with I ll let this post through... as if doing someone a favor by posting something that should have been denied.
          Message 4 of 10 , Oct 11, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            It was the original response that started with "I'll let this post through..." as if doing someone a favor by posting something that should have been denied.

            Again, this is a no-response response. There is nothing here that addresses the content of my post, merely empty platitudes.

            My post dealt with the realities of "making massive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions" and the nature of natural climate variation, yet this response is about "denialism" and a "well-funded" conspiracy theory. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the original proposition of geoengineering as a response to perceived AGW.

            If I am part of a well-funded conspiracy, when do I get my check?

            Michael


            On Oct 11, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Jym Dyer wrote:

            >>> I see from this content that my message is not welcome
            >>> on this forum. It's unfortunate that so many are so
            >>> closed-minded about the possibilities of differing
            >>> viewpoints.
            >
            > =v= Once again, global warming denialism following the tired
            > script of preemptive _ad_hominem_ attacks ("closed-minded")
            > whenever the substance of an argument is found wanting.
            >
            >> Well, the post wouldn't be here at all if that were true.
            >
            > =v= This variety of denialism hasn't come up with anything
            > of substance since every concern was addressed/debunked
            > in the 1990s. Since then it's been the same old same old,
            > wearing funny hats and presented as new! different! daring!
            > with pepperings of insubsantial preemptive accusations like
            > the above.
            >
            > =v= Actual substance doesn't matter, the point is an ongoing
            > (and very well-funded) whack-a-mole game to distract people
            > and keep actual discourse from getting anywhere.
            > <_Jym_>
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
          • J.H. Crawford
            Of course, what Michael is proposing, to continue massive released of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere indefinitely, is ALSO geoengineering. It s just not
            Message 5 of 10 , Oct 11, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Of course, what Michael is proposing, to continue massive released of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere indefinitely, is ALSO geoengineering. It's just not very well engineered, as the engineers really don't know what effect it will have, only that it's likely to warm the planet.

              I'm now closing this thread as non-productive.

              J.


              ----- ### -----
              J.H. Crawford
              mailbox@...
              http://www.carfree.com
              Twitter: http://twitter.com/carfreecities
              Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/jhcrawford/videos
              YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/CarfreeCities
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.