Global Warming

[libby]

Yesterday I read the above comments and thought about adding my two cents, but had  a  day after not getting much sleep the night before, so dozed in front of the TV before going to bed. Look what I found in today's Washington Post:

11 May 2013
The Washington Post
BY BRIAN VASTAG AND JASON SAMENOW brian.vastag@washpost.com jason.samenow@washpost.com

Heat-trapping gas hits concentrations unseen for millions of years

A long-feared milestone was reached Friday as concentrations of carbon dioxide hit levels not seen on Earth for millions of years. Human influence on the Earth's atmosphere touched what climate scientists called a dire milestone Friday as concentrations of heat-trapping carbon dioxide nudged up to a level unseen in about 3 million to 5 million years — long before modern humans.

A monitoring station in Hawaii recorded carbon dioxide concentrations of 400 parts per million Friday, dramatically up from the 316 parts per million recorded when the station made its first measurements in 1958. The monitor, high atop the Mauna Loa volcano, offers the longest-running record of atmospheric carbon dioxide measured directly from the air.

Carbon dioxide is a primary greenhouse gas, efficient at trapping heat from the sun. The colorless gas is released from power plants and vehicles as they burn coal, oil and gas.

"[ The] increase is not a surprise to scientists," said Pieter Tans, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "The evidence is conclusive that the strong growth of global [carbon dioxide] emissions from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas is driving the acceleration."

Climate scientist Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London said the particular figure reached Friday — 400 parts per million — holds no particular significance except as a milestone. "It gives us the chance to mark the ongoing increase in [carbon dioxide] concentration and talk about why it's a problem for the climate."
Scientists have firmly linked rising atmospheric carbon dioxide to higher global temperatures, which have increased nearly a degree Fahrenheit, on average, since 1950.

Larger temperature increases have occurred in the Arctic. In 2009, an international agreement sought to limit temperature increases to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) by 2100 to avoid catastrophic effects on the climate.

Estimates from the 1700s show atmospheric carbon dioxide at about 270 parts per million — about 40 percent lower than today. Air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice cores show that, in the past 800,000 years, airborne concentrations remained lower than 400 parts per million. And scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and elsewhere have estimated that about 3 million to 5 million years have passed since so much carbon dioxide wafted in the Earth's atmosphere.

The temperature during that period, known as the Pliocene Epoch, was 5 to 7 degrees warmer than today, with seas tens of feet higher.

Airborne concentrations of carbon dioxide vary by season and location on Earth. But the measurements from the Mauna Loa monitor, which is run by Scripps, are considered the gold standard.

Concentrations there are plotted on the iconic Keeling Curve, named after scientist Charles David Keeling, who initiated the measurements in 1958. At that time, the carbon dioxide level was 316 parts per million.
Concentrations of the gas have been rising steadily since — a reflection of the world's fossil fuel economy. In 2012, global carbon dioxide emissions soared to a record high of 35.6 billion tons, up 2.6 percent from 2011.

Printed and distributed by NewpaperDirect | www.newspaperdirect.com | Copyright and protected by applicable law.

www.washingtonpost.com

Libby

[Exterminator]

There you go using science again.

[Exterminator]

Regardless of how you feel about the issue of Climate Change, I go back to basic business practices of Risk Management. In the end you have 4 options and outcomes...
1) Do everything possible - We save the world - Lowest risk.
2) Do everything possible - It wasn't necessary - Low risk, added costs, better planet.
3) Do nothing - Everything is fine - Very high risk if wrong.
4) Do nothing - We kill the planet and all life on it - Extremely high risk if wrong.

Now, instead of the world, apply this to your favorite friend or relative who may or may not have a life-threatening disease (you just can't be sure).
1) Do everything possible - Save their life - Lowest risk.
2) Do everything possible - It wasn't necessary - Low risk, added cost, mind eased.
3) Do nothing - Everything is fine - Very high risk if wrong.
4) Do nothing - They die - Extremely high risk if wrong.

What would you decide ???

[Exterminator]

Seems pretty simple.

[me]

Seems pretty simple.

Who said do nothing?  Clean things up, yes, but go to extremes with this green thing, no. 

[Exterminator]

Who said do nothing?  Clean things up, yes, but go to extremes with this green thing, no.

Please grace us with what that means.

[me]

Please grace us with what that means.

Recycle, quit being a throw away society, winterize your home, you don't need a union person to do it, plan shopping trips so you don't do a bunch of extra driving, turn off lights and TV's in rooms no one is in, (you don't need a TV in every room anyway ).  Just be a responsible person energy wise. 

[Exterminator]

Just be a responsible person energy wise.

In our every-man-for-himself society?  Surely you jest.

[me]

In our every-man-for-himself society?  Surely you jest.

Then it's up to the older people to teach the younger ones responsibility and quit coddling them thinking it's going to mess them up mentally and scar them for life to say no.   

[Exterminator]

Then it's up to the older people to teach the younger ones responsibility and quit coddling them thinking it's going to mess them up mentally and scar them for life to say no.

The older people are the worst of the bunch and there is a big difference between personal responsibility and civic responsibility.

[me]

The older people are the worst of the bunch and there is a big difference between personal responsibility and civic responsibility.

And how do you figure that?  Older people aren't a part of the throw away society we've become.  The older people didn't think they needed the newest and the best of everything and replace things whether they were worn out or not just because it wasn't the latest thing, they made things last and repaired rather than replaced. 

[Henry Hawk]

Regardless of how you feel about the issue of Climate Change, I go back to basic business practices of Risk Management. In the end you have 4 options and outcomes...
1) Do everything possible - We save the world - Lowest risk.
2) Do everything possible - It wasn't necessary - Low risk, added costs, better planet.
3) Do nothing - Everything is fine - Very high risk if wrong.
4) Do nothing - We kill the planet and all life on it - Extremely high risk if wrong.

Now, instead of the world, apply this to your favorite friend or relative who may or may not have a life-threatening disease (you just can't be sure).
1) Do everything possible - Save their life - Lowest risk.
2) Do everything possible - It wasn't necessary - Low risk, added cost, mind eased.
3) Do nothing - Everything is fine - Very high risk if wrong.
4) Do nothing - They die - Extremely high risk if wrong.

What would you decide ???

I suppose we COULD have EVERY health test ran on us EVERY month or so.......MRI's, PET Scans, Prostate Exams, and we could eat nothing but fruits, berries and nuts, drink nothing but water....do EVERYTHING possible to keep the lowest risk possible.  But, I don't think it is feasible or practicable.
I think we must do what IS feasible and pracicable and NOT OVER regulate and burden our economy during already tough economic times.
Just apply some common sense and do what is right.

[Bo D]

And how do you figure that?  Older people aren't a part of the throw away society we've become.  The older people didn't think they needed the newest and the best of everything and replace things whether they were worn out or not just because it wasn't the latest thing, they made things last and repaired rather than replaced.

I can relate to this. I pretty much agree. I have stuff I have fixed and kept working for thirty years or more until I can't find parts anymore. Even then, in some cases I have fabricated the parts myself.

[Exterminator]

And how do you figure that?  Older people aren't a part of the throw away society we've become.  The older people didn't think they needed the newest and the best of everything and replace things whether they were worn out or not just because it wasn't the latest thing, they made things last and repaired rather than replaced.

So older people are more likely to drive big, gas-guzzling cars, shun the use of more efficient appliances and light bulbs because they might be more expensive in the short term, etc.  How does any of that help with reducing emissions?  Additionally, which generation(s) were responsible for the wholesale pollution in this country before regulations were passed that prohibited them from doing so?  Was it the current generation of tree-huggers who caused, allowed or in some cases even encouraged GM and thousands of other factories (and individuals) all over the U.S. to poison the air, land and water with their waste?  If this demographic was so, "responsible," how did we get to where we are now?

[Exterminator]

I suppose we COULD have EVERY health test ran on us EVERY month or so.......MRI's, PET Scans, Prostate Exams, and we could eat nothing but fruits, berries and nuts, drink nothing but water....do EVERYTHING possible to keep the lowest risk possible.  But, I don't think it is feasible or practicable.

That is a ridiculous analogy and side-steps the original question and that was, if you already know something is wrong but you aren't sure how bad it is, to what lengths do you go to mitigate the risks of the worst possible scenario?  If your loved one has what could be simply a discolored, oddly-shaped mole but could be melanoma, do you risk that person's life hoping that it won't be the latter?