|
|
#12
09-01-2007, 07:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How much would we have to cut emissions?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] x post in politics Lets say, hypothetically MMGW is correct, furthermore our current rate of emissions will cause a significant increase in temperature by 2020, and we want to prevent this. Is there a linear relationship between C02 and temp increase so that a 10% reduction in emissions will result in a 10% lower temp increase? What is the lower bound of temperature increase for significant climate problems, what is the lower bound for catastrophic changes? [/ QUOTE ] If we had these answers it wouldn't be a political issue at all. It's only political now because we don't actually know the answer. [/ QUOTE ] This is wrong at worst and very misleading at best. 
|
|
#13
09-01-2007, 08:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much would we have to cut emissions?
[ QUOTE ]
Is there a linear relationship between C02 and temp increase so that a 10% reduction in emissions will result in a 10% lower temp increase? [/ QUOTE ] The relationship between CO2 and temps is not linear. The more you reduce the more the temperature decrease. As you keep pumping CO2 into the air it will always continue to heat up but the heating slows down. Unfortunately they do not slow down enough to do us much good. Ocean acidification and atmospheric CO2 increase rates go up when natures carbon sinks saturate. They can only absorb so much. [ QUOTE ] What is the lower bound of temperature increase for significant climate problems, what is the lower bound for catastrophic changes? [/ QUOTE ] Well what do you call catastrophic? Some people call ocean acidification catastrophic. Other people won't think a catastrophe has occurred until the entire country of Bangladesh is under water. Some people think we are there now (current CO2 effects won't be fully felt until a 1,000 years from now due to the extremely long time it takes to heat up the ocean, delayed feedback effects, etc). Some people care about future generations other people don't. It's hard to answer a qualitative term with a quantitative answer. Defining the quantitative "danger limit" term is the only political aspect of this thread. Honestly in my opinion we need to replace all of our electrical power with solar, wind, nuclear, etc and do so quickly. If you want more precise answers read the first link from realclimate.org here: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&amp...amp;btnG=Search lots of good stuff in the comments
|
|
#14
09-01-2007, 08:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much would we have to cut emissions?
If ya can't breathe it, use it.
But, yes, we do have to convert a lot of toxins. The good thing is, there are uses for toxins. Poisons, irradiation. Take a look at the RVH project in Central Ontario. Interesting, isn't it? And it might work. I'm pretty sure it will. They do have a base copy of my DNA anyway. And if it works for me... Figure out the rest. I'll always have the time. Run it through the internet first. Just accelerate the drafts through time. Yeah, brane theory, biological membranes, silicate tranes. Solar-powered trains. You can pretty much use English/Hadean as a base code for EI(emergent intelligence)/AI(artificial intelligence) as modular supports. Microsofts/Macrovistas. I'll keep it as simple as possible. And, yes, it gets more complex. For me it doesn't have to. So turn it into fun and games when necessary. Think it, walk it, talk it, see it, dream it. Have fun. Ramanujan's stuff has a lot of unprovable stuff, and if I can hear him... Crystallization of time within light. And pretty much, yeah, Yeager loops within light and sound and recombine the digital DNA as a triple helix. GL with the rest, Matt and David. A day at a time. Dani, moderation, brah, k? I don't rush this. Keep doubtin' anyway. Sorry for the ramble, wacki. Remix it if you need to thru POG.
|
|
#15
09-01-2007, 10:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much would we have to cut emissions?
[ QUOTE ]
If ya can't breathe it, use it. But, yes, we do have to convert a lot of toxins. The good thing is, there are uses for toxins. Poisons, irradiation. Take a look at the RVH project in Central Ontario. Interesting, isn't it? And it might work. I'm pretty sure it will. They do have a base copy of my DNA anyway. And if it works for me... Figure out the rest. I'll always have the time. Run it through the internet first. Just accelerate the drafts through time. Yeah, brane theory, biological membranes, silicate tranes. Solar-powered trains. You can pretty much use English/Hadean as a base code for EI(emergent intelligence)/AI(artificial intelligence) as modular supports. Microsofts/Macrovistas. I'll keep it as simple as possible. And, yes, it gets more complex. For me it doesn't have to. So turn it into fun and games when necessary. Think it, walk it, talk it, see it, dream it. Have fun. Ramanujan's stuff has a lot of unprovable stuff, and if I can hear him... Crystallization of time within light. And pretty much, yeah, Yeager loops within light and sound and recombine the digital DNA as a triple helix. GL with the rest, Matt and David. A day at a time. Dani, moderation, brah, k? I don't rush this. Keep doubtin' anyway. Sorry for the ramble, wacki. Remix it if you need to thru POG. [/ QUOTE ] lol A pretty good metaphore for the global warming problem.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
