Nobel Prize winning Scientist ridicules Obamas take on Climate Change.

[dandh]

Why would you think a massive infrastructure investment to convert the nation to green power would hurt the economy? It would be a huge years long jobs program that was entirely unable to be outsourced. We would literally save the planet and our pocketbook at once.

Um...no. It would divert resources from other activities. Worse, higher energy costs will significantly hurt poor people everywhere, and the inability to use cheap energy will slow the development of economies in poor countries, causing millions there to continue to suffer.

 

[dandh]

The flaw in your presumption here is that the geothermal input to the ice sheet is somehow 'new'.

It is not; that geothermal condition has existed for millennia, and was most likely present when the ice sheets formed. Only now, when adding in the warmer temperatures, it does help melt the ice faster. It is not, however, the reason that the Antarctic sheet has lost gigatons of ice in the last decade.

It is entirely possible that the mass-loss, due to the warming WE have triggered, is changing the geologic conditions and increasing the geothermal input, but I have seen no analysis or information that would support this. It is, however, entirely possible as we have seen substantial 'rebound' of the earth's crust in Greenland due to the land ice mass losses there - if the mass loss in Antarctica triggers a similar rebound, resulting in greater local geothermal activity, that would be yet another 'tipping point' for Antarctic glacial losses that we may have unwittingly triggered....

It's not my presumption that it's new - I never said that. Nor did the article say that. Just that it helps explain why that area is melting more than some other areas. However, the article did talk about several other inputs to the melting, but did not state what those are. Are there other reasons, other than the "warming we have triggered", that are inputs to the melting?

Also, why their comment about the ice having been there for centuries, not much longer than that, like hundreds of thousands of years?

 

[naturalmwa]

Um...no. It would divert resources from other activities. Worse, higher energy costs will significantly hurt poor people everywhere, and the inability to use cheap energy will slow the development of economies in poor countries, causing millions there to continue to suffer.

Nuclear power is cost effective. Pumping that much money into the domestic economy would have a stimulating effect. Our example sets the stage for other nations to follow our lead. Triple win, this would be a huge boost to the economy, just like every infrastructure program. We should do this even if you don't care about climate change.

 

[Joes Place]

It's not my presumption that it's new - I never said that. Nor did the article say that. Just that it helps explain why that area is melting more than some other areas.

Local geothermal input would explain why this region of Antarctica is more sensitive, and might explain why it is melting more quickly than other Antarctic land ice.

However, the article did talk about several other inputs to the melting, but did not state what those are. Are there other reasons, other than the "warming we have triggered", that are inputs to the melting?
Also, why their comment about the ice having been there for centuries, not much longer than that, like hundreds of thousands of years?

'Other inputs' would include local ocean currents warming/cooling the regional climate, decadal oscillations (like the El Nino/La Nina cycle in the central Pacific), solar output variation (which is currently dropping or has been stable for >70 years), volcanic activity (which a recent publication claims is a main driver of global 'cool' periods), and Milankovitch cycles (orbital variations in the Earth's path around the sun which vary the amount of solar radiation hitting the northern vs southern hemisphere). We recently hit the 'peak' of the Milankovitch cycle and are on the 'downward' trend, which should mean very very slow global cooling.

Currently the Earth is tilted at 23.44 degrees from its orbital plane, roughly halfway between its extreme values. The tilt is in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and will reach its minimum value around the year 11,800 CE ; the last maximum was reached in 8,700 BCE. This trend in forcing, by itself, tends to make winters warmer and summers colder (i.e. milder seasons), as well as cause an overall cooling trend.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

The ice sheet has been there for many thousands of years (since at least the last ice age/glacial maximum, 10-20,000 years ago). I have no idea why they used the word 'centuries', if the implication conveyed is 'only 1000-2000 years' . I'd have to look up the paleo history of the Antarctic ice sheets, but they are pulling ice cores dating back many many millennia from them (at least 80,000 to 100,000 years).

Link here:
http://www.waisdivide.unh.edu/Reference/Download.pm?REF_ID=1108

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Um...no. It would divert resources from other activities. Worse, higher energy costs will significantly hurt poor people everywhere, and the inability to use cheap energy will slow the development of economies in poor countries, causing millions there to continue to suffer.

Ummm..in many areas solar and/or wind are by far the cheapest energy alternatives given that it doesn't require the construction of a huge infrastructure to deliver the power to those who need it.

 

[Lone Clone]

I'm not the one on a run away bus, I have no reason to panic. I've accomplished my purpose in this discussion, to explain why we use the 97% stat and show why your position is faulty.

Now for solutions I prefer painless options so would advocate something like converting the nation to mostly nuclear power and using trade policy to force the rest of the world to green up. I would emphasize the clean air, water, protection of habitat and health aspects so as not to alarm your team unduly.

I have no team, nor do I have a dog in this fight. No investments in energy companies, oil or solar; no grants from government; no reason to care one way or another.

I'll sign on to more nuclear power, clean air and water, etc.. One thing many liberals don't realize is that conservative breathe the same air and drink the same water they do.

 

[Lone Clone]

It's not my presumption that it's new - I never said that. Nor did the article say that. Just that it helps explain why that area is melting more than some other areas. However, the article did talk about several other inputs to the melting, but did not state what those are. Are there other reasons, other than the "warming we have triggered", that are inputs to the melting?

Also, why their comment about the ice having been there for centuries, not much longer than that, like hundreds of thousands of years?

I knew it! Geothermal is another one of those mankind deals. I hear it advertised on the radio all the time. Had it installed in my house. Yet another way I'm to blame, I guess.
(Just kidding, Joe).

 

[Lone Clone]

Nuclear power is cost effective. Pumping that much money into the domestic economy would have a stimulating effect. Our example sets the stage for other nations to follow our lead. Triple win, this would be a huge boost to the economy, just like every infrastructure program. We should do this even if you don't care about climate change.

Nuclear power also could produce electricity in sufficient amounts to make hydrogen production feasible, nyet?

 

[naturalmwa]

I have no team, nor do I have a dog in this fight. No investments in energy companies, oil or solar; no grants from government; no reason to care one way or another.

I'll sign on to more nuclear power, clean air and water, etc.. One thing many liberals don't realize is that conservative breathe the same air and drink the same water they do.

I'm not sure it's Libs who need to be reminded of that fact, but that's why I would sell it that way. When you call it global warming people tend to behave irrationally as illustrated in this thread. So we should just replace coal to keep the air clean and call it good.

 

[naturalmwa]

Nuclear power also could produce electricity in sufficient amounts to make hydrogen production feasible, nyet?

I don't know, I lack knowledge to answer that. What do the experts say?

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Um...no. It would divert resources from other activities. Worse, higher energy costs will significantly hurt poor people everywhere, and the inability to use cheap energy will slow the development of economies in poor countries, causing millions there to continue to suffer.

Not to mention it's an incredibly inefficient use of resources. We've seen how well the gov't spends green money, see Solyndra. All one has to do is look at the stimulus package (shovel ready jobs) or the highway bills to see these are loaded with pork and corruption. Do people honestly think, "but well, the gov't will get it right this time, they'll be good stewards of our money". No, let private corporations assume the risks, and yes, reap the profits. Keep the gov't out.

 

[dandh]

Nuclear power is cost effective. Pumping that much money into the domestic economy would have a stimulating effect. Our example sets the stage for other nations to follow our lead. Triple win, this would be a huge boost to the economy, just like every infrastructure program. We should do this even if you don't care about climate change.

I could agree on more nuclear power. Please talk to your Democratic Party base friends, who continually try to block new reactors. And the money would not have to come from government sources, private companies would gladly build more if the regulatory burden and the blockage from the green movement were addressed.

Please get back to me when the Democratic Party agrees to stop blocking nuclear facility development.

 

[naturalmwa]

Not to mention it's an incredibly inefficient use of resources. We've seen how well the gov't spends green money, see Solyndra. All one has to do is look at the stimulus package (shovel ready jobs) or the highway bills to see these are loaded with pork and corruption. Do people honestly think, "but well, the gov't will get it right this time, they'll be good stewards of our money". No, let private corporations assume the risks, and yes, reap the profits. Keep the gov't out.

My plan could accommodate that. The Feds could provide the land, clear the regulations and offer loans to companies willing to build green power. We could pass Joes plans for decentralization. Top it off by taxing coal to spur action and let industry save us from the mess they made. Easy.

 

[naturalmwa]

I could agree on more nuclear power. Please talk to your Democratic Party base friends, who continually try to block new reactors. And the money would not have to come from government sources, private companies would gladly build more if the regulatory burden and the blockage from the green movement were addressed.

Please get back to me when the Democratic Party agrees to stop blocking nuclear facility development.

Good, we can be allies on this.

 

[Lone Clone]

I think this is a good time for me to bow out of this thread. Bye, all. It's been fun.

 

[naturalmwa]

I think this is a good time for me to bow out of this thread. Bye, all. It's been fun.

Thanks for the chat. I really like he bus meme.