0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The consequences of global climate change are profound, and the scientific community has an obligation to assess the ramifications of policy options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing CO2 sinks in reservoirs other than the atmosphere
Iv read some bits of those words as well but nobody except Professor Schneider says anything about being worried about messing with the nature. What would happen if plants grow too much and take out all of the carbon dioxide. Will other plants on land die because there is no food for them and will we get too cold because theres no greenhouse. That might be one consequence of messing about too much and do we know how much or how to stop it. Anyway what do you mean by carbon getting fixed and longtermed sequesterd through the organic particlate export. I don’t understand what you mean. Don’t forget how some people worried about that CERN experiment making a black hole to suck us all into. Are we messing too much when we don’t know whats going to happen next. Some people say that another ice age is starting and will we make it worse or should we leave things alone and just pray.Some people said that more people die from cold than from hot, like flu and numonia. Is that worse or better than being hot. My kids are asking me all the time if they are going to die and I don’t know what to say how.
I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claims. .. Various geo-engineering schemes are being discussed for scrubbing CO2 from the air and cleansing the atmosphere of the “pollutant.” There is no lower limit for human beings, but there is for human life. We would be perfectly healthy in a world with little or no atmospheric CO2—except that we would have nothing to eat and a few other minor inconveniences, because most plants stop growing if the levels drop much below 150 ppm. If we want to continue to be fed and clothed by the products of green plants, we can have too little CO2.The minimum acceptable value for plants is not that much below the 270 ppm preindustrial value. It is possible that this is not enough, that we are better off with our current level, and would be better off with more still. There is evidence that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productive today than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2.Although human beings and many other animals would do well with no CO2 at all in the air, there is an upper limit that we can tolerate. Inhaling air with a concentration of a few percent, similar to the concentration of the air we exhale, hinders the diffusional exchange of CO2 between the blood and gas in the lung. Both the United States Navy (for submariners) and nasa (for astronauts) have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2. As a result of these studies, the Navy recommends an upper limit of about 8000 ppm for cruises of ninety days, and nasa recommends an upper limit of 5000 ppm for missions of one thousand days, both assuming a total pressure of one atmosphere. Higher levels are acceptable for missions of only a few days.We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5000 ppm to avoid harming people. That is a very wide range, and our atmosphere is much closer to the lower end than to the upper end. The current rate of burning fossil fuels adds about 2 ppm per year to the atmosphere, so that getting from the current level to 1000 ppm would take about 300 years—and 1000 ppm is still less than what most plants would prefer, and much less than either the nasa or the Navy limit for human beings
Lipsky: growth in advanced economies will be 2pc this year. Why aren't we getting stronger recovery in advanced economies? One reason: economic downturns accompanied by financial crises tend to leave longer tails. At the same time, global growth we anticipate will be around 4.5pc, this is strong relative to medium and long term trends.It's the distribution that is different... Emerging markets 6.5pc vs 2pc in advanced economies. The way to achieve better growth in advanced economies is to boost demand in emerging markets and continue with structural reforms.
The best weather engineering we can do is to question our belief in always 'growing economies', instead of unlimited 'growth' we need to find a balance and reduce those 'carbon footprints' we leave