Deniers think we should “do nothing” because its not 100% clear what AGW will look like. But doing nothing would mean stop CO2 emissions until the science is ready. So they do a logical error thinking “do nothing” is continue as before. Like when you test a medicin, if it doesnt work or if you are uncertain you would stop the use
We should ask oil, coal and gas companies to proof that the use is safe, that it will not cause problems. Would be interesting to read what they can find out
Anybody watching the Exxon pipeline spill in Arkansas?
The pictures I’ve seen are oil all over residential property, that now probably won’t have the capacity to grow safe food in outback gardens (which is what I’d be doing to offset the rising cost of food, if i had enough land outback my condo). Property values are probably cut as well.
——————————————————————————————————-
‘Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed –
(Reuters) – Exxon Mobil on Sunday continued cleanup of a pipeline spill that spewed thousands of barrels of heavy Canadian crude in Arkansas as opponents of oil sands development latched on to the incident to attack plans to build the Keystone XL line….’
Marzeion (2010, http://www.marzeion.info/file/marzeion_etal_10.pdf) :
“… we find the SPG [subpolar gyre], and subsequently the AMOC, to weaken in response to increasing CO2 concentrations.”
“These states remain different after the CO2 concentration is stabilized, and in some cases even after the CO2 concentration has been decreased again to the pre-industrial level. This behaviour is explained by a positive feedback between stratification and mixing anomalies in the Nordic Seas, causing a persistent weakening of the SPG.”
As you can see, our CO2 reduction probably will not have any effect on what happens in the Arctic (…) .
So let’s to concentrate on positive action – of adaptation (http://ipcc-wg2.gov/njlite_download.php?id=6627).
Any abrupt climate change is dangerous for the ecosystem – that is indisputable. Except that the Arctic ecosystems (due to AA) were always exposed to rapid changes. For example, during the Younger Dryas climate change much more rapidly – within a few years about a few degrees C …
By spending “money” mainly to reduce GHGs emissions, for instance, we will help to earn Statoil additional “money” (…) – not the Arctic.
(StatoilHydro wants to store CO2 at Sleipner oil field in the North Sea – http://www.unglobalcompact.org/case_story/359: „With a thickness of 250 metres, the formation can store 600 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.(…)”)
Marzeion (2010, http://www.marzeion.info/file/marzeion_etal_10.pdf) :
“… we find the SPG [subpolar gyre], and subsequently the AMOC, to weaken in response to increasing CO2 concentrations.”
“These states remain different after the CO2 concentration is stabilized, and in some cases even after the CO2 concentration has been decreased again to the pre-industrial level. This behaviour is explained by a positive feedback between stratification and mixing anomalies in the Nordic Seas, causing a persistent weakening of the SPG.”
—————————————————————————————————-
This paper is based on tinkering with a computer model. Are you trying to tell us you believe in the results of computerized climate models? If so, you might step back from that one article, and look at the big picture.
I don’t think we can adapt fast enough..With his job I think you have to try to turn to optimism
Science Daily website headline: “New Models Predict Drastically Greener Arctic in Coming Decades”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130331165603.htm
Deniers think we should “do nothing” because its not 100% clear what AGW will look like. But doing nothing would mean stop CO2 emissions until the science is ready. So they do a logical error thinking “do nothing” is continue as before. Like when you test a medicin, if it doesnt work or if you are uncertain you would stop the use
We should ask oil, coal and gas companies to proof that the use is safe, that it will not cause problems. Would be interesting to read what they can find out
Anybody watching the Exxon pipeline spill in Arkansas?
The pictures I’ve seen are oil all over residential property, that now probably won’t have the capacity to grow safe food in outback gardens (which is what I’d be doing to offset the rising cost of food, if i had enough land outback my condo). Property values are probably cut as well.
——————————————————————————————————-
‘Exxon cleans up Arkansas oil spill; Keystone plan assailed –
(Reuters) – Exxon Mobil on Sunday continued cleanup of a pipeline spill that spewed thousands of barrels of heavy Canadian crude in Arkansas as opponents of oil sands development latched on to the incident to attack plans to build the Keystone XL line….’
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/31/us-exxon-pipeline-spill-idUSBRE92U00220130331
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/31/1198237/-Backyard-Picture-of-Mayflower-AR-Exxon-Oil-Spill
little bit of video action on the spill here.
http://imgur.com/GLhDUuS
picture of a backyard near ground zero of the spill, covered in oil.
That was depressing…
But still a good video.
Marzeion (2010, http://www.marzeion.info/file/marzeion_etal_10.pdf) :
“… we find the SPG [subpolar gyre], and subsequently the AMOC, to weaken in response to increasing CO2 concentrations.”
“These states remain different after the CO2 concentration is stabilized, and in some cases even after the CO2 concentration has been decreased again to the pre-industrial level. This behaviour is explained by a positive feedback between stratification and mixing anomalies in the Nordic Seas, causing a persistent weakening of the SPG.”
As you can see, our CO2 reduction probably will not have any effect on what happens in the Arctic (…) .
So let’s to concentrate on positive action – of adaptation (http://ipcc-wg2.gov/njlite_download.php?id=6627).
Any abrupt climate change is dangerous for the ecosystem – that is indisputable. Except that the Arctic ecosystems (due to AA) were always exposed to rapid changes. For example, during the Younger Dryas climate change much more rapidly – within a few years about a few degrees C …
By spending “money” mainly to reduce GHGs emissions, for instance, we will help to earn Statoil additional “money” (…) – not the Arctic.
(StatoilHydro wants to store CO2 at Sleipner oil field in the North Sea – http://www.unglobalcompact.org/case_story/359: „With a thickness of 250 metres, the formation can store 600 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.(…)”)
Marzeion (2010, http://www.marzeion.info/file/marzeion_etal_10.pdf) :
“… we find the SPG [subpolar gyre], and subsequently the AMOC, to weaken in response to increasing CO2 concentrations.”
“These states remain different after the CO2 concentration is stabilized, and in some cases even after the CO2 concentration has been decreased again to the pre-industrial level. This behaviour is explained by a positive feedback between stratification and mixing anomalies in the Nordic Seas, causing a persistent weakening of the SPG.”
—————————————————————————————————-
This paper is based on tinkering with a computer model. Are you trying to tell us you believe in the results of computerized climate models? If so, you might step back from that one article, and look at the big picture.