Donald Trump did the RIGHT thing on pulling out of Paris Accords

[JoeWeber 2,299]

rushmc

*********I didn't watch that clip but it's been obvious for a long time that people don't read past the shiny label. It says it's about climate change so it must be good. Unfortunately that's too many words without any pictures for too many people. If they'd bother to see what it really does it might just change their mind about it.

Once again someone wants to muddy the waters with statements like yours.

The climate changes! Mankind has adjusted to climate change since man started walking upright on the planet. Somehow people want to confuse climate change with man affecting the environment. Sad but that's the way the left Eco radicals have moved this debate. So sad!

Marc, do you have evidence disproving anthropogenic climate change? The thing is, at least for me, the same science that gave us airplanes, parachutes, AAD's and internet forums also gave us overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic climate change. So like the reality of the Moon landings and the shape of our planet I go with the scientific evidence which, so far, is overwhelming.

School me please. How am I in error?

It is not my job to disprove a negative. It is your job to prove your assertion. And as of yet no one has been able to do it

A tourist to Jerusalem visits the Western Wall, the wailing wall. He watches fascinated as the faithful pray. Nodding and tapping their heads, rubbing and pulling their beards, wailing, writing notes and stuffing them in the cracks between the stones.

One fellow finishes and the tourist asks him: " Excuse me, please, but I couldn't help but notice how devout your were in your prayers. Might you tell me what you were praying for?"

"Yes, of course, the fellow say's, I was praying for peace, love and brotherhood for all of the people who live in these troubled lands"

"That's very nice, he replied. How's that working out?"

"Well, the fellow replied, it's like talking to a wall."

[AlanS 1]

billvon

Another blow for deniers everywhere:
================================
Federal Regulator Rejects Energy Department's Bid To Prop Up Coal, Nuclear

January 9, 201812:00 PM ET
Camila Domonoske NPR

A federal energy regulator has rejected a proposed rule that would have subsidized nuclear and coal plants, ...

Actually we should not put nuclear and coal into the same category.

Nuclear power has zero carbon emissions, while coal expels the most CO2 per unit of energy created of any fuel. We need to build more nuclear power plants and close all the coal plants.

CO2 changing the climate is a scientific fact. However, the rate of change is exaggerated by many politicians with an economic agenda.

From what I've read we might have some summers with no ice at the north pole starting by 2040 and up to 3 feet of ocean rise by 2100. Which some people misinterpret as "natural climate change". It isn't.

What we are doing now is setting the ball rolling for a massive change in the climate that will take place over the next 1,000 years that once started will be impossible to stop. Even with computer modeling we don't fully understand all the feedback effects, which might make the changes faster or slow, BUT it will not change the end result.

If you look 1,000 year out.... 3 feet in ocean rise turn into 30 or 50 feet (maybe 100 or 200 feet even) and the entire state of Florida and all the coastal cities disappears, the ocean becomes acidic, killing all of the coral reefs and the ecosystem it supports. Animals can move, but forest cannot. Forests burn and not be replaced.

This won't affect people so much, we will adjust. ... But what it will do is create a man-made mass extinction event which will compare equally to what killed the dinosaurs. We as individuals that live out lives of less than 100 year will not perceive it, but on a geological time-scale it would happen in the blink of an eye and it will be our generation that is the cause.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

AlanS

...If you look 1,000 year out.... 3 feet in ocean rise turn into 30 or 50 feet (maybe 100 or 200 feet even) and the entire state of Florida and all the coastal cities disappears, the ocean becomes acidic, killing all of the coral reefs and the ecosystem it supports. Animals can move, but forest cannot. Forests burn and not be replaced.

This won't affect people so much, we will adjust. ... But what it will do is create a man-made mass extinction event which will compare equally to what killed the dinosaurs. We as individuals that live out lives of less than 100 year will not perceive it, but on a geological time-scale it would happen in the blink of an eye and it will be our generation that is the cause.

While I fully agree that "man will adjust", to think that it won't affect us is not accurate.

If the temp goes up, large areas that are full of people will become uninhabitable. Large areas that produce huge amounts of food will become barren.
If the ocean ecosystem collapses, all the people that depend on ocean fish will have to find another source of food, when other sources of food are also suffering severe shortfalls.

The end result will be famine that makes Africa in the 80s look like a picnic.

How will Pakistan react when a billion Indians decide to move north?
How will the US react when millions of Mexicans move north?
How will Canada react when millions of US folks move north?

All in all it will be a huge shit show. "Man" will survive, but hundreds of millions (maybe even in the billions) of people will not.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rushmc 18]

Yes bill. You posted that same stuff before. Doesn't prove a thing and you know it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Phil1111 911]

wolfriverjoe

***
...If you look 1,000 year out.... 3 feet in oc
How will Pakistan react when a billion Indians decide to move north?
How will the US react when millions of Mexicans move north?
How will Canada react when millions of US folks move north?

All in all it will be a huge shit show. "Man" will survive, but hundreds of millions (maybe even in the billions) of people will not.

Pakistan--War
US-- more walls
Canada-- Selective immigrants allowed, with money and education at the head of the line.

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

Yes bill. You posted that same stuff before. Doesn't prove a thing and you know it.

Wherever it was that you learned science, you should ask for your money back.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,400]

>Actually we should not put nuclear and coal into the same category.

I agree. The only reason they were lumped together to begin with is that Rick Perry needed a facile justification to subsidize coal plants. After Trump's earlier failures with the travel ban, Perry realized he couldn't just say "I hereby order utilities to use more coal to placate Trump supporters."

So instead he commissioned a study to see if renewables were putting grid reliability at risk. This way, he could require more coal plants by pointing to the study and saying "I am just trying to make the grid more reliable and save Grandma from freezing to death."

Unfortunately the study found that the grid is now MORE reliable even with more renewables. So that was out.

So he then figured he'd claim that "90 days of stored energy" was a good way to promote coal, because most coal plants can store 90 days of coal in or near their powerplant, and that way he could claim it was for "energy security." That also happened to include nuclear, since refueling cycles are typically years for fission plants. Other than that, there's very little commonality.

[winsor 186]

billvon

He put short term profits over the future of America. I can see how the right would think that was the "right" thing to do.

You excoriate the Right for putting their short term concerns over the future of America, but give the Left a pass for putting their short term concerns over the future of America.

The Left and Right are standing across the aisle from each other, each side pointing at the other and screaming what assholes they are.

You agree with one side. I agree with both.

[Phil1111 911]

winsor

***He put short term profits over the future of America. I can see how the right would think that was the "right" thing to do.

You excoriate the Right for putting their short term concerns over the future of America, but give the Left a pass for putting their short term concerns over the future of America.

The Left and Right are standing across the aisle from each other, each side pointing at the other and screaming what assholes they are.

You agree with one side. I agree with both.

I'd like to see some elaboration on that view given China has signed on. In addition the US is now the sole non party to that agreement. er trump and his base.

This map shows which states are vowing to defy Trump and uphold the US' Paris Agreement goals
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-states-uphold-paris-agreement-2017-6

I see US governors, democrat house and senate members standing up for the accords. Where are the republican leaders?
Please explain your moderate middle of the road view.

[RonD1120 58]

Phil1111

This map shows which states are vowing to defy Trump and uphold the US' Paris Agreement goals
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-states-uphold-paris-agreement-2017-6

Looks to me as though most of the state governors are supporting President Trump's decision.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[winsor 186]

Phil1111

******He put short term profits over the future of America. I can see how the right would think that was the "right" thing to do.

You excoriate the Right for putting their short term concerns over the future of America, but give the Left a pass for putting their short term concerns over the future of America.

The Left and Right are standing across the aisle from each other, each side pointing at the other and screaming what assholes they are.

You agree with one side. I agree with both.

I'd like to see some elaboration on that view given China has signed on. In addition the US is now the sole non party to that agreement. er trump and his base.

This map shows which states are vowing to defy Trump and uphold the US' Paris Agreement goals
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-states-uphold-paris-agreement-2017-6

I see US governors, democrat house and senate members standing up for the accords. Where are the republican leaders?
Please explain your moderate middle of the road view.

Reading comprehension time.

My point was simply that BOTH sides of the aisle are incompetent morons. That's it.

If you want to discuss the Physics and Politics of Climate Change, that has nothing to do with what I said.

As you were.

[Phil1111 911]

winsor

*********He put short term profits over the future of America. I can see how the right would think that was the "right" thing to do.

You excoriate the Right for putting their short term concerns over the future of America, but give the Left a pass for putting their short term concerns over the future of America.

The Left and Right are standing across the aisle from each other, each side pointing at the other and screaming what assholes they are.

You agree with one side. I agree with both.

I'd like to see some elaboration on that view given China has signed on. In addition the US is now the sole non party to that agreement. er trump and his base.

This map shows which states are vowing to defy Trump and uphold the US' Paris Agreement goals
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-states-uphold-paris-agreement-2017-6

I see US governors, democrat house and senate members standing up for the accords. Where are the republican leaders?
Please explain your moderate middle of the road view.

Reading comprehension time.

My point was simply that BOTH sides of the aisle are incompetent morons. That's it.

If you want to discuss the Physics and Politics of Climate Change, that has nothing to do with what I said.

As you were.

Thanks for making my point.

[billvon 2,400]

>You excoriate the Right for putting their short term concerns over the future of America, but give
>the Left a pass for putting their short term concerns over the future of America.

I don't. The left has some foolish ideas as well. But in this case the two positions can be summed up as:

Left wing: try to fix the problem, even though it will be nearly impossible
Right wing: deny the problem exists; if it does, our kids can deal with it

This stance of "both sides are equally as bad" is intellectually lazy and ultimately counterproductive. It's the equivalent of saying "well, doctors are crooks, so I might as well smoke and drink as much as possible rather exercise; it's the same thing both ways." No, it's not, no matter how cool a sound bite it is - and no matter how much you want to justify that pack of cigarettes.

[winsor 186]

billvon

>You excoriate the Right for putting their short term concerns over the future of America, but give
>the Left a pass for putting their short term concerns over the future of America.

I don't. The left has some foolish ideas as well. But in this case the two positions can be summed up as:

Left wing: try to fix the problem, even though it will be nearly impossible
Right wing: deny the problem exists; if it does, our kids can deal with it

This stance of "both sides are equally as bad" is intellectually lazy and ultimately counterproductive. It's the equivalent of saying "well, doctors are crooks, so I might as well smoke and drink as much as possible rather exercise; it's the same thing both ways." No, it's not, no matter how cool a sound bite it is - and no matter how much you want to justify that pack of cigarettes.

I did not say that both sides are equally bad. My point is that they both suck out loud, though for different reasons.

The Climate Change (tm) orthodoxy is a kind of a kumbaya, we-are-the-world, it's all about us movement, where the climate would be fine if we could agree to fix it.

To that I say bullshit.

Do we have an impact on our environment? Most assuredly.

Is much of anything put forth by Al Gore of merit? Not a fucking chance.

Will increasing our dependency on finite fossil resources improve our energy security? Are you kidding me?

On the right you have short sighted dunderheads, agreed.

On the left you have sanctimonious bugwits of the first order.

Neither group has a handle on achieving a sustainable future, for different reasons, though each is convinced that they do.

Climate change is more of a symptom than a problem, and the underlying issues are largely insoluble for a laundry list of reasons. In the end, we're all doomed.

Like any religion, the climate change alarmist movement has taken a basic thesis and morphed it beyond recognition.

It is analogous to Marxism; the ills that spawned Marxism were both real and horrific. Marxism, the ideology committed to addressing these ills, turned out to be significantly worse than the problems it claimed to solve.

I think the 'drill baby, drill!' crowd is delusional. Retards like Al Gore are every bit as bad, if not worse.

Your analogy that 'doctors are crooks...' is inapt. Physicians have a vested interest in their approach to a problem, and significant disincentive to deviating greatly from the standard of care. The fact that the standard of care is subject to vast changes from generation to generation does not mean that I am likely to smoke cigarettes if it is contraindicated or to drink wine even if I know it would be associated with a longer life. Medical specialists are often oblivious to the big picture, and a great deal of medical treatment is counterproductive. My point is not that it is necessarily bad, but that a certain amount of skepticism is warranted and doing one's homework is a good idea.

Whether regarding a Senator of an Oncologist, one should be sensitive to the constraints of the position and conflicts of interest that may come into play.


BSBD,

Winsor

[RonD1120 58]

winsor

***>You excoriate the Right for putting their short term concerns over the future of America, but give
>the Left a pass for putting their short term concerns over the future of America.

I don't. The left has some foolish ideas as well. But in this case the two positions can be summed up as:

Left wing: try to fix the problem, even though it will be nearly impossible
Right wing: deny the problem exists; if it does, our kids can deal with it

This stance of "both sides are equally as bad" is intellectually lazy and ultimately counterproductive. It's the equivalent of saying "well, doctors are crooks, so I might as well smoke and drink as much as possible rather exercise; it's the same thing both ways." No, it's not, no matter how cool a sound bite it is - and no matter how much you want to justify that pack of cigarettes.

I did not say that both sides are equally bad. My point is that they both suck out loud, though for different reasons.

The Climate Change (tm) orthodoxy is a kind of a kumbaya, we-are-the-world, it's all about us movement, where the climate would be fine if we could agree to fix it.

To that I say bullshit.

Do we have an impact on our environment? Most assuredly.

Is much of anything put forth by Al Gore of merit? Not a fucking chance.

Will increasing our dependency on finite fossil resources improve our energy security? Are you kidding me?

On the right you have short sighted dunderheads, agreed.

On the left you have sanctimonious bugwits of the first order.

Neither group has a handle on achieving a sustainable future, for different reasons, though each is convinced that they do.

Climate change is more of a symptom than a problem, and the underlying issues are largely insoluble for a laundry list of reasons. In the end, we're all doomed.

Like any religion, the climate change alarmist movement has taken a basic thesis and morphed it beyond recognition.

It is analogous to Marxism; the ills that spawned Marxism were both real and horrific. Marxism, the ideology committed to addressing these ills, turned out to be significantly worse than the problems it claimed to solve.

I think the 'drill baby, drill!' crowd is delusional. Retards like Al Gore are every bit as bad, if not worse.

Your analogy that 'doctors are crooks...' is inapt. Physicians have a vested interest in their approach to a problem, and significant disincentive to deviating greatly from the standard of care. The fact that the standard of care is subject to vast changes from generation to generation does not mean that I am likely to smoke cigarettes if it is contraindicated or to drink wine even if I know it would be associated with a longer life. Medical specialists are often oblivious to the big picture, and a great deal of medical treatment is counterproductive. My point is not that it is necessarily bad, but that a certain amount of skepticism is warranted and doing one's homework is a good idea.

Whether regarding a Senator of an Oncologist, one should be sensitive to the constraints of the position and conflicts of interest that may come into play.


BSBD,

Winsor

IMO, your understanding and articulation of the facts and basis concerning this issue are of a higher quality than any other member of this forum.

Kudos!

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[wmw999 2,121]

I realize that in your view, population expansion is the biggest (and probably insoluble) problem we have, with innate self-serving human nature a close second. Are you of the opinion that without its resolution (whether complete or not), there is no point attacking any other?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Phil1111 911]

RonD1120

******>You excoriate the Right for putting their short term concerns over the future of America, but give
>the Left a pass for putting their short term concerns over the future of America.

I don't. The left has some foolish ideas as well. But in this case the two positions can be summed up as:

Left wing: try to fix the problem, even though it will be nearly impossible
Right wing: deny the problem exists; if it does, our kids can deal with it

This stance of "both sides are equally as bad" is intellectually lazy and ultimately counterproductive. It's the equivalent of saying "well, doctors are crooks, so I might as well smoke and drink as much as possible rather exercise; it's the same thing both ways." No, it's not, no matter how cool a sound bite it is - and no matter how much you want to justify that pack of cigarettes.

I did not say that both sides are equally bad. My point is that they both suck out loud, though for different reasons.

The Climate Change (tm) orthodoxy is a kind of a kumbaya, we-are-the-world, it's all about us movement, where the climate would be fine if we could agree to fix it.

To that I say bullshit.

Do we have an impact on our environment? Most assuredly.

Is much of anything put forth by Al Gore of merit? Not a fucking chance.

Will increasing our dependency on finite fossil resources improve our energy security? Are you kidding me?

On the right you have short sighted dunderheads, agreed.

On the left you have sanctimonious bugwits of the first order.

Neither group has a handle on achieving a sustainable future, for different reasons, though each is convinced that they do.

Climate change is more of a symptom than a problem, and the underlying issues are largely insoluble for a laundry list of reasons. In the end, we're all doomed.

Like any religion, the climate change alarmist movement has taken a basic thesis and morphed it beyond recognition.

It is analogous to Marxism; the ills that spawned Marxism were both real and horrific. Marxism, the ideology committed to addressing these ills, turned out to be significantly worse than the problems it claimed to solve.

I think the 'drill baby, drill!' crowd is delusional. Retards like Al Gore are every bit as bad, if not worse.

Your analogy that 'doctors are crooks...' is inapt. Physicians have a vested interest in their approach to a problem, and significant disincentive to deviating greatly from the standard of care. The fact that the standard of care is subject to vast changes from generation to generation does not mean that I am likely to smoke cigarettes if it is contraindicated or to drink wine even if I know it would be associated with a longer life. Medical specialists are often oblivious to the big picture, and a great deal of medical treatment is counterproductive. My point is not that it is necessarily bad, but that a certain amount of skepticism is warranted and doing one's homework is a good idea.

Whether regarding a Senator of an Oncologist, one should be sensitive to the constraints of the position and conflicts of interest that may come into play.


BSBD,

Winsor

IMO, your understanding and articulation of the facts and basis concerning this issue are of a higher quality than any other member of this forum.

Kudos!

"Climate change is more of a symptom than a problem, and the underlying issues are largely insoluble for a laundry list of reasons. In the end, we're all doomed."

I can see why you two agree.

[winsor 186]

wmw999

I realize that in your view, population expansion is the biggest (and probably insoluble) problem we have, with innate self-serving human nature a close second. Are you of the opinion that without its resolution (whether complete or not), there is no point attacking any other?

Wendy P.

Not hardly.

I am dedicated to conservation and sustainability, but recoil at simplistic 'solutions' that address the concern du jour and shift the focus away from practical policies related to the most dire threats that we face.

In systems analysis, there is a tendency to want to manipulate a particular variable that seems to 'obviously' prevail. Viewing the various parameters of concern together, there are often other terms of a magnitude that the pet parameter can be ignored in the short term. Often, the issue initially of concern is a self-correcting problem in the grand scheme of things.

With regard to the National Debt, World Population and so forth, there is no viable Plan B. The best we can hope for is to fly as far through the crash as possible.

Perseverating on 'climate change' to the exclusion of the problems of which it is a symptom is both delusional and counterproductive, on a par with rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic.

Should it be addressed? Yes.

Is it the be-all end-all? Would that it was.


BSBD,

Winsor

[winsor 186]

Phil1111

"Climate change is more of a symptom than a problem, and the underlying issues are largely insoluble for a laundry list of reasons. In the end, we're all doomed."

I can see why you two agree.

Irony score 10/10.

I can give you a list of historical references that refute the supposition that 'this time it's different!,' other than the scale involved.

I could be wrong, but I'm not. (Eagles)

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

I did not say that both sides are equally bad. My point is that they both suck out loud, though for different reasons.

The Climate Change (tm) orthodoxy is a kind of a kumbaya, we-are-the-world, it's all about us movement, where the climate would be fine if we could agree to fix it.

To that I say bullshit.

I agree with all the above.

Quote

On the right you have short sighted dunderheads, agreed.

On the left you have sanctimonious bugwits of the first order.

Neither group has a handle on achieving a sustainable future, for different reasons, though each is convinced that they do.

On this you are dead wrong.

Let's go back to the doctor analogy.

Let's say you go to a doctor, feeling short of breath, hacking all the time, feeling generally lousy.

Doctor A owns a lot of tobacco stocks. He says "well, no one really knows why people cough or get out of breath. People die all the time; it's not like you can prevent that. So keep smoking; it relaxes you. It doesn't do anything bad, and even if it does it's too hard to quit."

Doctor B owns a lot of Subway and yoga clothing company stocks. Sometimes he says kumbaya. He has a friend named Albert. He smoked for years. He tells you "the problem is that you are smoking two packs a day. It is damaging your lungs, and will lead to emphysema, lung cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease and early death. I am sending you to a specialist who has had a lot of success with smoking cessation programs."

Now, you may hate both of those doctors. They may both suck out loud. You may hate B's friend Albert, and you may mock him for his silly phrases and his granola-eating ways. You may think his is a sanctimonious bugwit; a hypocrite who tells you not to do what he himself has done.

Nevertheless, doctor 2 is correct; doctor 1 is wrong. There are actually scientific conclusions that are right and wrong; not everything depends on how you feel, personally, about how the people who present those conclusions.

Quote

Physicians have a vested interest in their approach to a problem, and significant disincentive to deviating greatly from the standard of care. The fact that the standard of care is subject to vast changes from generation to generation does not mean that I am likely to smoke cigarettes if it is contraindicated or to drink wine even if I know it would be associated with a longer life. Medical specialists are often oblivious to the big picture, and a great deal of medical treatment is counterproductive. My point is not that it is necessarily bad, but that a certain amount of skepticism is warranted and doing one's homework is a good idea.

Of course. And my point is that if you do your homework well you will realize that smoking is bad for you, and radically altering the climate will have negative consequences for humanity. Thus, quitting smoking is a good idea, as is reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases as fast as is practical - even if you don't like doctors (or Al Gore.)

The left wing has happened across that answer almost by accident; it certainly wasn't due to any work on any politician's part. They simply happened to listen to the right people (Arrhenius, Fourier, Tyndall et al.) However, they did come across the right answer. The fact that you don't like them does not diminish the value of that answer.

[winsor 186]

billvon

The left wing has happened across that answer almost by accident; it certainly wasn't due to any work on any politician's part. They simply happened to listen to the right people (Arrhenius, Fourier, Tyndall et al.) However, they did come across the right answer. The fact that you don't like them does not diminish the value of that answer.

I take issue with 'the answer' here. It's more like they actually took one more question into consideration.

With my modest background in Heat Transfer, Chemical Thermodynamics, Physical Chemistry, Physics and sundry other disciplines I concur that humanity is a significant factor in climate at the moment.

Having said that, I strongly dispute the supposition that we have CONTROL over climate. I also am equally concerned about the buffering effect of bodies of water (oceans in particular), whereby CO2 emissions do not remain in the atmosphere but achieve equilibrium in the CO2 + H2O <-> H2CO3 system, thus lowering the pH of the ocean. Since a great deal of the food chain is dependent upon the oceans being habitable, you could achieve some sort of climate stasis and wind up starving anyway.

I admittedly find the Left to be generally as repellent as I do Trump (which is saying a lot). My frustration lies with such pea brains as Gore being the mouthpiece for the movement (and making hundreds of millions of dollars in the process, while zipping around in his personal jet), knowing full well that he and his sycophants have no idea about what they are talking.

Even when Gore's right he manages to be full of shit, at least as much as does our CIC. At least the dumb sonofabitch (Gore) doesn't have a constant, unfiltered Twitter feed...

[billvon 2,400]

>Having said that, I strongly dispute the supposition that we have CONTROL over climate.

Simple experiments can demonstrate whether we control something. In the simplest trial, we try to control it. If we can, then control is demonstrated.

We have been increasing the CO2 percentage in the atmosphere steadily over the past 100 years or so. As a result, temperatures have increased. Thus we have that level of control, via demonstration.

You may argue "but we didn't mean to do that" and that is quite true. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that we can take actions to control the climate.

>I also am equally concerned about the buffering effect of bodies of water (oceans in particular),
>whereby CO2 emissions do not remain in the atmosphere but achieve equilibrium in the CO2 +
>H2O <-> H2CO3 system, thus lowering the pH of the ocean.

Yes, and that is happening. However, once the ocean reaches saturation, the new equilibrium must necessarily include a greater concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

winsor

Having said that, I strongly dispute the supposition that we have CONTROL over climate...

Well, "control over climate" is a strong phrase.

What we have 'control' over is how much damage we choose to do.

For example, we really don't have "control" over the ozone layer.
But we do have control over how much CFCs we release into the atmosphere.
By strictly limiting that, we have significantly reduced how much damage we are doing to the ozone layer.
And we've seen results.

In a similar vein, we don't have control over rain.
But we have control over the crap we spew into the air that affects the rain (acid rain).
By limiting sulfide emissions, we've seen a huge decrease in acid rain, and an equally huge recovery in the ecosystem.

Both of the above happened in a relatively short time.
Both of the above were dismissed by those who were negatively impacted by the restrictions.

Whether or not we can stop damaging the climate by pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is a challenging question.

There are places in the world where deforestation is happening at an alarming rate. If you tell those people that they have to stop doing that because their grandchildren will pay the price, they will tell you that they have to do this to survive today.
It's not that they don't care about the future, it's that they need to care more about the immediate future than the distant future.
And their short term solutions for survival often mean disaster for the distant (or not-so-distant) future.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[winsor 186]

wolfriverjoe

***
Having said that, I strongly dispute the supposition that we have CONTROL over climate...

Well, "control over climate" is a strong phrase.

What we have 'control' over is how much damage we choose to do.

For example, we really don't have "control" over the ozone layer.
But we do have control over how much CFCs we release into the atmosphere.
By strictly limiting that, we have significantly reduced how much damage we are doing to the ozone layer.
And we've seen results.

In a similar vein, we don't have control over rain.
But we have control over the crap we spew into the air that affects the rain (acid rain).
By limiting sulfide emissions, we've seen a huge decrease in acid rain, and an equally huge recovery in the ecosystem.

Both of the above happened in a relatively short time.
Both of the above were dismissed by those who were negatively impacted by the restrictions.

Whether or not we can stop damaging the climate by pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is a challenging question.

There are places in the world where deforestation is happening at an alarming rate. If you tell those people that they have to stop doing that because their grandchildren will pay the price, they will tell you that they have to do this to survive today.
It's not that they don't care about the future, it's that they need to care more about the immediate future than the distant future.
And their short term solutions for survival often mean disaster for the distant (or not-so-distant) future.

And therein lies the conundrum.

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

There are places in the world where deforestation is happening at an alarming rate. If you tell those people that they have to stop doing that because their grandchildren will pay the price, they will tell you that they have to do this to survive today.

Agreed - which is one reason it's so important to get them solutions to their problems that do not require deforesting the planet. Unfortunately, due to the polarization we see in politics today, people working towards that are labeled alarmists, idiots, "sanctimonious bugwits" etc. and less gets done.