Does the controversy surrounding climate change bother you?

@97 Jason provided a link to a study not the '6 times too high'. I hope the actual cite gets posted soon. I did look at MIT (the first time he invoked), and could not find it.

The linked one is Spencer and Braswell, which certainly led to lively discussions My google scholar is not working now (maybe an 'Asian' thing), but you may want to consider whether this study overturns the field. So, read it and (via google scholar) also the more recent papers that have cited it. I would characterize some of the citing as presenting reasonable objections.

 

Here are the so-called "Daly Rules" of Sustainability:

1. Renewable resources such as fish, soil, and groundwater must be used no faster than the rate at which they regenerate.
2. Nonrenewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels must be used no faster than renewable substitutes for them can be put into place.
3. Pollution and wastes must be emitted no faster than natural systems can absorb them, recycle them, or render them harmless.

Now then, the question become is this good enough? or Does global warming imply that Rule 2 is invalid because Rule 2 violates Rule 3?

 

I was thinking of the Venus experiment. I was so disappointed when we learned Venus was not like:


Actually it was the Venus fly-by and landings that really brought home the effects of carbon dioxide on planet climate. There had been speculation that carbon-based life provided a carbon sequestration method so the planet could cool enough for life to continue. So if we have something more than just species extinction, if the biomass gets small enough with enough atmospheric CO{2} . . . is there a point where thermal runaway occurs?

So here is a testable hypothesis. We know Venus has reached a point where there is no known way to get CO{2} out of the air . . . But what happens if a Venus planet model replaces the CO{2} with an O{2} and N{2} mix? How about Mars or the other earth-sized planets?

What I'm trying with humor to point out is we have a number of plant-sized experiments and past exploration, experiments in space, gave us a clue that the content of this thin layer surrounding our plant might actually be 'a commons' that has to be managed.

Bob Wilson

 

Bob, you could take a few trees and some water (oh wait, there might be some there already) on the next NASA flight to Mars. Let us know what happens.

 

Extrasolar planets are now bring found at an amazing rate. Thus it appears that they are ubiquitous, just vastly beyond our (current) technology to visit, study, experiment upon, etc. There are options; we're just going to need a bigger (much faster!) boat.

More locally, Venus and Mars are both within 'the habitable zone' (defined by the possible of liquid water and stretched just a bit). I link to a paper that surely won't appeal to most here:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222657813_Comparison_of_carbon_nitrogen_and_water_budgets_on_Venus_and_the_Earth/file/d912f50cf41a578072.pdf

Because it makes the point that to understand a planet, you need to nail down the geology. Analyzing the atmosphere alone won't do. As I have harangued on Earth system science before. it is multidisciplinary.

 

Wow, that was one of the first movies my parents ever let me go to. Nice flashback, thanks!