Comments on: Wall Street Journal of Atmospheric Sciences: Reply to Jenkins Global environmental challenges Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:14:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: 07boxster2 Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:49:27 +0000 CO2 has been high in the past and it’ll be high in the future. The glaciers were half melted before the 1950’s when CO2 levels began to dramatically increase. Even from the 1950’s we’ve had the threat of glaciation ( 1970’s), the threat of global warming and now a cooling period again. The current CO2 levels are, what?, 390ppm.
Well in the past atmospheric CO2 ranged 1125-3000 parts per million. By 20 million years ago, CO2dropped to about 400 ppm. (Source: Science, Volume 313, Number 5795.
Date: 2006 September 29) No humans around that I’m aware of. No Cadillac Escalades either. Look, the science is not settled and the billions of dollars that are being miss-directed at taxpayer expense is criminal. Don’t forget that much research has been done in the past several years which discounts greatly the IPCC position. That was based on selective data pre-2005. And many reviewers disagreed with the stated IPCC position as well. The discussions and policies should be based on science. And they’re not. We’ll all pay for it ….. and some will get very rich from it. It’s just so stupid.

By: Anubis Sun, 08 Mar 2009 00:33:29 +0000 Clothcap, CO2 and methane trap heat/light energy from the Sun. The greater the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere the more light energy from the Sun that is captured. That also means less for photosynthesis. The Earth’s orbit becomes more or less elipticle over time, hence a warming or cooling effect depending on our distance from the Sun.

The problem is all the gathered data suggests that this current warming process the planet is experiencing is happening at an extremely accelerated pace. There is no precedent for this in the geologic record. Of even more concern is mass extinctions associated with global warming periods. At the end of the Eocene Epoch, tropical forests were growing in Alaska and shell fish requiring 60 degree water were found off the coast of Labrador. Geologic evidence supports the disappearance of glacial ice throughout the inhabitable regions of Earth. At this time the earliest known primates, elephants and horses all disappeared.

The point is neither the glaciers or the primates appeared again for twenty million years or more. We are losing our glaciers at an alarming rate. This is the most significant source of potable water in many regions of the world.

The time for debate is over. Anthropogenic or naturally fluctuation is largely an academic question. Hot house gases must be limited in order to mitigate climate change if it is not to late.

By: buffalojump Sat, 07 Mar 2009 21:33:54 +0000 The climate is changing – no question.

But where should our resources be spent to minimize the effect of climate change. Environmental elitists would propose anything, but the problem is most of these actions have very negative affects on the middle and lower class. They don’t change their life styles but just buy their way out.
Secondly it is a global issue and until large CO2 exporting nations like China buy in the destruction of middle and lower class Americans isn’t justified. Unless you are elitist, then it doesn’t matter.

By: David Sat, 07 Mar 2009 06:47:27 +0000 Not all who are skeptical of a catastrophic global climate change crisis are illiterate, flat-earthers beholden to energy companies so stop the ad hominem attacks and get on with the science debate.
The assumptions made in generating these worst case scenarios and hypothetical, irredeemable tipping points are unworthy of good science and good public policy. It’s one thing to exaggerate to get the publics’ attention, but the unsupported alarmist Armageddon claims are irresponsible and will ultimately do damage to the public perception of science and scientists.

By: Ray Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:07:50 +0000 Thank you for the follow-up. Given that most rational humans will do their best to neutralize a perceived threat – real or imaginary – it is irrational for the skeptics and disbelievers to continue to deny the high probability that we are responsible for global warming. It’s just not a sane approach so it’s obvious that the naysayers have an agenda. Money! Not simply their own income but money to fill the coffers of the vested interests (oil, coal, shale, lumber, etc.) that profit by continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere no matter what the cost to the planet or the vast majority of its inhabitants.
Yes, it will cost money to control CO2 emissions but not nearly as much money as it will take to build seawalls around all the nations on earth. Further, investments in clean energy will offset some of those costs and prevent many other toxins from polluting the earth.
Fighting climate change is a win-win proposition except for those who will have to change their business models but when they are dragged kicking and screaming to invest in the inevitable, they’ll be on top again.