cg22165 (Chris Golledge)

Follow

Comment history

Letter to the editor: Rein in CO2

Bart,
When you are ready to accept the facts that ice melts faster when it is warmer, and water flows downhill. let us know. We can begin a conversation at that time.

BTW, you might want to look up the impacts that climate change has on food supply and do a comparison with your research on impacts to food supply from an increase in energy costs.

Let me get you started on that. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=food+security+cl...

April 17, 2016 at 10:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Control of state courts becomes a top political battleground

The judicial branch exists to prevent a tyranny of the majority, and the majority currently is chaffing at the lack of its tyranny.

"A separation of powers may also be implemented to prevent the problem from happening internally in a government."

By seeking to undermine the separation of powers, some Republicans are seeking to advance their own power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny...

April 4, 2016 at 1:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate facts

David, what it comes down to is that either there is something you don't understand, or the last 200 years of thermodynamics is fundamentally wrong. Which do you think is more likely?

I'm pursuing the science aspect because you keep saying things like, "if it exists", which gives you an out when someone points out that mitigating climate change is less expensive than adapting to it. You get to say, it's all a charade anyway, why should we change what we are doing? Well, no, just because there are things you don't understand does not mean that the vast majority of scientists studying the climate are wrong.

March 11, 2016 at 2:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate facts

OK, so Fourier was correct that the atmosphere causes the planet to retain energy.

Tyndall discovered that CO2 interferes with the transmission of infrared in 1859. Do you have any reason to believe that is wrong?

March 11, 2016 at 12:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate facts

David, that's an awful lot of words. All I asked for was a 'yes' or 'no'; was Fourier wrong?

We should leave off debating solution options until we agree there is a problem.

March 10, 2016 at 9:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate facts

BTW, plants using C3 photosynthesis, like wheat, benefit from higher CO2 levels; plants using C4 photosynthesis, like corn, do not. Corn yields around 150 bushels per acre; wheat yields around 50 b/acre. So, aside from your greenhouses being enormously expensive, they would only be effective for the crop giving us less food per acre.

Wow, I thought you were against wasting money?

March 10, 2016 at 12:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate facts

"I have always found it interesting that Anthropogenic Global Warming Proponents have never looked at their proposed solutions from a constructive versus a destructive point of view."

That's simply not true. There has always been a recognition that there are tradeoffs, but mitigation costs less than adaptation, at least according to the reports I have seen.

"Why not capture it and inject into massive greenhouses to grow crops. "
Whoa. Almost 38% of the land on earth is devoted to agriculture. If you want to put any significant amount of that under greenhouses... well, let's say it does not seem economically viable.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/A...

For the majority of the agricultural land not under your greenhouses, the differences in precipitation patterns and increased heat stress reduce yields. Here in Kansas alone, we are looking at around 20% reductions in winter wheat yields per degree C of warming, relative to yields without warming.
https://www.k-state.edu/media/newsrel...

March 10, 2016 at 12:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate facts

Even if there is some waste in the research dollars being spent, that does not mean that the entire field is a charade. That would be like saying that because a bridge to nowhere has been built, the entire field of civil engineering is a charade.

You have appeared to be taking that tack that there is not a serious problem to solve; so, I am trying to see where your thinking diverges from the understanding developed over the last 200 years.

Do you think Fourier was wrong; does the atmosphere keep the planet warmer than it would be without?

March 10, 2016 at 12:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate facts

David, You can call it a charade if it makes you feel better, but the science behind AGW is nearly 200 years old. Fourier discovered that the atmosphere causes the planet to retain energy in the 1820s; that was not too long after Dalton developed the concepts behind the modern theory of atoms. I don't think you are qualified to debate the science behind global warming any more that you are qualified the debate the existence of atoms.

March 9, 2016 at 10:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate facts

Richard, I think you'll find, if you look, that we have a pretty good idea what ended previous ice ages, but that is really immaterial. What you are saying is, metaphorically, that you won't believe John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln until someone can tell you who killed Oetzi.

March 9, 2016 at 3:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )