The useless discussions about "cimate-change".....

[brokenbone]

Just now, Nyezhov said:

I wont have the beans so as to to contribute more methane

i also apply the precautionary principle with food,

som tam is another danger, it can cause over fertilization 

[Nyezhov]

Just now, brokenbone said:

i also apply the precautionary principle with food,

som tam is another danger, it can cause over fertilization 

Especially when you are paying and a fecund nubile is eating it

[Grumpy John]

I am building a greenhouse at the mo.  Will be using CO2 generator to increase the level of CO2 in the air to promote better plant growth.  But if you only have a small area you can just use baking soda and vinegar to produce CO2.   CO2 is a good gas for farmers and orchardists, but I do recognise it has a down side in some areas.   The good outweighs the bad.

[swissie]

Great, I have started another "useless climate change discussion". I wasen't questioning the man-made climate change.
I was rather pointing out, that whatever half-hearted measures we take will not reverse the trend of ever rising global temperatures. (Tipping point/Pivot point already behind us).
Especially as long as the major players in this game (China, India the US, = the ones that could make a real difference), remain in a state of denial.
- So, let's enjoy the party as long as it lasts. After us, the deluge.

[Airbagwill]

Rightwingers and rich conservatives are pouring billions of dollars into climate change denial.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR0lrpe_6bQBZ1iQTDxbRV5LUdV1ZXQDldInA0FJ8lWhU82kGwQxRZmBe_s#0z3QP0yuaf5Ysy3e.01

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/9/2019 at 8:40 PM, Skallywag said:

Yes and water vapor is also one of the gases emitted from the combustion of all fossil fuels.   The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further.  

I am not an astro scientist/physicist , yet the increase of atmospheric CO2 since 1958 has been measured as increase of 80 ppm from 300 ppm to 380 ppm. 

Scientists say this is very significant as Ice core measurements that cover 10's of thousands of years of our planets history show that CO2 has never been this high.  

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

And as to the Volcano effect (not mentioned here but people seem to think they are a big contributor).  Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion metric tons of CO2 per year. Human activity CO2 emissions are around 37 billion metric tons per year 2018.

 

As you point out there is always a possibility that global warming/climate change is a natural phenomenon that is being caused by something no one has looked at or just a "cycle" we do not understand yet or have no control over.  

I go with the theory that rising CO2 is a result of increased temperature, but does not cause rising temperature.

Rising temperature releases CO2 from rotting wood, which is probably a far greater contributor to atmospheric CO2 than all the fossil fuel use on the planet. It's also releasing vast amounts of methane from thawing tundra. It's already too late to do anything about it. Just sit back, enjoy the ride, don't bring any more babies into the population, and hope to die before methane storms destroy us.

 

And as to the Volcano effect (not mentioned here but people seem to think they are a big contributor).  Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion metric tons of CO2 per year. Human activity CO2 emissions are around 37 billion metric tons per year 2018.

I think you will find that big volcanic events contribute significantly more than that. In any event, the dust resulting from a major volcanic event is the culprit. How much did Krakatoa contribute?

Edited October 11, 2019 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Airbagwill said:

Rightwingers and rich conservatives are pouring billions of dollars into climate change denial.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR0lrpe_6bQBZ1iQTDxbRV5LUdV1ZXQDldInA0FJ8lWhU82kGwQxRZmBe_s#0z3QP0yuaf5Ysy3e.01

Doesn't mean they are wrong.

[Airbagwill]

On 10/9/2019 at 2:40 PM, Skallywag said:

Yes and water vapor is also one of the gases emitted from the combustion of all fossil fuels.   The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further.  

I am not an astro scientist/physicist , yet the increase of atmospheric CO2 since 1958 has been measured as increase of 80 ppm from 300 ppm to 380 ppm. 

Scientists say this is very significant as Ice core measurements that cover 10's of thousands of years of our planets history show that CO2 has never been this high.  

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

And as to the Volcano effect (not mentioned here but people seem to think they are a big contributor).  Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion metric tons of CO2 per year. Human activity CO2 emissions are around 37 billion metric tons per year 2018.

 

As you point out there is always a possibility that global warming/climate change is a natural phenomenon that is being caused by something no one has looked at or just a "cycle" we do not understand yet or have no control over.  

So what is your point?

Edited October 11, 2019 by Airbagwill

[Airbagwill]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Doesn't mean they are wrong.

but everyone else is? You really need to apply a bit of skepticality and look at the big picture

[ricklev]

I find it hard to believe none of you are scientists!

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

Clearly not a scientist or even up to speed with the arguments for MMCC.

I have zero interest in whether CO2 in the atmosphere is going to kill us all or not. What I want to know is what is being done about it.

So far it seems to be a lot of hot air, increased taxes and bird killing windmills. None of which is going to make the slightest bit of difference.

[ricklev]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I have zero interest in whether CO2 in the atmosphere is going to kill us all or not. What I want to know is what is being done about it.

So far it seems to be a lot of hot air, increased taxes and bird killing windmills. None of which is going to make the slightest bit of difference.

Actually hundreds of thousands of people are working on both the science and fighting the disinformation, and the complexities of the global politics.  Unsuccessfully, but it's an uphill fight.    

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by ricklev

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

but everyone else is? You really need to apply a bit of skepticality and look at the big picture

5555555555555555555555

When did I say that? Deflection much.

I don't know who is right, and frankly I don't care. 

I do want humans to stop polluting the planet till everything dies, but that's nothing to do with climate change.

I'd also like people to only have children they can support, to stop killing each other and stop spending far too much on weapons, but that's not going to stop either.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, ricklev said:

Actually hundreds of thousands of people are working on both the science and fighting the disinformation, and the complexities of the global politics.  Unsuccessfully, but it's an uphill fight.    

 

If the best they can come up with is bird killing windmills, polluting car batteries and taxes, they are failing big time. Forget about batteries and go for hydrogen fuel cell technology- that's the real solution. Also nuclear power, or even better fusion power.

Even better than that, convince people to stop destroying everything with overpopulation.

As long as too many people are being born, nothing is going to make a difference. 

[ricklev]

I'm sure looking forward to Greta winning the Nobel Peace Prize in a few hours just to watch the haters heads explode!

 

[ricklev]

6 hours ago, ricklev said:

I'm sure looking forward to Greta winning the Nobel Peace Prize in a few hours just to watch the haters heads explode!

 

Awww.  Darn it, the Ethiopian Prime Minister

won!

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, ricklev said:

I'm sure looking forward to Greta winning the Nobel Peace Prize in a few hours just to watch the haters heads explode!

 

55555555555555555555555

My head is still in one piece.

Edited October 11, 2019 by thaibeachlovers

[Airbagwill]

22 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't know who is right, and frankly I don't care. 

I do want humans to stop polluting the planet till everything dies, but that's nothing to do with climate change.

No critical thinking QED

[Puwa]

Here's an unbiased source of critical reviews of media stories about climate change, operated by a global network of scientists https://climatefeedback.org/

[Skallywag]

George Carlin rant on "Saving the Planet"    

 

[brokenbone]

On 10/11/2019 at 11:10 AM, Airbagwill said:

but everyone else is? You really need to apply a bit of skepticality and look at the big picture

no, not everyone else is, hardly anyone believe in the junk science beside those with eco-anxiety condition.

the scientific consensus project was never to

interview 100 or more scientists and make statistic out of that, it was a a few enthusiastic amateurs

that googled "global climate change"

and read abstracts of anything that came up on google,

and then they were discussing in between them

if it should be flagged as "agree/ agree nit noi, not agree, etc......and then concluded based on their subjective

feeling if an abstract supported their opinion that co2

causes global warming.

 

i saw NASA was referring to the consensus,

so i looked it up, it turns out an ozzie named john cook

wanted to be creative, i can tell you point blank he has no clue how to make an objective statistic, none, nada, zilch.

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

 

here is john discussing with fellow enthusiasts

on their blog when they came up with the theory of 97% approve TM

 

John Cook john@skepticalscience... 130.102.158.12

When I read an abstract like this: Spatial And Temporal Projected Distribution Of Four Crop Plants In Egypt ... It is projected that there will be increased air temperature throughout all four seasons in the coming 100 years, from the southern towards the northern parts of Egypt... We can be confident that this statement is based on the fact of AGW. So is it not appropriate to rate it as 'implicit endorsement'? Not all 'predictions of future warming' tip over the line into endorsement but the stronger the prediction, the more the likelihood of implicit endorsement, methinks.

 

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The Consensus Project/2012-02-27-Official TCP Guidelines (all discussion of grey areas, disputed papers, clarifications goes here).html

 

and here is the abstract, that, do note, does not mention

co2 or man as cause of the expected temperature increase

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2008.00205.x

 

its kindergarten drivel behind the 97% consensus,

in the abstracts they 'investigated' was among other

entirely irrelevant stuff like 'white males',

im embarrassed to be rated the same specie as these

imbeciles, and how NASA can refer to this 'statistic' is unbelievable.

 

here is some evaluation of john cooks drivel

that the rumor of 97% scientists approve TM comes from

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/29/a-psychologists-scathing-review-of-john-cooks-97-consensus-nonsensus-paper/

http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97

 

someone that bothered to actually go through the abstracts concluded

less then 1% actually wrote co2

or otherwise man made was behind earth warming and rising sea levels

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by brokenbone

[Cryingdick]

On 10/8/2019 at 9:15 PM, Skallywag said:

No one has seriously discussed overpopulation since the 1960's and it was not popular then.

 

It really is because of "religious control" of the political world/society as a whole. 

The United Nations had proposed a series of discussions on the effects of population on poverty, resources, starvation, pollution, etc...back in the 70's.  It was quashed back then because of "religious" influence.

It is almost like the Inquisitions of the 12th century.  Do not ever go against the teaching of GOD, or you will be punished.   Be fruitful and multiply.  Seems that is one thing all Gods have in common.

Believe in the Islamic world, their credo is that more children means more "followers" or "believers".

Their God wants to make sure they are the majority religion. Islam is the fastest growing in the world now.

 

Have not read any mention of population in several Greta Thunberg rants on climate change either. Sad IMO

 

 

 

The weird thing is people have kids thereby contributing to the problem. They post pics of their first second or even more children online saying how wonderful they all are. What a gift to the world they are. Lost on them is the point that every kid they have doubled their impact on the world. At some point they feel worried about the future their kids will have around a decade after that they had them. Then somehow their kids future is some gift the rest of us have stolen from them.

 

They begin to blame every person on the planet who consumes oxygen for the future of their children. Never occurs to them that they made horrible decisions regarding procreation and now because of their selfish disregard for the planet their kids are going to have to live on less and less. 

 

So if you have children please give it some thought when you ask (usually it's more of an outraged demand) others to completely change or sacrifice their lifestyles so your children have a bright future. When you have a kid you can be the one that eats half rations to reduce your footprint.