Chalo
100 TW
gogo said:
Or to paraphrase, "I'll pollute as much as I want until you can show me exactly how much damage I'm doing".
ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs
- Thread starter dnmun
- Start date
Or to paraphrase, "I'll pollute as much as I want until you can show me exactly how much damage I'm doing".
nutnspecial
10 MW
I like that punx0r mentioned 'Flat Earth' with appropriate caps 
Anyway, maybe it's time to define 'pollution', since there's ALLLLL kinds and <here> we may be after the shit that very directly affects our weather. Like 'whatever' 'manmade' effects may be easily associated with global dimming. . .
Anyway, maybe it's time to define 'pollution', since there's ALLLLL kinds and <here> we may be after the shit that very directly affects our weather. Like 'whatever' 'manmade' effects may be easily associated with global dimming. . .
Hillhater
100 TW
Chalo said:
We all "pollute" to some extent. But until you can prove reducing man made pollution will makes a significant contribution to climate change, dont ask me to pay for your neurotic attempts to solve a problem you cannot identify .
Dauntless
100 TW
Yeah, that's what we're afraid of. That you'll use the bogus report as your excuse to claim that YOU are clean as a whistle. That you'll go right on befouling the air and the water the same as you always have and you'll put both fingers in your ears as people try to point out to you. . .
. . .As you keep referring to the bogus "Report," claiming it's not you, it's everyone else.
gogo said:
It depends with what urgency you view the situation. In an emergency it's normally good to start decisive action as soon as possible. If you wake up and your house is full of smoke the best thing is to get out ASAP. The source, cause and extent of any fire and the exact threat it actually posses to you doesn't need determining first.
Hillhater said:
Didn't you read JimW's posts? He laid out Man's CO2 emission compared to nature, the unprecedented effect these have on atmospheric CO2 levels and the effect this has on climate. Couldn't you make the logical leap that stopping such emissions would reduce those Bad Things?
Hillhater
100 TW
Why i couldnt make that leap...Punx0r said:
..Facts....
These CO2 levels are not uprecedented in nature ,
Human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is insignificant (<3%)
...AND...CO2 is not the most significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere !
....that title belongs to water vapour which has an effect 8 times greater than CO2 !
But that is not often mentioned .?
So, yeah, you didn't read Jim's posts (which is rude considering you demanded an explanation from him).
Instead you're just reciting denier clichés. Let's see how many we can tick off from this list of climate change myths, ranked by popularity: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Instead you're just reciting denier clichés. Let's see how many we can tick off from this list of climate change myths, ranked by popularity: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Hillhater said:
nutnspecial
10 MW
Wonderful, it IS a religion.
People that are SO worked up about 'our' pollution oughta start at the top where it's most evident and prevalent- like literally look at the frocking sky- and that's besides following the money/power trail to the top if you still want to focus on mere 'consumers' as part of a big 'non-natural' issue. . . Put that big 'studied' brain power to some actual use.
Things really should be different- we should have less fools and fanatics. Slowly, slowly, I think this is the case.
People that are SO worked up about 'our' pollution oughta start at the top where it's most evident and prevalent- like literally look at the frocking sky- and that's besides following the money/power trail to the top if you still want to focus on mere 'consumers' as part of a big 'non-natural' issue. . . Put that big 'studied' brain power to some actual use.
Things really should be different- we should have less fools and fanatics. Slowly, slowly, I think this is the case.
Hillhater
100 TW
If you read those links you posted, the authors agree and confirm the basic facts i referred to . !Punx0r said:
The rest is their attempts to explain and present ways of rebutting those facts to allign with their theories.
Sadly, they also frequently use the IPCC "Bible" as reference .
nutnspecial
10 MW
No, it's just that more of us should try to be a bit more objective.
Where there's always room <for all> to improve, the most 'educated' are sometimes the most surprised by how subjective their thinking/reasoning/facts have been.
Where there's always room <for all> to improve, the most 'educated' are sometimes the most surprised by how subjective their thinking/reasoning/facts have been.
Yeah, I'm familiar with your pseudo-objectivity and anti-intellectualism. Denial of plain, everyday facts and the belief that all sources are of equal merit whether it's a peer-reviewed journal article or the blog of a man with undiagnosed personality disorders and a tinfoil hat.
I feel you will do well in this new post-truth, alternative-facts era.
I feel you will do well in this new post-truth, alternative-facts era.
jimw1960
10 kW
Hillhater said:
No they don't. Take your claim that human contribution to CO2 is insignificant, for example. That is flat out wrong. Human burning of fossil fuel adds 30 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year. That is MORE that 100 times all other natural sources combined, including volcanoes.
As for water being the most potent greenhouse gas: water in the atmosphere will reach a dynamic equilibrium that depends on the global average temperature. At a given temperature, the air can only hold so much water vapor and the rest precipitates out as rain or dew. When you add CO2, it causes warming and that warmer air can now hold even more water vapor, which causes additional warming. This is called a positive feedback loop. There is no saturation level for CO2 in the atmosphere like there is for water vapor. The level will keep going up and up and it will stay in the atmosphere for centuries even after we stop adding new CO2. But keep telling yourself there isn't a problem. It boggles my mind what sort of mental gymnastics you must have to go through to keep convincing yourself that this is some sort of hoax that all the world's scientists are in on.
DasDouble
100 kW
jimw1960 said:
@jimw1960 I could have not said it better. You, Sir, deserve an award for that comment. Seriously.
Hillhater
100 TW
^^^ This from an "Earth Scientist " !jimw1960 said:
Facts..
Natural CO2 sources..
Plant and animal respiration....220 billion tonnes each year
Soil decomposition....220 billion tones each year
Ocean release.... 330 billion tonnes each year .
Volcanoes...... Stuff all !
jimw1960
10 kW
Hillhater said:^^^ This from an "Earth Scientist " !
Facts..
Natural CO2 sources..
Plant and animal respiration....220 billion tonnes each year
Soil decomposition....220 billion tones each year
Ocean release.... 330 billion tonnes each year .
Volcanoes...... Stuff all !
False! Please cite your sources. Oceans are currently taking up CO2, not releasing it--this is the cause of ocean acidification. Plants also take up more CO2 than they emit.
Hillhater
100 TW
For an "Earth Scientist" you are somewhat limited in you understanding of how this planets ecosystem functions.
Normally i would not bother giving references, but since you seem incapable of your own research, i will give you some help..
Denman, K.L., G. Brasseur, A. Chidthaisong, P. Ciais, P.M. Cox, R.E. Dickinson, D. Hauglustaine, C. Heinze, E. Holland, D. Jacob, U. Lohmann, S Ramachandran, P.L. da Silva Dias, S.C. Wofsy and X. Zhang. Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2007.
the most relevant summary being ..
and yes, plants do take up more than they emit, but remember the scale of their emissions.... 220 bT compared to 33 bT for human input !.
....so just maybe there is potential for them to take up some of that human emissions as well ??
Normally i would not bother giving references, but since you seem incapable of your own research, i will give you some help..
Denman, K.L., G. Brasseur, A. Chidthaisong, P. Ciais, P.M. Cox, R.E. Dickinson, D. Hauglustaine, C. Heinze, E. Holland, D. Jacob, U. Lohmann, S Ramachandran, P.L. da Silva Dias, S.C. Wofsy and X. Zhang. Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2007.
the most relevant summary being ..
and yes, plants do take up more than they emit, but remember the scale of their emissions.... 220 bT compared to 33 bT for human input !.
....so just maybe there is potential for them to take up some of that human emissions as well ??
Chalo
100 TW
Only an idiot would consider emissions that are part of a closed loop cycle to be equivalent to emissions introduced from outside such a cycle.
We only have one atmosphere to mess up. We don't get to pipe in fresh, low carbon air from elsewhere after folks like you foul it.
We only have one atmosphere to mess up. We don't get to pipe in fresh, low carbon air from elsewhere after folks like you foul it.
TheBeastie
1 MW
Looking at these posts lately reminds me of some of these youtube videos done by established scientists. Just because I post these doesn't mean I support them, but some of them actually make climate change sound exciting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc
[youtube]WDWEjSDYfxc[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE
[youtube]P2qVNK6zFgE[/youtube]
When the bush fires in Victoria 7 years ago that killed 173 people and 10,000s of super barbequed animals including Koalas happened (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires#Overall_statistics ) there was a lot of blame to the harder core greeny folks who had successfully put in so many anti-logging laws that it was even illegal to clear trees that had fallen down on the side of the road etc.. This made it hard for folks to flee by car as the roads were effectively on fire with many burning trees falling onto the roads on top.
Because there was so much fuel there was nothing but scorched earth after the fires, nothing survived, even the most reckless logging would have been a healthier effect on the environment and animals would have been able to at least runaway and many seeds/seedlings would be recovering quickly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CSIRO_ScienceImage_10345_The_Kinglake_National_Park_after_the_Black_Saturday_bushfires.jpg
The point I am making is that leaving these trees to grow and then get burnt down caused more co2 emissions to be released then all of the man made co2 emissions for Australia, well there are articles out there that have made these claims.
The plume of smoke from Victoria could be seen in New Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2009_Victorian_bushfires_smoke_plume_over_NZ.jpg
So some argue if your serious about taking co2 out of the atmosphere you should support sustainable logging where you log it and let it regrow back.. When the wood is used for housing etc its been taken out of the atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires
Co founder of Greenpeace talks about it here https://youtu.be/dIvLEwGS-70?t=7m4s
But the greens have come back again and have restricted the amount of sustainable logging to the point where the timber mill is going out of business.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-21/log-trucks-roll-into-melbourne-in-push-victoria-timber-industry/8371244
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-HcEpliMYk
[youtube]7-HcEpliMYk[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc
[youtube]WDWEjSDYfxc[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE
[youtube]P2qVNK6zFgE[/youtube]
When the bush fires in Victoria 7 years ago that killed 173 people and 10,000s of super barbequed animals including Koalas happened (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires#Overall_statistics ) there was a lot of blame to the harder core greeny folks who had successfully put in so many anti-logging laws that it was even illegal to clear trees that had fallen down on the side of the road etc.. This made it hard for folks to flee by car as the roads were effectively on fire with many burning trees falling onto the roads on top.
Because there was so much fuel there was nothing but scorched earth after the fires, nothing survived, even the most reckless logging would have been a healthier effect on the environment and animals would have been able to at least runaway and many seeds/seedlings would be recovering quickly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CSIRO_ScienceImage_10345_The_Kinglake_National_Park_after_the_Black_Saturday_bushfires.jpg
The point I am making is that leaving these trees to grow and then get burnt down caused more co2 emissions to be released then all of the man made co2 emissions for Australia, well there are articles out there that have made these claims.
The plume of smoke from Victoria could be seen in New Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2009_Victorian_bushfires_smoke_plume_over_NZ.jpg
So some argue if your serious about taking co2 out of the atmosphere you should support sustainable logging where you log it and let it regrow back.. When the wood is used for housing etc its been taken out of the atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires
Co founder of Greenpeace talks about it here https://youtu.be/dIvLEwGS-70?t=7m4s
But the greens have come back again and have restricted the amount of sustainable logging to the point where the timber mill is going out of business.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-21/log-trucks-roll-into-melbourne-in-push-victoria-timber-industry/8371244
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-HcEpliMYk
[youtube]7-HcEpliMYk[/youtube]
Hillhater
100 TW
Only an Idiot would consider the earths complex carbon cycle a "closed loop system" !Chalo said:
Thats is far to simple a lable ( and totally inaccurate description) for a process that interacts with, and is influenced by so many other of the earths functions.
But i guess some folk find it easier to accept these spoon fed simple concepts , than to bother doing your own research or fact checking.
Hillhater
100 TW
Ignoring you embarrassing mistake in sentence construction , ..which makes it impossible to understand what you meant...Punx0r said:
....do you want to try again ?
i assume you are agreeing with Chalo's simplistic view of the Earths carbon process as a closed loop cycle, and with jimw1960's statements.....
jimw1960 said:
jimw1960
10 kW
Hillhater said:
Here is the link to the paper you cited: http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVrgFOtFYUYoAY8AnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1490135686/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ipcc.ch%2fpdf%2fassessment-report%2far4%2fwg1%2far4-wg1-chapter7.pdf/RK=0/RS=FGX7sFAmd45aoQj8b9fe4nZ0tGQ-
The sentence you quoted is not contained in that paper. You completely ignore the net effect on the carbon budget by only citing the fluxes out of plants and oceans and not counting the fluxes in, or uptake-- the net being a carbon sink. Look at table 7.1 of the document and it adds up the net fluxes. The net numbers for ocean-to-atmosphere and land-to-atmosphere are negative. Now look at the emission from fossil fuels + cement production == big positive number. So, clearly you don't know how to interpret this information. Your own source shows the opposite of what you claim and clearly shows that the rapid rise in global CO2 concentrations is almost entirely due to human sources.
jimw1960
10 kW
TheBeastie said:
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. CO2 added to the atmosphere by forest fires is part of a plant growth and decomposition cycle. Plants grow and take carbon out of the atmosphere, they eventually die and decompose (or burn down) and put that same carbon back into the atmosphere. This is a quasi-closed loop of recent atmospheric carbon. The carbon being returned to the atmosphere would have been removed from the atmosphere within the past few decades or, at most, centuries. When evaluating forests and plants as a source or sink for carbon, you have to add up all the fires and plant decomposition that release carbon and then subtract out all the forest and plant growth that takes up carbon. The net is a relatively small carbon sink at present according to the paper that hillhater just cited. Burning of fossil fuels on the other hand is taking carbon that was removed from the atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago and buried deep in the Earth. It took hundreds of millions of years to remove all that carbon from the atmosphere, but we are digging it up and putting it all back within a span of just a few hundred years.