Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I don't understand why it is necessary to keep pointing out that even the most deeply activist Global Warming scientists do not say increased co2 is going to destroy the human race.

    I mentioned DDT because it perfectly illustrates why lay people with a poor understanding of science such as Gore should be largely ignored by the public. Some bird populations dramatically increased presumably because of a reduction in parasites when DDT was widely used. In fact the overall bird population increased by a significant amount with some species decreasing in number. Rachel Carlson's "Silent Spring" was as much a work of fiction as Gore's "an inconvenient truth".

    Asbestos is another example of how dumbed down science can be very misleading. There are many types of asbestos with varying degrees of danger to human health. Additionally it is a naturally occurring mineral present in the air in many outdoor environments. There is no doubt that some varieties are extremely dangerous while some appear to be fairly safe to be exposed to in small quantities.

    Global Warming is of a similar nature winners and losers, a much more nuanced situation than popular culture seems able to absorb. The evidence to date points to a much less dramatic impact than originally hypothesized.

    Ranking threats to human well being Global Warming is fairly far down the list. A crude list could look something like the following. Based not on hypotheses but historical experience, probability and impact.

    Short term cooling resulting in widespread food shortages.

    Pandemics

    Nuclear War

    Agricultural collapse due to over farming and restrictions on fossil fuel fertilizers.

    Economic depression and disrupted transportation. "Social collapse".

    Major volcanic eruption.

    Asteroid impact.

    Global Cooling

    Extraterrestrial radiation.

    co2 starvation

    Global Warming?


    Global Warming ends up high on most people's list because popular culture is urban culture. Partly because separation from nature allows for a romanticized view of nature. Partly as a result of general ignorance of agriculture. Because the environmental movement has largely been hijacked by "communists". Because it is convenient "truth" for Globalists and banksters. Because the fossil fuel industry is visually "dirty". Because socialists don't love the poor they just hate the rich. Because it is a simple hypothesis. A generally poor conception in the general population of geological time scales, climatic history, and evolution. The ludicrous level of guilt in western middle class people because of a misunderstanding of history. A failure of scientists to come to grips with the inability of traditional scientific methods and tools to deal with complex chaotic systems. A failure in the general population to put the industrial revolution, robber barons, past environmental calamities, and capitalism in proper perspective. Luxus and it's degenerate effect on civilization. Increase mutation loads and the effect on general intelligence. Irresponsible sensational "journalism". A decline in religion and a shift to individual selection. The associated assault on "freewill" by the scientific community. The insanity of intersectionality and equity, diversity and inclusion. Political correctness and the collapsed of individual free inquiry. The transfer of power in the academic community away from researchers to administrators.

    It is possible that Global Warming is a more serious concern than it appears to be but everything in life is about probability not certainty. Reality makes most people uncomfortable. They prefer the delusion of certainty.
    Last edited by wolfhnd; 31 Oct 19, 11:00.
    We hunt the hunters

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

      Your daughter is partially right. We're destroying that part of the planet that is keeping us alive.
      \selective molecular resonance of
      carbon \dioxide molecules is already laboratory proven.https://socratic.org/questions/what-...carbon-dioxide

      Science, Tech, Math Social Sciences Carbon Dioxide: The No. 1 Greenhouse Gas


      Print
      Martyn Goddard / Getty Imagesby Frederic Beaudry

      Updated May 14, 2018

      Carbon is an essential building block for all life on earth. It is also the main atom making up fossil fuels’ chemical composition. It can also be found in the form of carbon dioxide, a gas which plays a central role in global climate change.







      What Is CO2?

      Carbon dioxide is a molecule made of three parts, a central carbon atom tied to two oxygen atoms. It is a gas making up only about 0.04% of our atmosphere, but it is an important component of the carbon cycle. Carbon molecules are real shapeshifters, often in solid form, but frequently changing phase from CO2 gas to liquid (as carbonic acid or carbonates), and back to a gas. The oceans contain vast amounts of carbon, and so does solid land: rock formations, soils, and all living things contain carbon. Carbon moves around between these different forms in a series of processes referred to as the carbon cycle – or more precisely a number of cycles that plays multiple crucial roles in the global climate change phenomenon.







      CO2 Is Part of Biological and Geological Cycles

      During a process called cellular respiration, plants and animals burn sugars to obtain energy. The sugar molecules contain a number of carbon atoms which during respiration are released in the form of carbon dioxide. Animals exhale excess carbon dioxide when they breathe, and plants release it mostly during nighttime. When exposed to sunlight, plants and algae pick up CO2 from the air and strip it of its carbon atom to use in building sugar molecules – the oxygen left behind is released in the air as O2.




      Carbon dioxide is also part of a much slower process: the geological carbon cycle. It has many components, and an important one is the transfer of carbon atoms from CO2 in the atmosphere to carbonates dissolved in the ocean. Once there, the carbon atoms are picked up by small marine organisms (mostly plankton) which make hard shells with it. After the plankton dies, the carbon shell sinks down to the bottom, joining scores of others and eventually forming limestone rock. Millions of years later that limestone may emerge to the surface, become weathered and release back the carbon atoms.







      The Release of Excess CO2 Is the Problem

      Coal, oil, and gas are fossil fuels made from the accumulation of aquatic organisms that are then subjected to high pressure and temperature. When we extract these fossil fuels and burn them, the carbon molecules once locked into the plankton and algae get released back in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. If we look over any reasonable time frame (say, hundreds of thousands of years), the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been relatively stable, the natural releases being compensated by the amounts picked up by plants and algae. However, since we have been burning fossil fuels we have been adding a net amount of carbon in the air every year.


      Carbon Dioxide as a Greenhouse Gas

      In the atmosphere, carbon dioxide contributes with other molecules to the greenhouse effect. Energy from the sun gets reflected by the surface of the earth, and in the process it is transformed into a wavelength more easily intercepted by greenhouse gases, trapping the heat within the atmosphere instead of letting it reflect out into space. Carbon dioxide’s contribution to the greenhouse effect varies between 10 and 25 % depending on the location, immediately behind water vapor.



      Last edited by marktwain; 31 Oct 19, 15:51.
      The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

      Comment


      • ^^^ Thing is that the water vapor is about 10-20% in addition to the "dry" atmosphere of which CO2 is about 0.04% (per your excerpt above) and you do the math to how much H2O matters over a near negligible CO2.

        Also, your "excerpt" fails to note that the increased use of "fossil fuels"; more correctly carbon resources, since those like myself whom burn wood for home heat aren't using "fossil" resources, has been 'offset' by forest and other flora reductions which would have used the "extra" carbon in the atmosphere.

        Meanwhile, we still have this issue of "ONE molecule" ("greenhouse gas") 'trapping heat' yet no rational or logical explanation of how it manages to transfer that "trapped heat" to the other 2,499 molecules in ratio of atmosphere composition. My frustration and that of many of us incorrectly tagged as "skeptics and deniers" is that the true believers in ACC/AGW continue to flunk and fail at the the math and science to show/prove how that one part out of 2500 is so heavy on impact when basic science, math and lab tests would show such can not happen.

        Meanwhile so many of the "gorebots" expect the rest of humanity to make unwarranted and useless sacrifices of lifestyles, economics, and industry and/or their lives to correct something unproven and which would result in more death and dislocations than the false "crisis" the dummy gorebots present.

        Like I've said, if you or any others TRULY believe humans are the cause and fault, practice what you preach and make yourselves the first examples to cease exhaling carbon dioxide. Otherwise you are classified as phonies and enemies of humanity in my book.
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
          ^^^ Thing is that the water vapor is about 10-20% in addition to the "dry" atmosphere of which CO2 is about 0.04% (per your excerpt above) and you do the math to how much H2O matters over a near negligible CO2.

          Also, your "excerpt" fails to note that the increased use of "fossil fuels"; more correctly carbon resources, since those like myself whom burn wood for home heat aren't using "fossil" resources, has been 'offset' by forest and other flora reductions which would have used the "extra" carbon in the atmosphere.

          Meanwhile, we still have this issue of "ONE molecule" ("greenhouse gas") 'trapping heat' yet no rational or logical explanation of how it manages to transfer that "trapped heat" to the other 2,499 molecules in ratio of atmosphere composition. My frustration and that of many of us incorrectly tagged as "skeptics and deniers" is that the true believers in ACC/AGW continue to flunk and fail at the the math and science to show/prove how that one part out of 2500 is so heavy on impact when basic science, math and lab tests would show such can not happen.

          Meanwhile so many of the "gorebots" expect the rest of humanity to make unwarranted and useless sacrifices of lifestyles, economics, and industry and/or their lives to correct something unproven and which would result in more death and dislocations than the false "crisis" the dummy gorebots present.

          Like I've said, if you or any others TRULY believe humans are the cause and fault, practice what you preach and make yourselves the first examples to cease exhaling carbon dioxide. Otherwise you are classified as phonies and enemies of humanity in my book.
          I have no idea why you are personalising this.\believe it or not, I didn't invent the theory of Molecular resonance.

          I WOULD SUGGEST a good cup of tea....
          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

          Comment


          • It isn't a binary question as in the failure of the models to reflect real world measurements do not disprove the AGW hypothesis but the failure of the models also does not prove that critics alternative explanations are right or wrong either. All that it proves is the models are unreliable.

            The most reliable critics estimate around 1degree of warming which I believe to be reasonable. What they fail to tell you is that current average temperature is 16 degrees. That is a rather dramatic increase. That means there is reason for concern but doesn't make it the highest priority.

            A major overhaul of the climate change research community is the most obvious response to failed predictions. Many of the researchers however are government workers immune from meritocratic oversight.
            We hunt the hunters

            Comment


            • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
              The add on this page associates Roundup with cancer. I'm sceptical that anyone harmed by roundup followed the manufactures recommendations.
              FWIW, each of us has different ads showing on our screen when we post here. Blame those "bots" that log your ramblings about the internet and then provide "customized" ads on your screen. For example, I have no ads for 'Roundup' showing on my screen.

              Also, FWIW, wife and I engage mostly organic farming and gardening methods on our modest half-acre reserve of biological flora self-expanding, self-replicating carbon sequestrations organisms/units so we stay away from using harsh un-natural chemicals like 'Round-Up'.

              Further footnote in context here, we are active in getting "dirt under our fingernails" working with nature and local flora and fauna and doing our part to balance that carbon cycle which it seems the many urban dwellers posting here aren't doing nor have any real clue about.

              It's called "walking the walk, versus 'talking the talk'. " We're doing what many don't, but expect 'others' to do.
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jutland View Post

                And how exactly am I a hypocrite?
                By your posts and positions you look to endorse the hypothesis that the vast cause of current "climate change/global warming" is human caused; a.k.a. anthropogenic; yet you continue to exhale carbon dioxide several times per minute adding to the "problem" you believe is human caused. Since you PERSONALLY haven't ended your role in the "problem" you believe is caused by humans you are then continuing that "problem" and hence another of many hypocrites, just like young Greta.

                QED
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                Comment


                • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                  One population subset out of the global whole ...
                  ... meanwhile the PROOF that this is caused by human activities is ???
                  I'd like to answer that query, however, my responses appear to …..be taken rather personally by you.
                  The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                    By your posts and positions you look to endorse the hypothesis that the vast cause of current "climate change/global warming" is human caused; a.k.a. anthropogenic; yet you continue to exhale carbon dioxide several times per minute adding to the "problem" you believe is human caused. Since you PERSONALLY haven't ended your role in the "problem" you believe is caused by humans you are then continuing that "problem" and hence another of many hypocrites, just like young Greta.

                    QED
                    Ouch, you never served in the military but rant about the need to fight jihad, you quote ayn rand and complain about 'parasites' but worked as a quality controller.....

                    But apparently I am a hypocrite because I don't kill myself...

                    You are a tourist.

                    Last edited by Jutland; 31 Oct 19, 18:29.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                      I have no idea why you are personalising this.\believe it or not, I didn't invent the theory of Molecular resonance.

                      I WOULD SUGGEST a good cup of tea....
                      If you see this as "personalized" that's your perspective.

                      Thing is that the "theory of Molecular resonance" has nothing to do with, or ignores, my point about volume or mass of effect. The MAJOR question/issue remains how that "one part" out of 2500 applies to the other 2,499.

                      Like many, including the so-called "experts", seems the other 2,499 parts that aren't CO2 supposedly "magically" attain an equal heat increase from the "theory of Molecular resonance" which applies to the ONE Part of CO2. This is the source of my repeated frustration and frustration with many here whom want to post in support or endorsement of ACC/AGW yet won't live according to their beliefs, or wonder why some of us question the Non-science/Non-sense they present.

                      Reg, if you want to see this as personalized, that's your perspective and call, but then tell us what you personally are doing to support your belief and personally reduce your "carbon footprint".

                      Otherwise, consider joining "Jutland" in the league of hypocrites.
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                        I'd like to answer that query, however, my responses appear to …..be taken rather personally by you.
                        That may have more to do with your style of presentation than the substance of what you present. Don't let my interpretation of the "words on my screen" hold you back.

                        If you think you have a valid and OBJECTIVE take on the data and issues, go for it. That give and take is why we are here, right ???
                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                          That may have more to do with your style of presentation than the substance of what you present. Don't let my interpretation of the "words on my screen" hold you back.

                          If you think you have a valid and OBJECTIVE take on the data and issues, go for it. That give and take is why we are here, right ???
                          NO>this section of the forum exists for the calm exchange of scientific knowledge, NOT for anyone's silliness.

                          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jutland View Post

                            Ouch, you never served in the military but rant about the need to fight jihad, you quote ayn rand and complain about 'parasites' but worked as a quality controller.....

                            But apparently I am a hypocrite because I don't kill myself...

                            You are a tourist.

                            As I've mentioned before (a few time at least) there's that matter of genetics and birth based physical conditions that lead to physical disqualifications from which there was not much counter or waiver. But not surprised this sort of natural nuance also eludes your grasp.

                            Actually I worked as a "Quality Assurance - Inspector". As I often told the techs and makers I worked with; "You have control of quality by what and how you make it, I'm here to assure you meet the specs and drawings as required in what you've done." And FWIW, prior experience as a "maker" helped provide the background to aid in being an Inspector/verifyer. Again, seems concepts beyond your mental grasp.

                            You're a hypocrite because of your many logic disconnects.

                            Something we've seen often from you, back when you were "puddin'-stick boy",/'Mr. Beattie'(?Spelling and memory being vaguely correct?) ~ despite username and registration changes, your writing style and profiles remain the same ...
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                              NO>this section of the forum exists for the calm exchange of scientific knowledge, NOT for anyone's silliness.
                              Then please demonstrate/prove how "in the lab" it has been replicated that one part out of 2500 transfers the heat it retains to the other 2,499.

                              That's all I ask and have for years now, yet no one seems able to do this basic science replication of hypothesis under laboratory conditions ...,

                              Meanwhile, any "silliness" comes from those whom fail to live by the supposed "science" they proclaim and present, and expect everyone else on the planet to live by, while they themselves don't.
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                                By your posts and positions you look to endorse the hypothesis that the vast cause of current "climate change/global warming" is human caused; a.k.a. anthropogenic; yet you continue to exhale carbon dioxide several times per minute adding to the "problem" you believe is human caused. Since you PERSONALLY haven't ended your role in the "problem" you believe is caused by humans you are then continuing that "problem" and hence another of many hypocrites, just like young Greta.

                                QED
                                Greta is not a hypocrite. She is simply a concerned citizen who sees certain old people only concerned with short term selfish considerations, and not the world that's left for the next generations. She might not understand all the facts, but her heart is certainly in the right place.

                                We need more people like Greta for a better future. Fortunately, your 7 year old daughter appears to be one of them. Isn't it fantastic when children are better than their parents .
                                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X