Climate change denial

[Estro Felino]

Let's say you're right. How do we fix it? Post (virtue signal) on public forums with our computers. Stop shagging? Make abortion mandatory? What?

I have a sex life but I don't procreate. There's also the pill...btw

 

[I Am Hugh]

Hugh, nothing in your post is even rational, yes we could fit everyone on earth into Texas for about the two weeks it would take them to starve to death after most of them died of dehydration long before that.

Hey, @anotherneil , this is a response to the post you were looking for.

Well, then, problem solved. That's what we should do. Move everyone to Texas and watch them die. No more climate change. Is that your argument?

 

[I Am Hugh]

I have a sex life but I don't procreate. There's also the pill...btw

There you go. We don't need abortion, then, right? Here we have solved the problem of climate change and abortion, and people reading us say we are silly and wasting our time. If they would just listen.

 

[Pogo]

Studies have been done that can conclusively show that plants grow faster under higher CO2 levels. This technique is used in greenhouses all over the world. They add more CO2 to the greenhouse and increase profits. This plant-phobia behavior of the Left needs to stop. It is ironical that Liberals are more often vegetarians yet are plant-phobic when it comes to feeding the plants more of their main food source; CO2 and H2O.



How Climate Change Will Affect Plants

Back in the age of the dinosaurs, high CO2 levels is what made everything so warm, green, lush and large.

This is part of a natural self correcting response by nature. More CO2 means more and faster growing plants which not only fixate CO2 but also fixate water. This plant water adds a natural cooling effect to forests. The real man made problem has to do with defoliation to accommodate the growing world population. The removal of plants; rain forests, and the lowering of plant density everywhere to accommodate humans and subdivision, has caused the surface of the earth to heat faster and absorb less CO2.

This extra heating of the surface is caused by the beach sand effect. If you go to the beach on a sunny day, the dry sand gets much hotter than the wet sand. The wet sand has water, like plants, which has a higher heat capacity than dry sand alone. The dry sand and the developed land both have lower heat capacity than water and plants, and these man made surfaces get hotter with the same heat. Go walk on the grass barefooted and then walk on the road barefooted. The difference is more than 1.5C. You can fry an egg on the asphalt.

Since 1800 the world population grew from about 1 billion and now we have 8 billion. The Liberal driven world trade agreements, that sent jobs overseas, have helped poor countries to develop and have given cheap labor to Big Business. These are positive but have a price. The DNC has helped transformed the world from an agricultural and plant lifestyle to an industrial and urban complex, where the living water surface of the earth is being replaced with low heat capacity building materials, that heat up faster. Now the same people are plant-phobic, blaming the food of plants, which can allow plant to reverse this trend. I guess they live for creating disasters.

Besides this heat capacity effect, water is the main player when it comes to weather and climate. Plants are one of water's many control system tricks. Another trick of water that is also related to current climate change is the conversion of ice to liquid water; melting the glaciers and poles. Ice reflects solar energy and has a cooling effect beyond just being cold. Liquid and gas phase of water are greenhouse gases, while ice has the opposite effect.

This unique water trick needed for glacial cycles, only works because water expands when it freezes. This is one of 70 anomalous properties of water. If water did what most material in nature do; contract when it freezes, the oceans would never freeze at the surface. The ice would sink and build up from the bottom of the oceans, up. It would be hard to have an ice age. But with ice floating on liquid water, even the earth's water surface can become ice and the ice can reflect heat back into space, so ice ages appear in a cyclic fashion. This can be seen in the graph below. We have been heating naturally since about 18,000 year ago and are near the top of a natural water based heating cycle. About 18,000 years ago the oceans were 120 meter lower with all that liquid water in the form of ice reflecting heat and keeping the surface cold.

The more the earth tilts the more the same solar heat affects the poles and melts the ice.

True but not the current problem, the other interesting thing is that the high points also represent ~ 300 ppm of CO2 which traps the heat from the sun in the atmosphere. we are at nearly 450 ppm which will drive us well beyond this milankovich cycle peak in terms of temperature.

 

[Kathryn]

Most, heck, maybe all, civilized countries are below the replacement rate of the world. If we implement border control, we shouldn't worry too much. The entire world is barely at replacement rate, though those pesky African countries continue to grow in population.

 

[Pogo]

Nonsense.



You believe this? You honestly believe that we are more destructive than nature itself? C'mon. We could fit every living human being in the state of Texas with 100 square meters per person. About the size of a large room. How much room do you need? The planet will be fine, it's only you that you have to worry about. If people who claim overpopulation of our planet is a problem keep at it, with eugenics, sterilization, etc. that will be the end of mankind. Not climate change.



What did we do before electricity? What did the planet do before people? Are you suggesting we stop using electricity or we end mankind to save our planet?



The climate has always changed. Long before people and far more dramatically then.



Nothing is ever the same.



Because it's fake stupid ideology and alarmism designed to tax the poor and suppress capitalism. It was made up by the oil industry and is believed by people due more to emotional fixation than reason. Do you see Al Gore cutting down his carbon footprint while preaching to everyone else they should? Is Barrack Obama and Maxine Water's multi-million-dollar mansions next to the ocean a good sign of their honest integrity in preaching this nonsense or making laws to that effect? Or the ignorant celebrity who gives a speech on carbon footprints and then hops in his private jet and flies across the country to get a cheeseburger to be taken seriously?

Certainly not by me.

I just watched 2 minutes of this video and his argument amounts to hurricanes are irrelevant because we can't predict whether they will make landfall.
I'm not watching any more.

 

[We Never Know]

True but not the current problem, the other interesting thing is that the high points also represent ~ 300 ppm of CO2 which traps the heat from the sun in the atmosphere. we are at nearly 450 ppm which will drive us well beyond this milankovich cycle peak in terms of temperature.

We not only destroy forest that help remove CO2, we also create heat islands/sinks(cities, concrete, asphalt) that absorb and retain more heat.
That can been seen when comparing the temps of those areas to other areas.

"Working with satellite data, scientists measured that surface temperatures in cities were sometimes up to 10-15°C higher than in their rural surroundings. The study also estimated that the temperature in extreme heat islands in cities around the world has risen on average by 1°C in since 2003."

Cities are often 10-15 °C hotter than their rural surroundings

A recent JRC study looks at the difference between surface temperatures of urban areas and their neighbouring rural areas in summer.

joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu

So we are..
-destroying more areas that remove CO2
-building more areas that retain more heat
-then complain about earth getting hotter

 

[We Never Know]

There you go.

Every time I glance at your name I see 'I Am High' instead of 'I Am Hugh lol

 

[Kathryn]

Every time I glance at your name I see 'I Am High' instead of 'I Am Hugh lol

Me too!

 

[I Am Hugh]

I just watched 2 minutes of this video and his argument amounts to hurricanes are irrelevant because we can't predict whether they will make landfall.
I'm not watching any more.

I can't imagine how. What I got is that he worked for the UN and read the literature and is much more optimistic than before. But more importantly that we weren't going to actually do anything about it aside from politics and virtue signaling. Unless that changes, which is excruciatingly unlikely, talking about it is just a white noise. IMO. What is interesting to me is the reason for the discussion, not the discussion itself. The real reason - beyond the pretense. Not that even that is enough to hold my attention for long.

 

[Pogo]

We not only destroy forest that help remove CO2, we also create heat islands/sinks(cities, concrete, asphalt) that absorb and retain more heat.
That can been seen when comparing the temps of those areas to other areas.

We could revert to the carboniferous when the dinosaurs reigned and all of the carbon from the thousands of ppm in the atmosphere produced the biomass that we mine as fossil fuels, the problem would be that the cooler parts of the landmass, think Alaska, would be like the jungles of southeast Asia, Yes we do destroy what we have now, but we can move and transplant palm trees to Alaska so no worries if we have the money to move and the other displaced persons don't get uppity.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes average temperature is only one minor detail, on earth it generally varies by less than 30 deg. day to night in most areas, in some places, maybe 50-60 deg.
That minimal variation is due to our atmosphere and its composition. Change it and you could have day night swings of hundreds of degrees.

Yes global warming is real, but the problem is not that we are close to 68, but that more places will hit 130+ at which temp humans can barely survive.
Further, the range in any given place is becoming wider.

This article is basically garbage from what I can tell, it had no reference to any paper I could read but it appears to be some sort of a survey that is probably as logical as asking 1000 people how much change they have in their pockets and calculating an average and implying somehow that whatever number is a good thing. I worked with a plant cell that had maximum growth around 77, common human bacteria like about 100, and so on.

I find 62 much more comfortable than 68 for sleeping and most people are cold at that temp. A 60 degree day with high humidity feels cold, but a 60 degree day in January with low humidity is very comfotable. I really can't even guess what the point of that 68 number is.


Yes this is very possibly true in that evolution will fill the niches, but the present populations will not be able to adapt or evolve fast enough to maintain the same species. The earth varies very slowly, one degree average change would normally take thousands of years with bumps in the slope. We are looking at doing 5 times that in 100 years.

This doesn't even actually make sense even if you think of preindustrial humans living from the desert to the Arctic. As I said, I could find no link to an actual paper so my conclusion is that a rather clueless in terms of biology newspaper writer got a piece of misinterpretation published that never should have been.

Your whole thoughts are only about humans. We are only one of many millions of species.

My thoughts are on life, all life. Which by the way we humans are very deadly to because its all about us.

 

[We Never Know]

We could revert to the carboniferous when the dinosaurs reigned and all of the carbon from the thousands of ppm in the atmosphere produced the biomass that we mine as fossil fuels, the problem would be that the cooler parts of the landmass, think Alaska, would be like the jungles of southeast Asia, Yes we do destroy what we have now, but we can move and transplant palm trees to Alaska so no worries if we have the money to move and the other displaced persons don't get uppity.

Nice whataboutism.

Care to respond to my post?

We not only destroy forest that help remove CO2, we also create heat islands/sinks(cities, concrete, asphalt) that absorb and retain more heat.
That can been seen when comparing the temps of those areas to other areas.

"Working with satellite data, scientists measured that surface temperatures in cities were sometimes up to 10-15°C higher than in their rural surroundings. The study also estimated that the temperature in extreme heat islands in cities around the world has risen on average by 1°C in since 2003."

Cities are often 10-15 °C hotter than their rural surroundings

A recent JRC study looks at the difference between surface temperatures of urban areas and their neighbouring rural areas in summer.

joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu

So we are..
-destroying more areas that remove CO2
-building more areas that retain more heat
-then complain about earth getting hotter

 

[Pogo]

I can't imagine how. What I got is that he worked for the UN and read the literature and is much more optimistic than before. But more importantly that we weren't going to actually do anything about it aside from politics and virtue signaling. Unless that changes, which is excruciatingly unlikely, talking about it is just a white noise. IMO. What is interesting to me is the reason for the discussion, not the discussion itself. The real reason - beyond the pretense. Not that even that is enough to hold my attention for long.

He started out with models are worthless, this is denial right there. He is right that the talking is not worth much, but the models are not worthless and so far they have been optimistic. Yes, it is a big political problem when we have people who think that drill baby drill is a good idea. doing nothing is not an option unless we ignore the billions of people who will be displaced / die from the climatic changes. The earth will survive, but what do we care about our fellow man.

 

[We Never Know]

He started out with models are worthless, this is denial right there. He is right that the talking is not worth much, but the models are not worthless and so far they have been optimistic. Yes, it is a big political problem when we have people who think that drill baby drill is a good idea. doing nothing is not an option unless we ignore the billions of people who will be displaced / die from the climatic changes. The earth will survive, but what do we care about our fellow man.

Where many of those 'displaced people' live has been underwater/unlivable many times in the past.

Build on flood plains, expect to get flooded
Build on the oceans edges, expect to lose it as the oceans rise.

You can't stop what has happened many times repeatedly in the past.

 

[Pogo]

Your whole thoughts are only about humans. We are only one of many millions of species.

My thoughts are on life, all life. Which by the way we humans are very deadly to because its all about us.

Well heck, life will go on just like it has for billions of years, so what if we started a fire that will burn out much of the forest and it's critters, it is just life.
Give me back my carburettor and my leaded gas so I can work on my own car and so what it the skies turn brown and I can't breath or the summer becomes river fire season, that would be fun to watch.
no, I am not just thinking of humans, we are just one of the many endangered critters.

 

[I Am Hugh]

He started out with models are worthless, this is denial right there. He is right that the talking is not worth much, but the models are not worthless and so far they have been optimistic. Yes, it is a big political problem when we have people who think that drill baby drill is a good idea. doing nothing is not an option unless we ignore the billions of people who will be displaced / die from the climatic changes. The earth will survive, but what do we care about our fellow man.

As far as I can tell the models are worthless outside of the politics and taxation which I mentioned earlier. What did the models say when I was a kid? That we would all have been dead a quarter of a century ago. Models seem to only have any real value until their projected date, and then they are about as helpful as the religious ones saying the end is near.

 

[We Never Know]

Well heck, life will go on just like it has for billions of years, so what if we started a fire that will burn out much of the forest and it's critters, it is just life.
Give me back my carburettor and my leaded gas so I can work on my own car and so what it the skies turn brown and I can't breath or the summer becomes river fire season, that would be fun to watch.
no, I am not just thinking of humans, we are just one of the many endangered critters.

We will not destroy earth or life on earth.
Ourselves and some other species with us?
That is most likely going to happen eventually.

 

[Pogo]

Nice whataboutism.

Care to respond to my post?

yes and after we decimate out population, and the CO2 goes up we will achieve the environment that was responsible for the biomass that we are now returning to the atmosphere.

 

[We Never Know]

yes and after we decimate out population, and the CO2 goes up we will achieve the environment that was responsible for the biomass that we are now returning to the atmosphere.

ooh the fear factor of we will destroy everything.

When in reality its oh crap we will destroy ourselves.