Resisting Climate Hysteria

[cynic]

Your logic really are quite unique Cynic. Very special.

So it's the human exhaust that's causing all these. Is that why industrialists and politicians permit fossil fuel? To keep human population in check?

What the FTSE does that post have to do with politicians?!

I just highlighted a correlation, unrelated to our energy choices, that is somehow being overlooked in favour of the carbon crisis fantasy.

No politics required, just a willingness to apply a modicum of basic logic!

 

[luutzu]

What the FTSE does that post have to do with politicians?!

I just highlighted a correlation, unrelated to our energy choices, that is somehow being overlooked in favour of the carbon crisis fantasy.

No politics required, just a willingness to apply a modicum of basic logic!

I thought you'd need politicians approval to start mining or extracting; need their OK to emit x and do y efficiency standards. But true, pollies do as they're told anyway right.

Anyway, many humans and their breathings could also cause global warming. Yea, maybe 97% of CO2 emission?

 

[cynic]

I thought you'd need politicians approval to start mining or extracting; need their OK to emit x and do y efficiency standards. But true, pollies do as they're told anyway right.

Anyway, many humans and their breathings could also cause global warming. Yea, maybe 97% of CO2 emission?

Only if increased CO2 levels are actually able to cause warming (I have yet to see any compelling justification behind such claims).

The reality is that the current CO2 levels are almost certainly necessary (possibly even a touch too low) for our current population. If such levels do cause warming, then renewable energy alternatives are almost certainly unable to solve that particular problem!

 

[luutzu]

Only if increased CO2 levels are actually able to cause warming (I have yet to see any compelling justification behind such claims).

The reality is that the current CO2 levels are almost certainly necessary (possibly even a touch too low) for our current population. If such levels do cause warming, then renewable energy alternatives are almost certainly unable to solve that particular problem!

I have yet to see a compelling reason why there isn't a hundred billion dollars in my account, but you know... things tend to be what they are regardless of what I find compelling or not.

Seriously, CC isn't one of those philosophical question of what causes it - exactly - and what will it do to what degree - precisely.

 

[cynic]

I have yet to see a compelling reason why there isn't a hundred billion dollars in my account, but you know... things tend to be what they are regardless of what I find compelling or not.

Seriously, CC isn't one of those philosophical question of what causes it - exactly - and what will it do to what degree - precisely.

You are quite correct!

CC alarmism is nothing more than a zealous religious movement. In the eyes of the faithful zealot there is no question! And as such there is no room in the CC ideology for the practice of science.

The aforesaid is clearly evident from the behaviour of the CC alarmists to date.

 

[Tisme]

According to this site, the human population more than doubled during the latter half of the last century.

In light of this information alone, why shouldn't one anticipate elevated levels of atmospheric CO2?

In fact 400ppm appears to be a bit shy of the elevated level that one might otherwise have reasonably anticipated!

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html

Maybe factor in the loss of fauna as civilisation displaces it?

I wonder if migrating birds cause imbalances in CO2 ....hmmm

 

[cynic]

Maybe factor in the loss of fauna as civilisation displaces it?

I wonder if migrating birds cause imbalances in CO2 ....hmmm

Also factor in increased farming of livestock for nourishing the larger populace?

 

[noco]

I think we should rename this thread, "THE DAYS OF OUR LIVES".

It has become nothing more than a soap opera where the impossible always seems to happen with no happy ending.

It has become nothing more than a joke.

We have the "SAYERS" with all doom and gloom needing antidepressants every night and we have the "NAY SAYERS" who are living happy lives with the knowledge that Climate Change is a natural event.

Notice to the Greenies...please don't respond to my post it will only give you more gray hairs which in the end you will want to remove.

 

[explod]

You are quite correct!

CC alarmism is nothing more than a zealous religious movement. In the eyes of the faithful zealot there is no question! And as such there is no room in the CC ideology for the practice of science.

The aforesaid is clearly evident from the behaviour of the CC alarmists to date.

So the fact that lakes are now being reported on the ice sheets across eastern Antartica is caused, in your take, by alarmist behaviour. And some sort of religion??? , struth

Go get a life.

"Science alert, 22 aug"

 

[Tisme]

Also factor in increased farming of livestock for nourishing the larger populace?

Yeah there must be some kind of offset ... methane factories on hooves. That would be anthropogenic too?

At the start of the Industrial Revolution in the UK mid 1600's the human population was ~700 millions and by 1900 it was 1600 millions, now it's a lot more so I'm guessing bio diversity has taken a major hit along the way as meat production has kept pace.

I wonder how many insects, birds, quokkas, bison, etc no longer add to the CO2 and methane count ......

Thank goodness we have all those overweight Americans acting as carbon sinks, every citizen must do his duty. Ban cremations?

 

[cynic]

So the fact that lakes are now being reported on the ice sheets across eastern Antartica is caused, in your take, by alarmist behaviour. And some sort of religion??? , struth

Go get a life.

"Science alert, 22 aug"

Plod you seem to misunderstand the point of what I am saying here!

I am not saying that the earth is warming.

Nor am I saying that the earth is cooling.

On a living, evolving, mobile planet, within a mobile solar system, galaxy, constellation etc. a static climate would be highly unlikely and nigh on impossible to maintain.

What I am saying is that the climate alarmists (whom somehow claim to be advocates of science, contrary to their blatantly unscientific behaviours) are overlooking the essential need to understand the true causation of the elevated atmospheric CO2 levels.


Much of the current CO2 level is more than likely a necessary (and natural) consequence of the exponential increase in the human population (irrespective of chosen fuel)!

 

[explod]

Plod you seem to misunderstand the point of what I am saying here!

I am not saying that the earth is warming.

Nor am I saying that the earth is cooling.

On a living, evolving, mobile planet, within a mobile solar system, galaxy, constellation etc. a static climate would be highly unlikely and nigh on impossible to maintain.

What I am saying is that the climate alarmists (whom somehow claim to be advocates of science, contrary to their blatantly unscientific behaviours) are overlooking the essential need to understand the true causation of the elevated atmospheric CO2 levels.


Much of the current CO2 level is more than likely a necessary (and natural) consequence of the exponential increase in the human population (irrespective of chosen fuel)!

And have never disagreed with that. In fact population reduction is the silent one we need to open up on and even sterilisation are matters I support. Climate change has very many causes including natural, well understood, but it seems to me as a layman that to push to alternative clean energy sources (which is so competitive) is a natural way to go.

 

[noco]

Well what do you know....I just found out we had climate change 66,000.000 years ago.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/techn...o/news-story/0a75ffbc66cc035a8affdda964b58241

IT’S been a widely accepted theory that an asteroid caused the extinction of dinosaurs 66 million years ago.

But the question has always remained: how exactly did the asteroid wipe out most of life on earth?

Researchers at Tohoku University in Japan say they’ve found an explanation to why dinosaurs were wiped out, but other ancient animals lived on.

The theory, which was a joint study by the university and the Japan Meteorological Agency’s Meteorological Research Institute, concluded that aerosol-soot in the air caused by the asteroid led to major climate changes which in turn led to the mass extinction of life 66 million years ago.

The team, led by Tohoku University Professor Kunio Kaiho, conducted the study by examining earth samples from Haiti and Spain — somewhere close to the crater of the asteroid, also known as the Chicxulub impactor, and somewhere far.

 

[noco]

And have never disagreed with that. In fact population reduction is the silent one we need to open up on and even sterilisation are matters I support. Climate change has very many causes including natural, well understood, but it seems to me as a layman that to push to alternative clean energy sources (which is so competitive) is a natural way to go.

Ah yes...Clean energy...don't you love it...Doesn't matter how it hits your pocket though.....Cost of living is not important any more particularly for the poor old pensioners...And pigs might fly.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/techn...s/news-story/77cce60e5bb37814d24d95c92a1f3e08

Wind farm subsidies rise, hitting consumers’ power bills
John Rolfe, Cost of Living Editor, News Corp Australia Network
August 21, 2016 12:00am

EXCLUSIVE

THE market price of the subsidy households end up paying to wind farms has surged by up to 270 per cent in just two years.

A grab-bag of green schemes is expected to add between $90 and $190 to power bills in 2016-17 depending on where consumers live, according to the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC). Within this, the price of providing a leg-up to large wind, solar and hydro setups was put at $29 to $44 — a charge that had and would rise by 23 per cent a year.

The accuracy of these predictions is in question though, because of a leap in the price of Large-scale Generation Certificates (LGCs) that deliver subsidies to wind farms and the other big renewable projects.

Electricity retailers have to buy a growing number of LGCs each year to comply with the Federal Government’s Renewable Energy Target (RET). They pass on these costs to customers.

The market price of LGCs has “gone through the roof”, said Matt Harris, head of climate change and renewables consulting at Frontier Economics, which the AEMC uses for its modelling.

A year ago an LGC certificate bought on the open market cost $54. It now costs $86, a jump of 60 per cent. In June 2014 the LGC price was barely more than $20. Today’s rate is a 270 per cent higher.

The AEMC’s estimate of Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) costs to residential consumers has at its heart an LGC price of just $46.52.


I can see the poor old pensioners having to use candles at night...... back to the 18th century.

 

[luutzu]

Also factor in increased farming of livestock for nourishing the larger populace?

True.

The current way of livestocks breeding/farming meant a lot of water, methane gas, damage to the soil/land... all contributing to environmental degradation and perhaps CC.

Wait, did you just agree that human activities have an impact on the climate?

So until we Westerners have our way of life taken from us by those barbarians, eating plenty of meat and drinking gallons of milk is how our heart likes it. So none of these hippy jibby vegan diet crab - even though it would serve the same nutritional value, good for the environment, and will be cheaper if done on scale anywhere close to the current livestock business.

That's another battle, for another day.

Still, it does not dismiss the damage being done by the burning of fossil, particularly at the current rate and for an ever growing population. Not a good idea on both the CC/environmental front, not a smart move given it's a finite resource that we're about 1/3 of the way through, the other 1/3 cannot economically extract... leaving 1/3 in the gas tank. Quite stupid considering we're only some 100 years into discovering the stuff.

Anywho... these grand plans are for great minds with deep pockets. People like myself and Bill Gates will have to do with giving a few chickens to the poor

 

[basilio]

This is a straightforward explanation of how respiration in mammals affects the world wide amount of CO2.

Humans and animals exhale carbon dioxide with every breath. Why is this not considered to be a problem as far as global warming goes?

The carbon dioxide we exhale does not contribute to global warming for the simple reason that we also take up an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide from the air, albeit indirectly. Everything we eat can be traced back to photosynthesis, the process by which plants take up carbon dioxide from the air and use it to produce the vast array of organic compounds needed for life. Our bodies can be regarded as living engines that require fuel and oxygen to produce the energy needed to sustain life. In that sense we are not all that different from a car. Both for us and for the car the source of oxygen is the air, roughly 20% of which is made up of oxygen. An internal combustion engine burns gasoline and spews out water, carbon dioxide and a few combustion byproducts. We, instead of gasoline, burn the carbohydrates, fats and proteins in food. Like gasoline, these organic compounds are converted to carbon dioxide and water, which we then exhale.

How is it then that we don’t worry about the massive amounts of carbon dioxide that are released with every breath taken by the billions and billions of people and animals that inhabit the world? Because every atom of carbon in the exhaled carbon dioxide comes from food that was recently produced by photosynthesis. Everything we eat, save for a few inorganic components like salt, was in some way produced by photosynthesis. This is obvious when we eat plant products such as grains, fruits and vegetables, but of course it is also the case for meat. The animals that we eat were raised on plant products. Indeed, a growing animal is basically a machine that converts plants into flesh. So, since all the carbon dioxide we exhale originated in carbon dioxide captured by plants during photosynthesis, we are not disturbing the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere by breathing.

On the other hand, when we burn fossil fuels such as gasoline, we are releasing carbon dioxide that forms from carbon atoms that had been removed from the atmosphere millions and millions of years ago by photosynthesis and had then been sequestered in the coal, petroleum and natural gas that forms when plants and animals die and decay. By burning these commodities we are increasing the current levels of carbon dioxide. Clearly then, by living and breathing we are not contributing to global warming through the release of carbon dioxide. But can we help reduce global warming by dying? Probably. We no longer exhale carbon dioxide and it will be a long time before the carbon atoms in our body eventually make it back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Of course, there are always plenty of new babies who start to respire as we expire.

http://blogs.mcgill.ca/oss/2013/04/...o-be-a-problem-as-far-as-global-warming-goes/

 

[Tisme]

HVAC&R is 11% of Australian emissions

 

[cynic]

This is a straightforward explanation of how respiration in mammals affects the world wide amount of CO2.



http://blogs.mcgill.ca/oss/2013/04/...o-be-a-problem-as-far-as-global-warming-goes/

Actually it doesn't! It is just another cc alarmist opinion blog that fails to recognise the blindingly obvious!

I have made numerous postings on this issue now!

On average, how many ppms of CO2 are exhaled by the respirating populace at any given moment?

The cycle between flora and fauna may balance nicely, but there has to be a discernible amount of CO2 in transit between the flora and fauna to facilitate this cycle.

How can an exponential increase in the population not impact the levels of transitory CO2?

 

[cynic]

True.

The current way of livestocks breeding/farming meant a lot of water, methane gas, damage to the soil/land... all contributing to environmental degradation and perhaps CC.

Wait, did you just agree that human activities have an impact on the climate?

....

Every member of our ecosystem exerts some influence on our environment. It is simply a question of degree, duration and whether that influence represents a problematic aberration of nature!

 

[basilio]

Actually it doesn't! It is just another cc alarmist opinion blog that fails to recognise the blindingly obvious!

I have made numerous postings on this issue now!

On average, how many ppms of CO2 are exhaled by the respirating populace at any given moment?

The cycle between flora and fauna may balance nicely, but there has to be a discernible amount of CO2 in transit between the flora and fauna to facilitate this cycle.

How can an exponential increase in the population not impact the levels of transitory CO2?

Cynic you are offering totally inane questions that have no scientific reality beyond your own headspace. There is no need to postulate any "transitory" level of CO2. The simple observable fact is that CO2 levels do rise and fall around the globe each year in response to spring and fall seasons in the northern hemisphere.

Unfortunately CO2 levels are also marching upwards a very steady, indeed accelerating, path as result of an extra 30+ gigatons of CO2 injected by human industrial activity. That amount has absolutely nothing to do with the respiration of 6 billion people for the reasons adequately explained by the post I offered and every other biologist who has passed an exam.