Resisting Climate Hysteria

[cynic]

Quite confusing Monk.

First, a while back, you said we humans are no miniscule and insignificant to dare think we could screw up the planet.

Now you're saying the increased numbers of us small little apes may play a big role in CO2 and hence CC [?]

OK, CC doesn't exists... you're saying human breathing [and breeding] contributes to the natural CO2 levels... But others smarter people have quantify how insignificant that CO2 emission is in relation to the industrial-scale fossile burning.


Man, my head hurts so bad I can't even crack wise tonight

Luutzu, you have a remarkable knack of completely misunderstanding virtually everything I post within this thread!

Yet again I ask, without referring to your religious doctrine (and associated clergy), can you honestly dispute the logic behind my claim to there being a biological need for an elevated level of CO2 within the atmosphere?

 

[luutzu]

Luutzu, you have a remarkable knack of completely misunderstanding virtually everything I post within this thread!

Yet again I ask, without referring to your religious doctrine (and associated clergy), can you honestly dispute the logic behind my claim to there being a biological need for an elevated level of CO2 within the atmosphere?

https://www.americanforests.org/a-carbon-conundrum/

Last year, Americans drove almost three trillion miles according to estimates from the U.S. Federal Highway Administration.

That’s a lot of time on the open road, time stuck in traffic jams, and time for carbon emissions to enter our atmosphere.

How much carbon?

12,000 mile average per year per passenger vehicle (cars, minivans, pick-ups, vans and SUVs) ÷ 25.5 average miles per gallon

= 470.6 average gallons per year

× 17.68 average pounds of CO2 per gallon of gas

= 8,320 pounds of CO2 per vehicle per year....

1 pound = .45kg, say half... so each car emit 4Tonne of CO2?

How many people should not live so we could remove one car off the road to reduce CO2?

Maybe cleaner fuel source could spare lives, no?

 

[cynic]

https://www.americanforests.org/a-carbon-conundrum/




1 pound = .45kg, say half... so each car emit 4Tonne of CO2?

How many people should not live so we could remove one car off the road to reduce CO2?

Maybe cleaner fuel source could spare lives, no?

What part of "without referring to your religious doctrine (and associated clergy)" didn't you understand?

Furthermore you have also completely missed the point!

 

[luutzu]

What part of "without referring to your religious doctrine (and associated clergy)" didn't you understand?

Furthermore you have also completely missed the point!

So people should debate you without using any facts?

When so many people are missing your point... maybe they're not the one missing something.

 

[explod]

Is it really so terribly confusing? Really?

An increased population of lifeforms exchanging CO2/O2 via the conduit of the atmosphere and somehow nobody seems to understand the biological necessity for an increased atmospheric level of CO2!

And somehow those whom don't understand something so terribly basic, continue to claim that they know that science is on their side when they call for reduction of carbon emissions!

Such fanatical lunacy has no business claiming to represent any branch of science!

I don't claim any science, only what I see and have experienced from growing up on the land with a Dad that watched climate and weather for his stock etc. Was talking about the changes we have observed with a 90 year old farmer from Warracnabeal. (i do visiting for red cross) particularly since the drought of 68/9 they have been enormous. No science needed to observe the stuff up from too much human footprint on our planet. Yes lots of causes but the burning of fuels and coal it seems is the worst. But it can be stopped and with lakes now appearing across the ice sheets of Antartica the urgent call is really out.

 

[cynic]

So people should debate you without using any facts?

When so many people are missing your point... maybe they're not the one missing something.

Luutzu, many people like to believe that their religion has a factual basis.

If one truly cannot differentiate between opinions, facts and opinions of facts, then one is wasting one's time debating anyone on any matter!

I am as yet undecided about the true reason behind the repeated misunderstanding of my postings during this past couple of days.

In some cases, I know that there was genuine misunderstanding.

In others, I am of the opinion, that the misunderstanding was more than likely deliberate.

The point I am making happens to threaten one of the major foundations of the Carbon Crusade. As such it is unlikely to be well received by Carbon Crusaders.

 

[cynic]

I don't claim any science, only what I see and have experienced from growing up on the land with a Dad that watched climate and weather for his stock etc. Was talking about the changes we have observed with a 90 year old farmer from Warracnabeal. (i do visiting for red cross) particularly since the drought of 68/9 they have been enormous. No science needed to observe the stuff up from too much human footprint on our planet. Yes lots of causes but the burning of fuels and coal it seems is the worst. But it can be stopped and with lakes now appearing across the ice sheets of Antartica the urgent call is really out.

The main area where I find myself in disagreeance with you is on the questions surrounding causation.

Remedial action devised pursuant to mistaken causation, could easily be misdirected and exacerbate the issue (or possibly even create problems where none previously existed).

More objective, scientific work needs to be done on the what, why and how questions surrounding any anomalous observations.

Note when I say objective and scientific, I most definitely do not mean opinionated papers and/or websites calling on everyone to trust the authors expertise and dictates without question!

 

[wayneL]

The main area where I find myself in disagreeance with you is on the questions surrounding causation.

Remedial action devised pursuant to mistaken causation, could easily be misdirected and exacerbate the issue (or possibly even create problems where none previously existed).

More objective, scientific work needs to be done on the what, why and how questions surrounding any anomalous observations.

Note when I say objective and scientific, I most definitely do not mean opinionated papers and/or websites calling on everyone to trust the authors expertise and dictates without question!

The crux of the matter right there.

 

[Tisme]

Is that before or after accounting for the breathing? Does measure of those breathing account for breather's weight and health status?

That's greenhouse emissions associated with it: e.g the power production to produce the equipment, to run it, gas loss, etc.

 

[Tisme]

Would you care to summarise these ?

You beat me to it. Being a lazy expert on all things, I'm not driven to look for problems to solve.

 

[Tisme]

This thread is becoming so boring......It is like a Merry-Go-Round and nobody wants to get off it....The Alarmist keep using their cracked records and keep going over the same ground day after day in the hope of roping in some naive converters. :bonk::horse::horse:

Say what? Noco, there is no need to troll this particular conversation. Cynic is asking for opinions on something abstract to the general theme and those of us without any particular hysteria are particpating.

Far from boring now that the big thinkers (i.e. me)are getting involved Noco.

For every doomsayer running around with their underpants on their heads, there's always someone else deliberately choosing to deny them that pleasure it seems.... for no particular reason than to be obstropolous.

 

[wayneL]

For every doomsayer running around with their underpants on their heads, there's always someone else deliberately choosing to deny them that pleasure it seems.... for no particular reason than to be obstropolous.

Thanks very bloody much Tisyou, now I have all these people in Maccas looking at me strangly because I'm PMSL at my phone.

 

[Tisme]

I haven't actually been out and counted the truth, but apparently cars and trucks transfer locked up carbon from the dirt to the environment at a rate of 14% of the total per annum. Ripping tees and undergrowth out accounts for 15%, which includes release of organic carbon in the soil.

I assume the net effect is that the carbon cycle intake is choked to 0.85 original capacity and the output is 1.29 of the previous year's equilibrium, which means runaway CO2 concentrations in the absorbers like the oceans, population growth, animal husbandry, remnant forests, crops, etc....whatever is left probably floats around the atmosphere looking for trouble.

Apparently conifers are the best at accumulating carbon in the top soils at a rate of at least twice that of deciduous trees, so I'm guessing they will be the choice for reforestation in the future, but it does take about 40 years to net out the negative effect of cultivation.

 

[trainspotter]

The floods will become more severe and other catastrophic warnings !! I wonder if they said that in 1893?





Breakfast Creek Hotel was wet in 1893 dontcha think?

 

[orr]

Some 'Inconvenient Flooding' ... sunny day flooding, so called up and down the East Coast of the US.

Of course it's causation ??? ... Sea level rise; Could it be that this is in fact the cause of Gobal Warming??? Simple physics 'a compessed gas heats'. So an expanding ocean compresses the atmosphere, causing it to warm. Or is it in fact as our new 'wide eyed' senator Malcolm Roberts contests, and he has the empirical evidence to prove it, that NASA have left the garden hose running...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/s...e-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

 

[luutzu]

Scientists just put a new ecological marker for our age - the Anthropocene era. a.k.a. the age stupid humans step harder on the gas when told there's a cliff ahead and they ain't got no bridge.

The last ecological marker was the Ice Age.

 

[explod]

Very very interesting times.

The argument between local scientists and the Government on the perameters of action versus policies and economics to meet targets is all over the floor.

So hysteria is now on all fronts.

 

[Tisme]

The floods will become more severe and other catastrophic warnings !! I wonder if they said that in 1893?

View attachment 67938

View attachment 67939

Breakfast Creek Hotel was wet in 1893 dontcha think?

As the burbs have been developed so the flood plains have extended ... natural levees gone = less peak height.

 

[trainspotter]

As the burbs have been developed so the flood plains have extended ... natural levees gone = less peak height.

Ermmmmm NO !! The Wivenhoe dam was not around in 1893

 

[Tisme]

Ermmmmm NO !! The Wivenhoe dam was not around in 1893

No what?

The last flood was mismanagement of Wivenhoe spill. But as hydrologists pointed out it, would have been even more epic if development hadn't increased the flood plain.

I'm not debating climate change, just offering an observation. The last one cost me tens of thousands of money so I'm rather interested in Wivenhoe and it's function.

You might be interested in this:


http://www.qhatlas.com.au/brisbane-floods-1893-summer-sorrow