Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

Jump to new
Maybe there is a simple answer, trying to digest all that is in this thread. CO2, Fossil fuels etc.

How about we just plant a shi----------------------------t load more trees, they use the CO2, convert it into a usable material and clean the air.

Could it be that simple?

Is that the earth is warming, or that we burn a lot of fossil fuels not be the real issue, we have deforested the earth, the natural mechanism for keeping things in balance.

Could a govnut propose not a tax, but impose for X amount of fossile fuels we burn we have to plant X amount of trees.

Crap, I am just simple of mind, it cannot be a solution.

Carry on with you thoughts
 
satanoperca said:
Maybe there is a simple answer, trying to digest all that is in this thread. CO2, Fossil fuels etc.

How about we just plant a shi----------------------------t load more trees, they use the CO2, convert it into a usable material and clean the air.

Could it be that simple?

Is that the earth is warming, or that we burn a lot of fossil fuels not be the real issue, we have deforested the earth, the natural mechanism for keeping things in balance.

Could a govnut propose not a tax, but impose for X amount of fossile fuels we burn we have to plant X amount of trees.

Crap, I am just simple of mind, it cannot be a solution.

Carry on with you thoughts
Click to expand...
Something like this ?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/02/tony-abbott-green-army-recruiting-drive
 
F---k me, Abbot of all people, however, YES, great initiative. Simple, productive and engaging.

So if Abbot is wrong and planting trees doesn't help, who cares, we have more nature and trees, that is a good thing.
 
Sdajii said:
As a scientist, I see no evidence for that, and some nobody like you isn't going to change my mind.
Click to expand...
Smurf is not a "nobody". In fact, he is the number 1 technical "go to man" on ASF. He is modest to boot and you should take a leaf out of his book instead of mouthing off with rubbish like this:-
Seriously, WTF? Whatever you're smoking, stop.
Click to expand...
 
bellenuit said:
A rise in CO2 being led by an increase in temperature does not preclude an increase in CO2 causing temperatures to rise. That’s just an example of positive feedback.
Click to expand...

It also doesn't preclude it causing global cooling. It doesn't say anything. Your statement is pointless.
 
Macquack said:
Smurf is not a "nobody". In fact, he is the number 1 technical "go to man" on ASF. He is modest to boot and you should take a leaf out of his book instead of mouthing off with rubbish like this:-
Click to expand...

If he's the go to man for stock technicals then by all means go to him for that. I am a really good geneticist, but that doesn't make me anything more than a nobody when it comes to car mechanics. He clearly has no grasp on climate science, regardless of how modest you imagine he is.
 
Sdajii said:
I am a really good geneticist, but that doesn't make me anything more than a nobody when it comes to car mechanics.
Click to expand...

But you are a self appointed expert on climate science ? Or do you think climate change is a genetic phenomena ?
 
explod said:
I did not say any of what you put up at all qldfrog. It's pretty evident that the miss quotes are posted in order to nullify the real positions put forward.
Click to expand...
My sincere apology, it was Basilio in post 231, does not change the overall point and no it was notr fake news, just an honest mistake
 
and before getting shot in flame, if anyone care reading my point about CO2 being a consequence not a cause, it still means we need to stop burning fossil fuels..AND NUCLEAR
but can leave the cows farting as much as they like..
a subtle difference but who wants subtle when there are so many agendas behind these positions.
Basically Mankind needs to stop releasing stored energy but it has nothing to do with the resulting CO2.I am just mad at people being taken for a ride for ideology purpose, be it in science or in daily news
 
bellenuit said:
A rise in CO2 being led by an increase in temperature does not preclude an increase in CO2 causing temperatures to rise. That’s just an example of positive feedback.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

There are natural cycles, nobody would sensibly dispute that, but the points of concern are:

1. Humans don't fully understand all natural processes indeed there are almost certainly things going on we don't even know exist.

As an example even something as seemingly simple as the explanation for why droughts occur in south-eastern Australia has been significantly altered in recent years due to improved knowledge. That's just one example of how we didn't fully understand it in the past even when we thought we knew. Likewise at some future time we'll probably realise there were things we didn't understand in 2018.

2. Among many other changes to the natural environment we are increasing the concentration of CO2, CH4 (methane), NOx (various oxides of nitrogen) and an assortment of synthetic gases and many other things in the atmosphere.

Concern about potential consequences of this change is not unreasonable given that it is for practical purposes irreversible and so far as is known has no historical precedent. That does not justify unwarranted alarmism but equally it does not justify dismissing the issue.

With regard to the "other" matters which have come up, I will politely note that this is a discussion forum not a lecture and it is perfectly reasonable and to be expected that what I or anyone else posts will be queried by those who either don't understand what is being said or who hold an opposing view.

Opposing views are of course to be expected and are perfectly reasonable since whether the subject is the financial markets or something else, the vast majority of threads on ASF deal with the future not the past and as such are dealing with subjects where the ultimate outcome is not known with certainty. We can be factual about yesterday's weather or what the price of copper was last week but we can't be certain what will happen at any future time. That opposing views will exist is thus inevitable and that's by no means a bad thing.

As such explaining the data and thought process being applied is often of far more value than the actual conclusion. :2twocents
 
SirRumpole said:
In case you didn't read the NASA report on temperature/co2 lead/lag, here it is again.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11362

It indicates that there are two separate processes whereby temperature can either lead or lag CO2.

Do you acknowledge that this is correct or not ?
Click to expand...

It's an interesting article. Just read the first paragraph (by all means read the whole thing, but for now, just look at the first paragraph). It says that before the last 200 years or so (the industrial age), the temperature lead CO2, not the other way around. That's billions of years. That shows us what's going on. It shows that temperature is the cause, CO2 is not the cause. That's exactly what it says. This is an important point. Read it from me in this post or my previous posts or the NASA article or other sources. Take as much time as it takes to understand this important point.

Okay, once you understand that, now consider that CO2, which has not actually legitimately been shown to have a significant affect on temperature (it's the other way around, according to both me and your own source) has been introduced by an auxiliary source, which makes it a red herring in the whole picture. It is not going to cause anything to happen, and it is not indicative of the climate either. It is from the burning of fossil fuels. It is the first time ever in the history of the planet that it has happened, and nothing about that particular part of the picture indicates that anything in particular will come of it, indeed, NASA's own data extremely strongly demonstrates the opposite.

Assuming you did actually grasp the concept given in your own article, which backs up what I have been saying, that CO2 naturally lags rather than leads, we have overwhelming evidence that CO2 does not cause a runaway greenhouse effect. This is a very simple concept, and an important one worth understanding, so take the time to do it.

Okay, so we all agree that CO2 lags temperature, right? So, *after* the temperature goes up, CO2 goes up. Not before, after. Now, if the narrative of CO2 *causing* increased temperatures was true, this would indeed cause a runaway greenhouse effect, which is what the mainstream narrative says. However, we have literally a billion years of data showing this has never, ever happened, despite many many many cycles of the temperature going up, CO2 going up, and then the temperature going down. This blatantly, clearly screamingly obviously shows that CO2 does not cause a runaway effect. We have a huge number of real world demonstrations of this fact in the history of this very planet. Not mathematical models with financial and political bias, but real empirical data.

I'm glad you found an article from a source you trust which demonstrates this (albeit unwittingly), because it beautifully backs up what I'm saying.

If you still don't understand this, please feel free to ask about these two important points again, because they are quite important, fundamental, disprove the narrative and are very tangible. You don't need to believe me on anything, your own data and even the smallest most basic amount of self reasoning clearly show it.
 
Sdajii said:
If you still don't understand this, please feel free to ask about these two important points again, because they are quite important, fundamental, disprove the narrative and are very tangible. You don't need to believe me on anything, your own data and even the smallest most basic amount of self reasoning clearly show it.
Click to expand...

I don't know, one of us must not be getting the point that pre the industrial age humanity did not have the means to release large amounts of co2 into the atmosphere.

Agree or not ?
 
qldfrog said:
Basically Mankind needs to stop releasing stored energy but it has nothing to do with the resulting CO2.I am just mad at people being taken for a ride for ideology purpose, be it in science or in daily news
Click to expand...
It certainly passes the "commonsense test" as a concept that releasing steadily increasing amounts of heat and an observed warming of the earth are quite likely connected.

If you add up all the sources then it's a massive amount of heat we're adding directly to the air plus also to the sea and as evaporated water. It's going to have an effect on something almost certainly.
 
SirRumpole said:
I don't know, one of us must not be getting the point that pre the industrial age humanity did not have the means to release large amounts of co2 into the atmosphere.

Agree or not ?
Click to expand...

No, I don't agree with your statement that one of us fails to realise preindustrial age humans did not release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Please, please, stop banging on about this completely and utterly irrelevant piece of trivia as though it was somehow relevant to anything at all, or as though I was disagreeing, or anyone at all was disagreeing.
 
Sdajii next lines from report

"
In the post-industrial age, the opposite is true. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is leading to increased temperature. So two different things happened, one pre-industrial, where temperature was driving the CO2, and post-industrial, where CO2 was driving temperature. Which means a completely different physical-biological process is going on. And we don't understand what the consequence of that change is.

It is a fundamental change to how the earth works and the earth's radiation balance works. And so, we're very concerned because we don't see any restraining force on continued increase in temperature due to continued increase in CO2. And that's a problem."
 
Sdajii said:
It also doesn't preclude it causing global cooling. It doesn't say anything. Your statement is pointless.
Click to expand...

Hardly. You were suggesting that if temperatures rises preceded CO2 rises, then CO2 rises could not be the cause of increased temperatures. I just pointed out that was a non-sequitur. If CO2 rises caused global cooling, then you would have negative feedback, which clearly is not the case. Increased temperatures ==> increased in CO2 ==> reduction in temperatures. We know from the science that increased CO2 leads to increased temperatures.

Perhaps if you were not so ignorantly bombastic in your opinions you might actually learn something.
 

Similar threads

basilio
Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?
220 221 222
Replies
4K
Views
302K
basilio
basilio
Top