Climate change- discuss

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Paul, I dont think your the science police, so maybe a different wording is warranted?

 

something along the lines of do your homework before jumping to a conclusion and wasting our time?

[Albedo]

Paul, I dont think your the science police, so maybe a different wording is warranted?

 

something along the lines of do your homework before jumping to a conclusion and wasting our time?

 

Thats what I said:sneaky2:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Science is not absolute truth, its pieces of truth very VERY small pieces.

 

The rest is made up of instinct intuition basic common sense and ask yourselfs some basic questions.

 

Can this ecosystem exist if the climate changes significantly, can it work the way it has for millions of years without great forests like the taiga and Amazon basin?

 

Can we expect the ocens to continue coughing up the cod, the tuna, the herring?

 

can our crops survive even drier conditions than the dust bowls they are already forced to grow in and sustained on irrigation? what happens when water demand outstrips input to the system, especialy when it runs of the dust bowl of compacted earth we have?

 

I could go on all night, this is a good start

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Thats what I said:sneaky2:

 

I was teasing you old cheesey quaver:lol:

[Albedo]

I was teasing you old cheesey quaver:lol:

 

No wuckers mate. Long time coming this thread and I was gonna stay out of it.

 

I just can't resist this one.

 

Hope your well anyway me old mucker...

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

This video is essential viewing, it should be easy for you guys, she the presenter is a bit of a fitty! brains and looks, oh and wait for it, she likes fishing too! so I know your going to watch it for the duration, there is a fundamental message herein.

 

And a lot of opportunity for ecosystem restoration, you just need to THINK!

 

WE CAN, do this you know, it isnt hard, but we have to start, and i would only ask you pull your head out of your rear and start

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhSggAFw7TU&feature=relmfu]TEDxDubbo - Ichsani Wheeler - The Good Carbon Story - YouTube[/ame]

[WorcsWuss]

 

And a lot of opportunity for ecosystem restoration, you just need to THINK!

 

WE CAN, do this you know, it isnt hard, but we have to start, and i would only ask you pull your head out of your rear and start

 

 

That's quite a statement you make there Tony.

I think that actually, for the majority of the population, certainly of the UK, who live in urban areas, commute to work, shop in supermarkets, escape the rat race by jumping on a plane and having a foreign holiday [none of these are things I do I might add] to make the changes which I think you're suggesting are not that hard, actually they're probably so monumental as to be INCREDIBLY difficult.

 

I think that it's probably very easy for you to say they're easy changes but you live in a compliant way. Seriously dude, walking round the woods at the weekend looking at fungus? This is NOT the hobby of 99% of the population, you'll sound like David Icke to them!

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you may have overestimated human desire for embracing change...

If your week was something along the lines of that beer ad on TV, the idea of living in a yurt and growing your own cheese probably falls some way short of your personal aspirations....

[Pumpy]

Cheers Albedo, yeah I'm sure we'll get into your namesake

 

I find it strange that people find it hard to accept that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will raise global temperatures. CO2 is a greenhouse gas - this is scientific fact and is down to its absorption spectrum. Without it the world would be far less habitable at our UK latitude!

 

There is a clear correlation between CO2 levels and average temperatures, but please make up your own mind which way the cause and effect relationship goes. But we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

Maybe a read of this will help: Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

 

I don't dispute Co2 is a "greenhouse gas" or that it provided a bit of warming. But it's absorption bands are narrow windows compared to water vapour, and Co2 absorption is logarithmic, meaning most of it's warming potential was already there in the first few hundred parts per million, a few hundred more parts per million won't make much difference at all, only a fraction of the initial minute boost it already gave. Water vapour is much more of a major player as a "greenhouse gas" it gets up to 40,000 ppm and has a much wider absorption window, 4 or 5 hundred ppm Co2 pails to insignificance IMO. A shift in cloud cover at the equator by only 2% would account for all the CO2 we ever pumped out since 1900. When the IPCC talk about cloud cover in AR4 the error bands are about 5%, bit too convenient IMO.

 

New scientist drank the CAGW kool aid yrs ago, I got so tired of the BS I stopped my subscription in 2001, see how they talk about carbon 14, besides there are other sources, not to mention the flaws in the original paper, see how they talk about "between 1850 and 1954" handy cutting off there, but they forget to mention there was insufficient Co2 raise by 1954 to make the sums add up, even the IPCC says CAGW didn't start until 1950.

 

All the maths for the Co2 argument gets way involved, it's based on the Stefan Boltzmann equation, thermodynamics, where they measure the IR coming off a black body, they then translate this to the earth, which in case anyone missed it is not a black body! I can post links to scientists who dispute even this, the conversations go on forever, makes my head spin, I find the logic comparing water vapour enough without the thermodynamic head ache.

 

youll be well aware of the nutrient poor nature of our modern crops then?

Yeah, teepeeat said enough really, and don't even get me started on GM crops, which look like the solution to the "too many people" meme too, rats fed on that shyte produce fewer young by the 2nd generation, and become infertile by the 3rd generation! First generation show signs of increased stomach lining cell growth under the scope, that's when they fired the researchers who wanted to publish the results, who knows what else it'll do.

 

There are solutions to most of the problems, weather Co2 is an issue or not, Regenerative Agriculture builds soils, locks up long chain carbon molecules deep down and produces nutritious food with natural methods. Some of the proponents have jumped on the climate change bandwagon, call it carbon farming, I call that subsidy farming; regardless the methods are the best way forward IMO. We have to go back to mixed farming, it's the only way to keep the nutrients on the farm, and build the soil again. check out Joel Salatins work, search on polyface farms, he increased topsoil by 18" in 6 yrs, once you get a good depth of healthy microbe rich topsoil you can start pasture cropping in rotation, amazing stuff

 

Pumpy

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Cheers Albedo, yeah I'm sure we'll get into your namesake

 

 

 

I don't dispute Co2 is a "greenhouse gas" or that it provided a bit of warming. But it's absorption bands are narrow windows compared to water vapour, and Co2 absorption is logarithmic, meaning most of it's warming potential was already there in the first few hundred parts per million, a few hundred more parts per million won't make much difference at all, only a fraction of the initial minute boost it already gave. Water vapour is much more of a major player as a "greenhouse gas" it gets up to 40,000 ppm and has a much wider absorption window, 4 or 5 hundred ppm Co2 pails to insignificance IMO. A shift in cloud cover at the equator by only 2% would account for all the CO2 we ever pumped out since 1900. When the IPCC talk about cloud cover in AR4 the error bands are about 5%, bit too convenient IMO.

 

New scientist drank the CAGW kool aid yrs ago, I got so tired of the BS I stopped my subscription in 2001, see how they talk about carbon 14, besides there are other sources, not to mention the flaws in the original paper, see how they talk about "between 1850 and 1954" handy cutting off there, but they forget to mention there was insufficient Co2 raise by 1954 to make the sums add up, even the IPCC says CAGW didn't start until 1950.

 

All the maths for the Co2 argument gets way involved, it's based on the Stefan Boltzmann equation, thermodynamics, where they measure the IR coming off a black body, they then translate this to the earth, which in case anyone missed it is not a black body! I can post links to scientists who dispute even this, the conversations go on forever, makes my head spin, I find the logic comparing water vapour enough without the thermodynamic head ache.

 

Yeah, teepeeat said enough really, and don't even get me started on GM crops, which look like the solution to the "too many people" meme too, rats fed on that shyte produce fewer young by the 2nd generation, and become infertile by the 3rd generation! First generation show signs of increased stomach lining cell growth under the scope, that's when they fired the researchers who wanted to publish the results, who knows what else it'll do.

 

There are solutions to most of the problems, weather Co2 is an issue or not, Regenerative Agriculture builds soils, locks up long chain carbon molecules deep down and produces nutritious food with natural methods. Some of the proponents have jumped on the climate change bandwagon, call it carbon farming, I call that subsidy farming; regardless the methods are the best way forward IMO. We have to go back to mixed farming, it's the only way to keep the nutrients on the farm, and build the soil again. check out Joel Salatins work, search on polyface farms, he increased topsoil by 18" in 6 yrs, once you get a good depth of healthy microbe rich topsoil you can start pasture cropping in rotation, amazing stuff

 

Pumpy

 

Thanks, lot for me to search out and read no doubt:thumbup1:

[dustydave]

I do know that if we weren’t worrying about global warming, we’d be worrying about the next ice age.

 

This is all designed to ‘confuse’ the population from worrying about the environment as a whole, i.e. global warming bad therefore nuclear energy good.