What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A couple of articles.

Globally, if soil organic carbon in agricultural and grasslands could be increased 10 percent during the 21st century, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could be reduced by 110 ppm1.


A 10% increase is entirely possible. Here’s an article in which an ordinary rancher achieved substantially more than that. What grass farmers have known all along—research shows grass sequesters carbon | Soil Carbon Coalition
 
Ridgerunner said:
A couple of articles.
Click to expand...
thanks,… I’ll have a look

actually for a while now been keeping my eye out to buy some acreage in the local mountains to try my hand at permaculture,… and w/ in that school of thought,… soil farming is an integral idea



PS the reason I mentioned oceans seemingly out of the blue in an earlier post,
40.png
What do you think of climate change? Social Justice
Never did I say the oceans have no role in sequestering carbon. There’s “green” and “green”. It does not help with carbon sequestration to plant things like cotton. Cotton is shallow rooted, puts everything into the plant and is typically then killed by spraying with herbicides prior to being picked mechanically. The above-ground part then decomposes by oxidation, adding carbon to the air, followed by outgassing of the carbon in the shallow root system. More useful in sequestration are deep-ro…
Click to expand...
is because few ever seem to consider the contribution the oceans to carbon sequestration, and mentioned cotton because it blew me away how quickly things can be messed up (given geological time, half a human lifetime is akin to a blink of an eye)
 
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
PetraG:
I see them as frankly more likely to be the successors of the disingenuous hired guns who tried to discredit the link between cigarette smoking and cancer
Click to expand...
When the name calling starts, that’s a good time to discount the post entirely.
Click to expand...
yesterday morning while driving around heard a news segment about vaccines and the difficulty refuting misinformation because deeply held beliefs - once they form,… people defend them


have a listen because the emotions and motivations mentioned in the vaccine story, apply to this discussion as well

anyway ignoring michael mann’s infamous hockey stick graph


but given “global dimming,” “decreasing pH levels in the oceans” the 2015 Berkeley lab paper on the observation of CO2 increasing greenhouse effect at the earth’s surface, the ever increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere (i.e. the keeling curve) and known physical properties of the CO2 molecule,… the preponderance of scientific evidence tells me we are in for some interesting times

on a forum like this, where most don’t have hard science background, its forcing me to try and explain the physics, chemistry and biology I’ve picked up over the years in simple to understand yet also accurate terms that shows how things are interrelated,… and then there is diplomatic aspect which has to be accounted for given the random info and/or opinions put out there as being gospel truth

@PetraG since you mentioned successors of the disingenuous hired guns,… yup, they do exist as I’ve learned and pointed out
40.png
What do you think of climate change? Social Justice
your comment brings up an interesting theological question,… on the issue of “climate change” is god about predestination or free will? or are we being lead astray by “Merchants of Doubt” [Merchants of Doubt Official Trailer 1 (2014) - Documentary HD] if you look over a document of collective key evidence that outlines what actually happened to Roger Revelle (a pioneering scientist in the study of CO2) www.TinyURL.com/RevelleDoubt then watch an interview on the topic by key pla…
Click to expand...
40.png
What do you think of climate change? Social Justice
huh,… seems some CAF posters have been duped by various “Merchants of Doubt” into parroting their message,… for example in some older CAF discussions, we see,… just sayin,… there was a PsyOp started long ago to try and win hearts and minds,… AND this can be proven quite simply by skimming over a document of collective key evidence (this “redirect” link points to a PDF on GoogleDocs which outlines what actually happened behind the scenes to Roger Revelle, who was a prominent scientist that…
Click to expand...
but deniers whether they be disingenuous hired guns (as you put it) or just ordinary folk w/ out a formal science education, have one trait in common w/ believers of global warming,… and that is basically as time goes forward no matter how much the climate changes (1.5°C or 4.5°C) it is basically TEOTWAWKI,… so there is natural apprehension or fear of what the future holds


and these various strong human emotions, have to somehow be accounted for and addressed
 
I do believe we have a responsibility to take care of the earth as best we can, but I’m not sold on the whole ‘OMG MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING’ song and dance. To me, it has every appearance of being nothing more than a political agenda-driven con job.
 
phaster said:
and these various strong human emotions, have to somehow be accounted for and addressed
Click to expand...
I think in recognition of those who are only wary of manipulation by those with a foreign agenda there needs to be respect given to that wariness. The world is full of those who think they need to do our thinking for us in order to perfect it according to their mandate. I don’t blame people for being wary. The problem is compounded by “science writers” who overstate what scientists publish because they need splashy headlines. That history has to be taken into account when having these discussions.

I do think it is very very naive to be on one side of the political spectrum and to have this idea that only those on the other side do manipulation or engage in spin to a deceptive degree. Those of us with a science background can look at primary sources and decide what we think–which could be wrong but at least we have some idea how plausible the arguments are–but those without are sometimes caught between a rock and a hard place. If anyone thinks they can just listen to one party and they’re on good ground? Oh, no. That’s a very bad idea. Everybody has biases but in politics they engage in out and out manipulation of the facts and sometimes deceipt.

And then there are those who just make stuff up out of thin air with no evidence, rigorous or otherwise, who are the real troublemakers… our President is not the only one, but he’s relentless about it. (The only saving grace with him is how preposterous his own fabrications are. Raking forests? People watching hurricanes from boats? The concept of global warming was invented by the Chinese? (6/10/12) There were “thousands and thousands” of people cheering on 9/11? Why does anybody take him seriously? Find me a more prolific crackpot than he is.)
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
@PetraG - is this your perception as well?
Click to expand...
When I look at who is contributing to the debate, I think those who lied for the tobacco industry are the one most likely to be lying about global warming, yes. Having said that, maybe they aren’t lying this time. I also don’t blame anyone who thinks that even scientists who aren’t literally lying can be far more deeply affected by their biases than they understand. I do think it is unreasonable to think

We are talking about the future of humankind. People are going to be emotionally involved. That can get in the way of reading a complex system. The length of time and the consistency of the data make it very hard to hold any doubt that (a) the planet is warming up (b) green house gas theories about at least one major and alterable reason for that is are more plausible than any other purely “natural” explanation that has been brought forth and (c) if the theory is right, we’re cooking ourselves when we totally have the technical capacity to do otherwise.

I don’t see any excuse for avoiding serious efforts to gradually lower our carbon emissions even as we help people in developing situations to improve their standards of living. That doesn’t mean I think that those who think otherwise are either rubes or charlatans. That is not true. I do think it is selfish to believe that our consumption habits here in the US are some inalienable gift from Heaven. There is no evidence for that. That is not to be found in the plain meaning of the Gospels, the evangelical counsels, or any of the treasures of the Church’s traditions.

By the same token, however, I think that saying that everyone contributing data to this debate and interpreting it to mean the planet is warming up at least partly due to the tremendous amount of CO2 we are generating is being grossly unfair. It is very serious to accuse a scientist of perpetrating a hoax, and the evidence for it just is not there. People need to cut that out. Those with political fish to fry? That’s another matter.
Ender said:
If there is so much evidence supporting the hyp… theory, why has there also been so much deception and dishonesty in supporting and presenting it? Doesn’t that bother you at least a little?
Click to expand...
The Gospel isn’t untrue just because there are those with no fear of God who try to use it to get rich or make themselves important. So no, I don’t conclude that something is false just because someone tries to use it for political climbing. Yes, it raises a red flag, but someone has to be right, lol.
 
Last edited:
I would not call a 14 minute cherry-picking video evidence of “so much deception and dishonesty”. How about getting a neutral source to report on all this dishonesty?
 
PetraG said:
Those of us with a science background can look at primary sources and decide what we think–which could be wrong but at least we have some idea how plausible the arguments are–but those without are sometimes caught between a rock and a hard place.
Click to expand...
WRT CC there is an expression well known to pilots
Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.
Click to expand...
as I see things, CC deniers in general have a dismissive world view,…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

over the years I’ve sadly seen a few people die in various aviation accidents because they were cavalier toward downside risk(s)

I mention this because we’re now seeing the results of a cavalier attitude w/ the boeing 737 max “management”

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Boeing has long embraced the power of redundancy to protect its jets and their passengers from a range of potential disruptions, from electrical faults to lightning strikes.

The company typically uses two or even three separate components as fail-safes for crucial tasks to reduce the possibility of a disastrous failure. Its most advanced planes, for instance, have three flight computers that function independently, with each computer containing three different processors manufactured by different companies.

So even some of the people who have worked on Boeing’s new 737 MAX airplane were baffled to learn that the company had designed an automated safety system that abandoned the principles of component redundancy, ultimately entrusting the automated decision-making to just one sensor

http://www.seattletimes.com/busines...has-baffled-even-those-who-worked-on-the-jet/
Click to expand...
…Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors.

The Max software – plagued by issues that could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators this week revealed a new flaw – was developed at a time Boeing was laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.

Increasingly, the iconic American planemaker and its subcontractors have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep background in aerospace – notably India.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Click to expand...
basically as I see things,… by ignoring the basic science “discoveries” of climate change,… humanity is essentially taking a cavalier toward downside risk(s)
 
Last edited:
Which you’d likely not read, nor engage in good faith as exemplified by @Ender and your disregard of his specific and well-cited examples. Again I have no real interest, nor do I pretend to know which side is correct, but your and most argument that the climate is adversary affected by man is extraordinarily unpersuasive.
 
phaster said:
as I see things, CC deniers in general have a dismissive world view,…
Click to expand...
phaster, what I’ve noticed about you here, is that you consistently ignore and avoid any attempts to discuss ‘feedbacks’ in the climate models. Since these feedbacks are projected to deliver over 2/3 of projected warming, us ‘deniers’ think they are VERY IMPORTANT.

Why are you so dismissive of the most critical aspect of the climate change discussion?
 
phaster said:
basically as I see things,… by ignoring the basic science “discoveries” of climate change,… humanity is essentially taking a cavalier toward downside risk(s)
Click to expand...
Exactly. Why would we whistle past the graveyard when such a likely possibility that could do so much harm just could be correct?

And if it isn’t? In that case, it will be a longer time before petroleum and natural gas become scarce as a chemical starting material for uses like fertilizer, plastics, paints, textiles, solvents and so on. Some day, we’re going to wonder what we were thinking to just burn it as if it were an inexhaustible resource no other use.

I know people are trying to be prudent because there are costs involved if there is no harm in CO2, and because every alternative has its down sides, but those costs don’t compare to the costs involved with a very sudden climate change. The world didn’t come to an end when wagon and carriage makers had to find a new line of work, but sudden climate change is the kind of thing that brings down civilizations.

I am also old enough to remember people saying that the link between tobacco and cancer were scare tactics and people needed to care about the tobacco farmers and on and on and the restaurant industry would just collapse if smoking weren’t allowed indoors and so on.

We found out who was employing scare tactics and perpetrating scientific hoaxes, and it wasn’t the people doing the cancer research.
Theo520 said:
Why are you so dismissive of the most critical aspect of the climate change discussion?
Click to expand...
Because it is your definition of the most critical aspect, but it is not his?
 
Last edited:
AlmaRedemptorisMater said:
Which you’d likely not read, nor engage in good faith as exemplified by @Ender and your disregard of his specific and well-cited examples. Again I have no real interest, nor do I pretend to know which side is correct, but your and most argument that the climate is adversary affected by man is extraordinarily unpersuasive.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you a question. Which of these scientific organizations below, all of which hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action do you think is (a) engaging in a conspiracy to deceive or else (b) is not as qualified to assess the data as or does not have access to the amount of data as or is more vulnerable to being mislead by the data than the learned posters here?
  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science
  2. American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
  3. American Astronomical Society
  4. American Chemical Society
  5. American Geophysical Union
  6. American Institute of Physics
  7. American Meteorological Society
  8. American Physical Society
  9. American Statistical Association
  10. Geological Society of America
  11. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
  12. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  13. National Center for Atmospheric Research
  14. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  15. National Research Council
Are they all conspiring to perpetrate a hoax or are they all doing a poor job of analyzing scientific data, compared to those denying a connection, including the posters here?

Oh, and the Vatican has issued a declaration that includes the language "human-induced climate change is a scientific reality” and “its decisive mitigation is a moral and religious imperative for humanity.” Final Declaration on Workshop on climate change

I really don’t understand how you attack someone who chooses to accept those scientific bodies as evidence that humans are affecting the climate without choosing to engage in a debate with anyone here.
 
Last edited:
http://www.archivioradiovaticana.va...tion_on_workshop_on_climate_change/en-1140356

(Vatican Radio) World leaders meeting at the Vatican for a conference on climate change have issued a final statement, declaring that “human-induced climate change is a scientific reality” and “its decisive mitigation is a moral and religious imperative for humanity.”

The statement says that humans have the technological and financial means, and the know-how, to combat human-induced climate change, while at the same time eliminating global poverty.

The Workshop, entitled “Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity: The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Humanity” was organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, SDSN and Religions for Peace.

Below, please find the full text of the Final Declaration from the Workshop:

Declaration of Religious Leaders, Political Leaders, Business Leaders, Scientists and Development Practitioners

28 April 2015

We the undersigned have assembled at the Pontifical Academies of Sciences and Social Sciences to address the challenges of human-induced climate change, extreme poverty, and social marginalization, including human trafficking, in the context of sustainable development. We join together from many faiths and walks of life, reflecting humanity’s shared yearning for peace, happiness, prosperity, justice, and environmental sustainability. We have considered the overwhelming scientific evidence regarding human-induced climate change, the loss of biodiversity, and the vulnerabilities of the poor to economic, social, and environmental shocks.

In the face of the emergencies of human-induced climate change, social exclusion, and extreme poverty, we join together to declare that:

Human-induced climate change is a scientific reality, and its decisive mitigation is a moral and religious imperative for humanity;

In this core moral space, the world’s religions play a very vital role. These traditions all affirm the inherent dignity of every individual linked to the common good of all humanity. They affirm the beauty, wonder, and inherent goodness of the natural world, and appreciate that it is a precious gift entrusted to our common care, making it our moral duty to respect rather than ravage the garden that is our home;

The poor and excluded face dire threats from climate disruptions, including the increased frequency of droughts, extreme storms, heat waves, and rising sea levels; …
…

The rest of the declaration is well worth reading by those who take issue with anyone who has decided to stop doubting the arguments put forth. Maybe you don’t buy it, but please stop making personal attacks on those of us who do. The ones who are being conned by bad science and arguments from disengenuous parties who have self-serving agendas just might be you.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
Because it is your definition of the most critical aspect, but it is not his?
Click to expand...
So, two thirds of the projected warming somehow doesn’t matter?
Strange math.

Also it’s a bit disingenuous to lament the ‘deniers’ not engaging when one does so themselves to a very large degree.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
(Vatican Radio) World leaders meeting at the Vatican for a conference on climate change have issued a final statement, declaring that “human-induced climate change is a scientific reality” and “its decisive mitigation is a moral and religious imperative for humanity.”
Click to expand...
This is truly disappointing, although not entirely unexpected. It’s a bit life declaring that life on Mars is a scientific reality: it might actually be true, but it is assuredly unknown at this point and there is no justification for asserting it.
The statement says that humans have the technological and financial means, and the know-how, to combat human-induced climate change, while at the same time eliminating global poverty.
Click to expand...
This statement just seems disconnected from reality. The proposals to “solve” climate change require the virtual elimination of hydrocarbons as fuel. If that was even possible one of the immediate impacts would be the impoverishment of most of the people on Earth. It would not lead to the elimination of global poverty but to its massive expansion. I think the Vatican was on stronger ground opposing Galileo. At least Galileo got some things wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top