How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[Tyger]

I have looked thats why ive led burnt down this path, i want to know why he thinks the thinning of ice in one pole that holds less than 1% of the worlds total water is anything to worry about.

Its as absurd as worrying about the 3% carbon we add to the natural cycle, carbon levels are rising, very slowly, and it is mans fault, its bound to happen when you clear millions of hectacres of rain forest and burn it.

And you think this way because?.......you are a scientist? Somewhere you've read this. Care to say who you are reading?

 

[pixelsmith]

And Tyger thinks ice is important in what way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt State]

I have looked thats why ive led burnt down this path, i want to know why he thinks the thinning of ice in one pole that holds less than 1% of the worlds total water is anything to worry about.

Its as absurd as worrying about the 3% carbon we add to the natural cycle, carbon levels are rising, very slowly, and it is mans fault, its bound to happen when you clear millions of hectacres of rain forest and burn it.

I found it very hard to find numbers on total ice volumes, but given that the majority of the world's ice is contained in glaciers, ice she sheets etc. it strikes me that we're getting very close to defining total ice volumes and the patterns are evident.

As far as if it's a big deal or not that such a small percentage of the world's water changes states of matter and alters "little" things like ocean temperatures or even better, wind and sea currents, I woud leave that for island folk in the northern hemisphere like you to figure out. And as far as altering the acidity levels of the oceans from that small extra bit of plant loving CO2 and why that matters, I suppose that these things demonstrate the validity of phrases like "delicate balance."

Consequently, I don't put much stock in those who feel they can boil the equation down to more CO2 = happy plants, as it is entirely ignorant of the complexity of the multiplex that is the ecosystem known as earth.

Climate - it's not simple questions, simple warnings or simple answers. There are a lot of interesting effects and patterns that appear to be integrated and whose alterations we can't really properly predict with certainty, but we can study how we are affecting the delicate balance and how we play a very interesting role in the current shifts that are going awry. Informed choices that are pro-planet respects just interrelated the whole schema is.

 

[pixelsmith]

It is still so simple according to your "side"...Human CO2 is causing global warming/climate change


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[manxman]

This is from your own side burnt.

Forests are vital for life, home to millions of species, they protect soil from erosion, produce oxygen, store carbon dioxide, and help control climate. Forests are also vital for us to live as they provide us with food, shelter and medicines as well as many other useful things. They also purify the air we breathe and water that we need to survive. Deforestation by humans is causing all of these necessary functions to be lessened, and hence damaging the atmosphere even further.

Forests play a huge role in the carbon cycle on our planet. When forests are cut down, not only does carbon absorption cease, but also the carbon stored in the trees is released into the atmosphere as CO2 if the wood is burned or even if it is left to rot after the deforestation process.

Smaller crops e.g. plants and agricultural crops also draw in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, however forests store up to 100 times more carbon than agricultural fields of the same area.

Deforestation is an important factor in global climate change. Climate change is because of a build up of carbon dioxide in out atmosphere and if we carry on cutting down the main tool we have to diminish this CO2 build up, we can expect the climate of our planet to change dramatically over the next decades.

It is estimated that more than 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere due to deforestation, mainly the cutting and burning of forests, every year.

Over 30 million acres of forests and woodlands are lost every year due to deforestation; causing a massive loss of income to poor people living in remote areas who depend on the forest to survive.




So why is it I AM paying all kinds of green tax's again burnt ?, just stop cutting the earths lungs out, and dumping all that carbon backinto the natural cycle.

 

[Erno86]

The dumping of huge amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere, will have the oceans absorb a significant amount of it. This results in ocean acidification...that reduces the ph level, which lowers calcium carbonate levels in the seawater --- that is an essential building block for skeleton and shellfish alike --- thusly making it harder for skeletal and shellfish life too exist in our oceans.

The melting of our icepacks in our polar regions, brings a drop in seawater temperature as the icebergs melt. Once most of the icepacks are melted away, will bring a significant rise in air and seawater temperature; resulting in further global warming.

 

[pixelsmith]

Good. I am all for global warming and lots of CO2

 

[manxman]

Im not bothered either my house is on a hill, [just in case]

 

[pixelsmith]

Ocean acidification is not a worry either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tyger]

Good. I am all for global warming and lots of CO2

Because? Care to flesh that out? Someone gives you significant information about CO2 and this is your intelligent rebuttal? Has to be clear you are merely a provocateur with no substantive background knowledge in the area.

 

[Tyger]

Ocean acidification is not a worry either.

Care to flesh that out a bit, given Erno86's information?

Again, substantive posts receive no substantive rebuttal on your part. You are not a serious debater. Just a spoiler in it for the 'fun' of disrupting the thread one guesses.

 

[pixelsmith]

Sometimes I am too busy to post more than one line especially when using a phone. You will have to wait until I get to computer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tyger]

Im not bothered either my house is on a hill, [just in case]

Hmmm.......

You keep going on about 'green taxes' in Britain so I googled.....would you say this is a fair article regarding the individual's energy bill situation in Britain?

Green taxes will ultimately cut our bills as well as saving energy - Chris Huhne
LINK: Green taxes will ultimately cut our bills as well as saving energy | Chris Huhne | Comment is free | The Guardian

TEXT: "Is anyone right in the blame game? Let's start with the companies. Like most businesses, they are not above some jiggery-pokery with estimated bills, some fancy tax-dodging, and the selective presentation of the facts. They have repeatedly run scare stories about the cost of the regulatory requirements imposed on them."

I like that phrase: jiggery-pokery. Must remember that.

Text: "Overall, the government's policies – backed until recently by three-party consensus – are forecast by Whitehall economists to cut energy bills, not increase them. They will save consumers about £166 a year (or 11%) by 2020 thanks to energy saving and diversification from fossil fuels.

"The only easy green tax to ditch is the carbon price floor, an unnecessary charge on electricity generated from oil, coal and gas. It is not needed to decarbonise electricity but it collects £600m this year, adding £5 to bills. It will steadily rise to add more than £20. The Liberal Democrats did not want it, but George Osborne insisted on the revenue.

"It is possible, of course, that some programmes now funded from energy bills could be paid from taxation, but ministers will find that they cannot ditch these policies. First, it would be foolish to raise future energy bills by slowing energy-saving and the shift to renewables.

"Second, there is a legislated fuel poverty target, and ministers would find themselves fighting a judicial review. The same applies to renewables, as we agreed an EU legal target of 15% of our energy from renewables by 2020.

"The real blame for high bills is our excessive reliance on gas and coal, and the world market price. Not even the British prime minister has much power over that."

 

[Tyger]

Just to re-focus a bit.......and I am aware that some receive this information in a fearful way rather than as a challenge to off-set or change. The fear response is self-chosen. These are scientific speculations based on very clear information - hypotheses are being generated - what scientists do all the time. If it scares you, stay away from it - however, it's riveting science in Real Time. We are learning tons - making mistakes - adjusting as new information comes in - recalibrating the time trajectory. Some are more extreme than others. Make your own decision based on what you hear. Actual thinking is needed in this realm not dog whistle reactions and denial. Changes are afoot - most want to understand what is happening. Ignorant pontificating from a hardened stance is not helpful.

Will Earth Cross the Climate Danger Tipping Point in 2036?

Comment: "2036? Aren't we optimistic?"

Comment Reply: "No, it's called denial

"Though we probably have underestimated the outward radiation increase due to flawed modelling. There will probably be some lag due to the build up of more mitigating cloud cover but those are just short term effects.

"The problem with 'reading the signs' with this sort of issue is the suddenness of spike once all the loops start to add to the loop effect and actually begin reinforcing the loops themselves across the board. It won't merely be a runaway issue. Think of it more in terms of warp speed.

"The ultimate delaying factor is not an increase in cloud cover but the willingness, if you will, of the oceans to take it up the ass, CO2 wise. If predictions are correct, we should see their willingness to falter as early as 2016 after the the coming El Niño has had its way with them. And if they stop taking up more CO2 or even start to expel that stuff be sure to tune into the Weather Channel on a regular basis. No Brat Pitt movie will be able to top it and it's all in natural 3D!

"In the past, CO2 rise has always been a side effect to warming, never a trigger.

"We better hope we were up for an ice age this century."

Another Commenter with a twist on the idea. Why the poster chooses 2022, I don't know: "Sorry. 2022 is the point of no return.

"This debate is but a symptom of the evil, greed, cruelty and selfishness that has grown in humanity, we treat Mother Earth how we treat her daughters, we are all connected including to Mother Earth and the next world. That evil is poisoning Mother Earth, she must act to cleanse herself of this toxic disease with the assistance of her siblings and the processes have been set in motion. It may take a thousand years but she will be cleansed unless we change.

"Watch the World economy, the Nations surrounding the Himalaya's and the Middle East between now and 2018."

Anyway, it's all to happen within our lifetimes now. Unless our individual number is up within the next 4 to 6 years we should see much of what is being projected. Already the coastline of the US has begun to change. (Results from Hurricane Sandy - New Jersey; Lousiana with New Orleans). We do our best, live our lives - without fear - and try to make it the best for those who follow us.

 

[pixelsmith]

Because? Care to flesh that out? Someone gives you significant information about CO2 and this is your intelligent rebuttal? Has to be clear you are merely a provocateur with no substantive background knowledge in the area.

Warmer is better than colder.
More CO2 is better than less for the planet right now. The earth is CO2 starved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt State]

So why is it I AM paying all kinds of green tax's again burnt ?, just stop cutting the earths lungs out, and dumping all that carbon backinto the natural cycle.

Not sure about the point you are making here but i'd be curious to know just what size that handful of dollars in green taxes you are currently paying and what it might result in over long term cost benefits of creating renewable energy supplies to be become a dominant force in developing and first world nations - yes, this means the redistribution of wealth on a global scale, which is the best thing for the planet, but not so good for industrial petroleum mining moguls. Is that your side?

Of course we need more trees; they are a major source of weather control. People should start eating less meat to preserve those forests. Let's see what happens to coastal forests once once ocean acidification begins.

Ocean acidification is not a worry either.

I've yet to see a sensible retort to the record sea ice discussion, and you should certainly provide a detailed response as to why you're good with global famine post ocean acidification. If you think green taxes are substantial (please provide that individual cost per annum - that was asked for many, many posts ago) just wait till you see what you'll be paying on food $$$ inflation once 2/3 of the planet's food sources are threatened.

Again, I see no real thoughtful discussion coming from the "other side," just a lot of short sightedness that clings to simplistic versions of climate and assumes a lot of simplicity is coming back at them. You can try to reduce the argument to simple factors and try to pin me as being the representative for a "side" or somehow agreeing to your childlike vision of the environment, but that's not me, nor is it who the others are that you fail to oroperly respond to, as stated previously many times over.

For all your big talk it appears you are actually not up to the conversation at all. Beyond simple one liners, trite post bombs of other people's quotes, and your ridiculous "co2+trees=heaven on earth" spoon fed Koch discourse I see no substantial response to criticisms directed your way. You say other people run away, but really you are a blank wall when it comes to discourse. That's why people check out of the conversation. When you are challenged properly you repeatedly ignore or deflect the conversation and act like you know what you are talking about. It's like a skipping record player chiming in a high pitched disco chorus of "I just love that co2" over and over and over again.

Never have I ever seen you address any of the true complexity of the situation, just a lot of "co2 makes things warmer and that's good." Is that really all you got?

 

[Burnt State]

You are not a serious debater. Just a spoiler in it for the 'fun' of disrupting the thread one guesses.

I think he just really loves his cat.

 

[Tyger]

The earth is CO2 starved.

Just curious - could you cite where you get this factoid?

 

[Tyger]

The report, in layman's language, is meant as a 'wake-up call' for South America. But, of course, we have surmised that the loss of the Amazon has consequences on a global scale.

Amazon rainforest losing ability to regulate climate, scientist warns:
Report says logging and burning of Amazon might be connected to worsening droughts – such as the one plaguing São Paulo

LINK: Amazon rainforest losing ability to regulate climate, scientist warns | Environment | The Guardian

TEXT: "The Amazon rainforest has degraded to the point where it is losing its ability to benignly regulate weather systems, according to a stark new warning from one of Brazil’s leading scientists.

"In a new report, Antonio Nobre, researcher in the government’s space institute, Earth System Science Centre, says the logging and burning of the world’s greatest forest might be connected to worsening droughts – such as the one currently plaguing São Paulo – and is likely to lead eventually to more extreme weather events.

"The study, which is a summary drawing from more than 200 existing papers on Amazonian climate and forest science, is intended as a wake-up call.

" “I realised the problem is much more serious than we realised, even in academia and the reason is that science has become so fragmented. Atmospheric scientists don’t look at forests as much as they should and vice versa,” said Nobre, who wrote the report for a lay audience. “It’s not written in academic language. I don’t need to preach to the converted. Our community is already very alarmed at what is going on.”

"A draft seen by the Guardian warns that the “vegetation-climate equilibrium is teetering on the brink of the abyss.” If it tips, the Amazon will start to become a much drier savanna, which calamitous consequences.

"The Amazon works as a giant pump, channeling moisture inland via aerial rivers and rainclouds that form over the forest more dramatically than over the sea, the author says. It also provides a buffer against extreme weather events, such as tornados and hurricanes.

"In the past 20 years, the author notes that the Amazon has lost 763,000 sq km, an area the size of two Germanys. In addition another 1.2m sq km has been estimated as degraded by cutting below the canopy and fire.

"As a result, the report notes, the deterioration of the rainforest – through logging, fires and land clearance – has resulted in a decrease in forest transpiration and a lengthening of dry seasons. This might be one of the factors of the severe drought affecting south-east Brazil. São Paulo – the biggest city in South America – is facing its worst water shortages in almost a century. October, which is usually the start of the rainy season, was drier than at any time since 1930, leaving the volume of the Cantareira reservoir system down to 5% of capacity.

" “Studies more than 20 years ago predicted what is happening with lowering rainfall. Amazon deforestation is altering climate. It is no longer about models. It is about observation,” said Nobre. “The connection with the event in São Paulo is important because finally people are paying attention.”

"Nobre calls for a “war effort” to reverse the damage and secure the global climate and security of future generations. This would involve a ramped-up effort to immediately halt existing deforestation and a major new project to replant trees.

"Whether the government listens, however, is another matter. Forest clearance has accelerated under Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff, after efforts to protect the Amazon were weakened. Last month, satellite data indicated a 190% surge in deforestation in August and September. The influence of the “ruralista” agribusiness lobby in Congress has also grown in recent years, making it harder for the authorities to push through new legislation to demarcate reserves.

" “They have taken good action in the past,” says Nobre. ““I hope they will listen now”. "

 

[pixelsmith]

Not sure about the point you are making here but i'd be curious to know just what size that handful of dollars in green taxes you are currently paying and what it might result in over long term cost benefits of creating renewable energy supplies to be become a dominant force in developing and first world nations - yes, this means the redistribution of wealth on a global scale, which is the best thing for the planet, but not so good for industrial petroleum mining moguls. Is that your side?

Of course we need more trees; they are a major source of weather control. People should start eating less meat to preserve those forests. Let's see what happens to coastal forests once once ocean acidification begins.



I've yet to see a sensible retort to the record sea ice discussion, and you should certainly provide a detailed response as to why you're good with global famine post ocean acidification. If you think green taxes are substantial (please provide that individual cost per annum - that was asked for many, many posts ago) just wait till you see what you'll be paying on food $$$ inflation once 2/3 of the planet's food sources are threatened.

Again, I see no real thoughtful discussion coming from the "other side," just a lot of short sightedness that clings to simplistic versions of climate and assumes a lot of simplicity is coming back at them. You can try to reduce the argument to simple factors and try to pin me as being the representative for a "side" or somehow agreeing to your childlike vision of the environment, but that's not me, nor is it who the others are that you fail to oroperly respond to, as stated previously many times over.

For all your big talk it appears you are actually not up to the conversation at all. Beyond simple one liners, trite post bombs of other people's quotes, and your ridiculous "co2+trees=heaven on earth" spoon fed Koch discourse I see no substantial response to criticisms directed your way. You say other people run away, but really you are a blank wall when it comes to discourse. That's why people check out of the conversation. When you are challenged properly you repeatedly ignore or deflect the conversation and act like you know what you are talking about. It's like a skipping record player chiming in a high pitched disco chorus of "I just love that co2" over and over and over again.

Never have I ever seen you address any of the true complexity of the situation, just a lot of "co2 makes things warmer and that's good." Is that really all you got?

I said warming is better than cooling and yes without CO2 all life would cease to exist.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk