The present thoughts on global warming,facts or fiction?

[EricD]

An asteroid impact or supervolcanic eruption would fling us headlong into an ice age. An asteroid 150 wide whizzed past us a couple of days ago at 30,000 mph just 750 miles away. If it had hit, it would have thrown more crap into the atmosphere than we ever have.

 

[Maelstrom]

An asteroid impact or supervolcanic eruption would fling us headlong into an ice age. An asteroid 150 wide whizzed past us a couple of days ago at 30,000 mph just 750 miles away. If it had hit, it would have thrown more crap into the atmosphere than we ever have.

You know a big fat one one is coming in revelation, and a big fat comet too....and a nice big ball of plutonium and urianum and who knows what else called wormwood I think?

A cup of radioactive wormwood tea anyone?

 

[EricD]

I meant to say 150 feet wide, but spell-check is flipping its electronic hairs & drivinge nuts(or more so than I already am!).

 

[EricD]

The reference to a flaming mountain, that one's bigger than the dino killer! Oh SHUDDER!!!!!!

 

[Maelstrom]

The reference to a flaming mountain, that one's bigger than the dino killer! Oh SHUDDER!!!!!!

Yup! there is one out there on a kill path already...not sure if it is the one...maybe too many years off...I think it hits around the time the Iranian nuclear treaty opens up their bomb oven for business.

 

[EricD]

Here's hoping it lands right in the Ayatollah's lap while he's eating lunch!

 

[EricD]

All kidding aside, mankind is a fart in a whirlwind compared to the forces of nature!

 

[NothingToSeeHere]

Well in addition to the post flood Ice age about 6000 years ago, if the carbon dating is not done using the file 13 system, there were a number of major world wide climate swings recorded in history, in tree rings and in ice cores. Maybe it is not popular now to read such science, but I'm old enough to remember all those lovely historical climate articles. I don't know off hand without looking them up which ones were volcanic driven and which which were sun cycle driven, but I do know climate scientists routinely cited those both as the causes. And in the past these scientists produced tree rings and ice cores and historical records to back that up, maybe? all their years of hard work got edited under the new popular carbon 14 selection method called choosing file 13, (the trash can).
There was a major warming period that ended about the time Green Lief Ericson discovered America...and a major cooling period was in effect when half of King Richards soldiers froze to death marching on Jerusilem....I'm sure many others can be found if you look. I don't remember what the Sun's sun spot cycles length is something like 7 to 11 years? We are actually in a cold sun spot cycle right now that is why the 4 loop jet steam is trying to freeze Mexico and New Orleans, silence by the press on this doesn't make it not real....I have seen the jet stream maps on TV.

The Global Warming people have claimed cooling would bring more rain, and there has been massive flooding through out Europe and in America. And there are clear signs of cold weather weather cycle reversal with flooding common now in desert places like Israel, Somalia, dry West Texas, and dry southern California...etcetera.
Israel and Syria got a fair bit of snow too this winter....very unusual.

1. I think NothingToSeeHere ,you forgot Plankton consume the bulk of the CO2 keeping us alive, and they are not short on water, and plankton can thicken in water maybe? 400% or 500% unlike land forests. If you wish to contest this point, may I remind you your ocean scientist friends are always crying about how our ocean fish and whale levels are so much lower now than the post flood levels. Guess why? (massive volcanic CO2 levels from the flood volcanos fueled a huge plankton boom raising the fish and whale populations hugely world wide).

2. See argument above the land use argument is canceled out by my ocean argument.

3.Your third argument would make us all dead if it was chemically correct. Where did you get this fake science? Plants can't exhale oxygen to keep us all alive without separating the oxygen atom from the carbon atom. I think carbon more or less becomes a solid with the oxygen atoms removed. And and if plants don't consume carbon where does all that charcoal come from when you burn tree wood, (a plant), in a fire?

NothingToSeeHere ,I don't want to offend you I have enjoyed posting with you. But the science in your 3. rd argument violates numerous basic natural chemical and biological processes, I suggest you take a copy of it and check it out with a chemistry and biology professor. And then go kick whomever gave you that so called science argument in the shins when you get your results....I've never heard argument that violated so many basic chemical laws in my life.

As for methane, methane is a natural product of the cycle of life, it has been coming out of cow buts and swamps for as long as life existed on earth. If you think methane is evil then maybe we should go fill all the duck ponds in??? what No? you don't like that idea? Hmmm...I didn't think you would....

The problem with taking natural parts of the circle of life to make Boogy monsters to scare people with, is you risk actual life killing responses from said people. Carbon, methane, phosphates and nitrogen are all vital fertilizers in the natural circle of life, if you start interfering with these things too much things will start dying in the world.

Here is a real world example for you pumping CO2 into the ground will do one of two things. Firstly it will slow the recovery of your rain forests you love so much, and also make poor people around the world starve as their crops will grow slower.(no tomatoes yet?)

Can you guess the second one? it may kill you in your own home while you sleep. Oh! you didn't see that one did you? Your local fracker oil guy or whatever can over pump CO2 into the ground and back up it pop, coming out of your leaking sink faucet while you are sleeping, and you or your cat you love so much is dead.

You see there is a difference between true environmentalism, and green government corruption, corporate oil and manufacturing money is infiltrating your green movements.
Who benefits from dumping excess sulphuric acid on our heads from high sulphur oil wells?
Who benefits from making us put mercury filled light bulbs in our homes?
Who benefits from making us use dish soap that doesn't work and plugs up my dish washer burning it out?
Who benefits from forcing the government to blow up dams and buy over priced wind generators. Dams don't pollute the air at all, and why are wind generators better than geothermal wells which don't pollute at all either and don't defrost your freezer every time the wind stops blowing.

So my question is to everyone out there sure you are green? or are you just gullible to corporate and government propaganda?

Follow the money before you back a cause...the money trail always shines the light on the cockroaches.

You do realize you are taking on a rotten little Washington Carver style savant don't you? NothingToSeeHere , I"ll give you points for being a brave little thing...not many people hold out this long angainst my vacumcleaner mind.

You do write very well.... I don't think either of use will convert the other. but it is okay the world won't end. Best wishes Maelstrom

Sorry I'm not sure what you are talking about with 'file 13' do you mean δ13C? (I'm just guessing based on your reference to carbon 14). The sun spot cycle is 11 years. I'm aware of research on climate shifts in recent years and their causes ('recent' being geologically recent) it's just never been something I've studied. My knowledge of paleo-climate is more on the scale of millions of year rather than thousands (so Milancovitch cycles rather than sun spots, and volcanism over millennia rather than decades).

Flooding comes along with the 'more extreme weather events' part of climate change. A warmer climate = more evaporation = more extreme precipitation. Of course droughts also become more common (the best of both worlds, yay!)

1. As I said phytoplankton are indeed the best equiped to sequester carbon. However, they are still nutrient limited of course, depth wise they are limited by the depth of the thermocline and the euphotic zone, sensitivity to ocean acidification will restrict the growth of some species and CO2 concentrations increase. Current estimates of the uptake of atmospheric carbon by phytoplankton is at around 30-50%. If I'm remembering correctly without the action of phytop the current concetration of atmospherc CO2 would be around 550-600ppm rather than the current 400ppm.

Fish and whale populations are crashing due to massive overfishing and the destruction of marine habitats by fishing methods such as bottom trawling.

2. Land use change still results in large amounts of CO2 emissions, always an important point.

3. please re-read my previous post, at no point did I say that plants don't consume carbon. I said that when plants die and decompose the carbon is released back into the atmosphere as CO2, very little is actually sequestered in the soil. Phytoplankton blooms tend to result in the sinking of aggregated organic matter, which if it sinks deep enough can settle on the ocean floor or else is consumed by bacteria producing CO2 which dissolves in the water and can stay there for a few centuries, hense why they are the best euiped to sequester carbon and why experiments are being conducted to provide nutrients to increase blooms.

Methane is indeed a natural product of life (fun fact: far more comes out of cows mouths than their butts), however the meat industry means that there are a huge number of ruminants that produce a lot of methane, as does inefficient muck spreading methods.

No one is stupid enough to actually think it is a good idea to remove that much CO2 from the atmosphere No one has any issue with naturally occuring substances, we do need them all after all. The issue is with emitting so much that concentrations increase extremely rapidly, resulting in climatic shifts that happen too fast for biodiversity (or, you know, people... mostly poor people in poor countrys though and no one really cares about them) to adapt to. The current CO2 concentration is over 100ppm more than it has been within the last million years, and this increase has happened over the past 2 centuries, that is astronomically fast. The massive release of methane into the atmosphere that caused the Permian Mass extinction happened over 80,000 years.

 

[Maelstrom]

Hi NothingToSeeHere ,back again you must like me...

You must have missed my little back edit note File 13 is the common office joke...as in yes I got you job application I put it in File 13 (the trash can).
I suspect allot of nice old climate politically inconvenient research is being moved to file 13 now days.

You write lovely stuff I'll grant you that, you are moving your chemical arguments a little on me. You did imply plants exhale CO2 again I find this argument disingenuous....plants entire function in life is to separate oxygen and carbon. A plant releases the oxygen which we get to use, and eats the carbon which becomes the very bones of a plant. You are in effect trying to reverse or minimize the main function and chemical life cycle of a plant in order to increase your argument for carbon build up in the world.
I do not think any of your non sequestering arguments are scientifically correct in the manner you are using them....finding some .oooooo1 % back flow or chemical sweat and presenting it as a major action is not proper in my opinion. The major chemical action remains the major chemical action...everything else is angels dancing on the head of pin.

The entire anti carbon argument is a house of cards, in what universe is a vital plant and tree fertilizers evil. You people claim you love nature, but the only plant and tree fertilizer you haven't tried to ban yet is water?
As for people not being stupid enough to try to pump CO@ into the ground...turn on your TV and you will get to see your Global Warming friends pumping CO2 into the ground and asking the government to pay the electric bill....maybe they are just oil guys posing as your people? it is getting real hard to tell you two groups apart now...you both work the government trough with the same language.

You want another beauty to stop Global warming they want to drop super cooled blocks of CO2 ice which doesn't float into the bottom of the ocean. How is blocks of dry Ice freezing piles of unlucky fish good. And how many life forms would suffocate in the clouds of melting CO2.

And why should we spend billions of dollars on crazy schemes that if successful will make millions of poor farmers starve to death around the world. Reducing temperatures and CO2 will cut crop yields substantially.

So you tell me is this vague unknown Global Warming threat....worth maybe killing by starvation millions of poor peoples babies?
Is the extra government grant money worth all those little coffins?

 

[NothingToSeeHere]

Hi NothingToSeeHere ,back again you must like me...

You must have missed my little back edit note File 13 is the common office joke...as in yes I got you job application I put it in File 13 (the trash can).
I suspect allot of nice old climate politically inconvenient research is being moved to file 13 now days.

You write lovely stuff I'll grant you that, you are moving your chemical arguments a little on me. You did imply plants exhale CO2 again I find this argument disingenuous....plants entire function in life is to separate oxygen and carbon. A plant releases the oxygen which we get to use, and eats the carbon which becomes the very bones of a plant. You are in effect trying to reverse or minimize the main function and chemical life cycle of a plant in order to increase your argument for carbon build up in the world.
I do not think any of your non sequestering arguments are scientifically correct in the manner you are using them....finding some .oooooo1 % back flow or chemical sweat and presenting it as a major action is not proper in my opinion. The major chemical action remains the major chemical action...everything else is angels dancing on the head of pin.

The entire anti carbon argument is a house of cards, in what universe is a vital plant and tree fertilizers evil. You people claim you love nature, but the only plant and tree fertilizer you haven't tried to ban yet is water?
As for people not being stupid enough to try to pump CO@ into the ground...turn on your TV and you will get to see your Global Warming friends pumping CO2 into the ground and asking the government to pay the electric bill....maybe they are just oil guys posing as your people? it is getting real hard to tell you two groups apart now...you both work the government trough with the same language.

You want another beauty to stop Global warming they want to drop super cooled blocks of CO2 ice which doesn't float into the bottom of the ocean. How is blocks of dry Ice freezing piles of unlucky fish good. And how many life forms would suffocate in the clouds of melting CO2.

And why should we spend billions of dollars on crazy schemes that if successful will make millions of poor farmers starve to death around the world. Reducing temperatures and CO2 will cut crop yields substantially.

So you tell me is this vague unknown Global Warming threat....worth maybe killing by starvation millions of poor peoples babies?
Is the extra government grant money worth all those little coffins?

Sorry the File 13 thing went completely over my head, I guess it must be an American reference.

Plants do give out CO2 when it is dark. Photosynthesis (6CO2 + 6H2O ------> C6H12O6 + 6O2) uses light energy, which is obviously not possible when it is dark. As such photosynthesis (uptake of CO2 and release of oxygen) does not take place at night time, there just isn't enough light. So, when it is dark plants respire (C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O), taking up oxygen and releasing CO2. Basic chemistry.

"finding some .oooooo1 % back flow or chemical sweat and presenting it as a major action is not proper in my opinion. The major chemical action remains the major chemical action...everything else is angels dancing on the head of pin." I'm afraid I don't understand what you are referring to with this :/

You seem to be confusing 'reduce emissions and reduce atmospheric CO2 to a level which won't alter the climate' with 'get rid of essential compounds entirely'. The pre-industrial CO2 level of 250ppm was more than good enough for thousands of years beforehand.

As discussed previously, climate change will result in more extreme weather events, such as flooding, droughts, and severe storms. Developing countries are already extremely vulnerable to such variations (we all remember the 2011 East Africa drought right?). Even without extreme weather events, while increased temperatures may benefit good old 'merica with a longer growing season, Tropical countries could lose growing days due to too warm and dry conditions.

I've not heard anything about this frozen lumps of co2 thing, what are your sources?

 

[Maelstrom]

My Global Warming sources are PBS programs with Global Warming experts bragging about how they are going to fix everything if the Government gives them truck loads of $. I saw a actual ground pumping CO2 station...they claimed they could fill the bottom of the ocean with blocks of frozen CO2 that sinks and the CO2 would take forever to thaw. The 2 million tons of sulphuric acid dumped in the sky one was a Global Warming scientist advocate on PBS radio News I think.

You are silent on the starving Babies thing, do you concede my science is correct that efforts to cause global cooling will cause world wide crop reductions?

I wont bother to address the other filler fluff, as you skip answering my most devastating arguments too.

How is your teaching stuff going? Where do you teach? Best wishes Mael

 

[NothingToSeeHere]

I don't suppose you remember any of the technical terms used? 'blocks of frozen / dry ice sink in ocean' only returns results on acidification and storing co2 in giant freezers. I can grasp the basics (in the deepest parts of the ocean pressure would prevent thawing), I far prefer to understand a theory in its entirety. And I've long since given up on expecting the media to explain scientific theories in full (or even accurately).

Please reread my previous post, parts 4 and 5 were in response to your 'dead babies' argument. I will re-phrase anyway.

Crops will grow perfectly well at 250ppm co2, plants have been doing to for millennia after all. The massive increases in yield in the past century have been due to pesticides and fertilisers, not co2 fertilisation.

While reduced co2 levels and preventing climate change would not result in starvation, climate change will. Increased temperature and extreme weather events will directly impact the most vulnerable people on this planet, subsistence farmers and people who live in hot dry areas. People for whom death from starvation, dehydration and disease is already a reality will only become more and more worse off as climate change progresses. Personally I think reduced profits from oil sales and impacts on the GDP of the richest countries on the planet are not even remotely as important as vulnerable peoples lives, but I realise that many people seem to have problems caring about poor people who live far away when they are faced with the prospect of not being able to drive to the supermarket 10 minutes down the road.

Teaching is not a part of my job thankfully, I stammer when anxious or stressed so I'm able to give lecturing a miss. My work is going well though thank you.

 

[Maelstrom]

I may have to marry you just to end this argument....you don't give up do easy you?

On the CO2 ice I don't know I'm not a chemist, water is one of the few liquids that expands after freezing so it floats . Most liquids continue to contract as they cool getting heavier and heavier so they sink. I'm not in the mood to look it up, if you say they need acid to do it, maybe they were the same rotten bunch trying to dump sulphuric acid on our heads legally? Who knows it is hard to keep up with all the crazy evil schemes going on now days. I feel like the world is going totally mad because of greed.

My summer was a little cooler on average this summer out here, despite all the Global Warming news, and I had to wait twice as long for my first Tomato sandwhich which made me quite unhappy. I love my Tomato sandwhiches it is about all I eat in summer, other than Cucumber sandwhiches, and Tomato Cucumber sandwhiches, and tomato walla-walla onion sandwhiches, and cucumber walla walla onion sandwhiches...

Maybe I can make you so hungry you surrender to my charms?

Where were we oh! do CO2 reductions and cooler temps take more millions of acres of crop land out of production and reduce yields more than a possible Global Warming drought?
Hard to tell?....we could argue that one all day? But if we do things my way it costs tax payers nothing, and the government doesn't need to spend millions to destroy businesses for a maybe? bad event.

Your way you ruin the farmers in Russia, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Green Land, Canada, Argentena, Chillie, South Africa, and maybe cause a world wide grain shortage leading to bread being too expensive in poor countries in the middle east and Africa so millions maybe still starve?

Maybe your way is better? but mine costs less and I did nothing stupid to kill anyone. You make the gamble with our tax money, you get to own the damage and dead people?

You see why I have struggled with my nuclear stuff so long? I have to balance getting justice and income, against all those hidden dead faces looking at me out of the future. My auti curse is I see to deeply into the future, it is not really a blessing.

I'll tell what NothingToSeeHere ,maybe I will move to Israel where I can't blow the world up...and you can go make the world colder for me so I don't die of heat stroke there. I win, you win,...and I get to sit in my lawn chair sipping a non alcoholic banana dacaries while watching the Holy Locust Army chasing all the rotten people around making them look like little troll dolls with flaming orange hair...Eeeeeee!...Flameees

How is that for a poetic ending???

I'll save a chair and drink for you, if you wish? NothingToSeeHere

I do know how you feel about speaking up front thing, my brain drains out through my boots. I'm trying to learn to write and sing guitar songs up front, it will take some getting used to. I will have to speak up front on my nuclear code too soon if things work out for me in my new country. The U.S. decided they took enough nuclear breakthroughs off me to live with out me... the imbeciles, even I don't have all of what I have yet...so how can they?

I do have the magic touch tho, NothingToSeeHere I am closing in fast on my last nuclear Key for the high end...found my magic thread maybe? two days ago.

My best wishes to you, you are quite the fighter. Mael