Ocean acidifcation .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

History can only teach about what has happened before. Have we ever before had such a clear picture (from the moon, even) about just how finite our planet is? It doesn't have unlimited carrying capacity. Many of the resources we depend upon are not renewable, and we can easily make reasonable projections about when they will run out.Not least - fossil fuels. Oh, and by the way, the atmosphere does not have unlimited capacity to absorb all the previously-sequestered carbon we're dumping into it, and it seems to be messing with the thermostat.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Why are you against recognizing these limitations, planning to make current non-renewables last as long as possible, and encouraging the development of new energy technology?

With all due respect, I'm not the one having issues recognising limitations.

... jump-the-gun? Do you really think that fossil fuel use will be cut off before viable alternatives are ready? Have you observed what moves and plans that most auto companies are making?

EV's presently fill a niche. They're not an outright panacea.

Of course, back on history... the Mayans, Olmec, Easter-Islanders and Sumerians might have something to teach us about unmanaged consumption and long-term survival.

Whilst that is indeed a lesson that needs to be learnt, I don't believe any of those civilisations met they're downfall as a result of fossil fuel. How old's your current cell phone and computing device, btw?

(And Moore's law is about done, btw)

It's a great thing we're not relying upon hard core gamer's and they're rad gpu's to pull us out of the poop then, isn't it?

Well, hard as I try, I can't imagine one tank, truck or plane that was steam powered in WW II. Also, diesels were commercially viable technology in the '20s (eg locomotives). Didn't they first use nuclear energy around 1945?

Yeah. tanks, planes and trucks powering the factories and sending men, supplies and munitions across oceans to the battle front would have turned out a treat. What was I thinking? Let's develop electric tanks and trucks and planes immediately in preparation for the next "big one".

Gord's analogy wasn't about human toxicity, it was an extreme but relevant example where things in "small" amounts matter and that "small" changes can have big effects.

You appear to be unaware of the differences between apples and oranges. This represents a disanalogy in actual scientific terms.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Not what I said, but you too have as much right as any other poster here to argue like a 10 yr old on occasion.

So what DID you say?? Or what DO you mean when you frequently resort to accusing posters who's opinions you don't like to read of being "trolls," and not arguing in good faith? What about the actual scientists with whom you don't agree? Are they trolls too? It certainly looks obvious to me that, rather than simply disapproving of others' opinions, you actually don't like the people writing them. Or you think you don't because, after all, how could you possibly know?

The level of responses you get here and on many, many other threads is the direct result of your level of posting. You and you alone share that distinction. The odd thing is you obviously & sincerely care about the issues, yet I cannot imagine a worse way of swaying others.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

actually considering its all dependant on the sun none of it really matters in till it actually gets to lethal percentages . Which it won't get to till about a week before the sun cooks the atmosphere off the earth in an out 4 billion years .

Okay.. I guess that sums up your understanding of the basic physics [emoji50] surprising given much time you argue on this topic.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... Well, hard as I try, I can't imagine one tank, truck or plane that was steam powered in WW II. Also, diesels were commercially viable technology in the '20s (eg locomotives). Didn't they first use nuclear energy around 1945?

Gord's analogy wasn't about human toxicity, it was an extreme but relevant example where things in "small" amounts matter and that "small" changes can have big effects.

Nuclear fission (hopefully, soon fusion) produces the heat, that makes the STEAM, that drives the turbines, that generates the electricity.
Steam will be with us a while longer, methinks.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Mostly on-point. It's over 40% and still increasing, current findings suggest that this increase is due to human activity - give or take as-yet-unidentified and unprecedented other causes.

No argument within the science afaik. But it looks like you're still conflating the increase in CO2 and its direct relationship to a commensurate increase in warming. But Allen is enabling this, along with your usual biased sources.

Increasing something by 40% to levels not seen for hundreds of thousands of years... calling this minuscule is being deliberately misleading.

I called the amount of all CO2 in the atmosphere miniscule, but I also called it essential. Call it whatever you'd like, but use terminology that accurately describes it, not what Skeptical Science tells you to call it.

You tell us...-cough-"minuscule"-cough-Gord wasn't claiming that. Reefie threw in that red herring about human sensitivity to CO2, which wasn't the point being made.

The point trying to be made was an attempted analogy that was anything but. Come up with something on your own if you prefer. How about "good" & "bad" cholesterol? Or how about .0410% of the atmosphere, plus an increase of .0115%, amounts to a 40% increase of a teensy-weensy amount of a gas without which life would not exist, but too much of -- according to the mainstream science -- may cause GW that could have negative impacts. Less offensive to your sensibilities but still honest?

Yes the correlation between increased CO2 and warming hasn't been proven beyond all doubt in Reefie's back shed. Nor has it been proven with certainty that the planet won't be able to return to some equilibrium at some future point. But it's still the best hypothesis so far, there is no alternative hypothesis that comes close. Observable change is happening that follows the hypothesis. In the next few years we will see

• warming?
• cooling?
• no significant change?

Place your bets...

Given that you seem all too willing to bet $2.4 trillion of other peoples' money with little chance of making any difference, I think I'll pass. I'd like to be able to afford to hang onto my boat (with its freezer).

Speaking of place your bets... (also fits with "follow the money")

I can only hope this foolishness catches on. Then I can buy up oil stocks on the cheap knowing (rather than wishing) fossil fuels will be with us for a long time to come.

btw, what ever happened to the 999 other good reasons for reducing dependence on fossil fuels?

I don't know -- thought they were still just as viable.

So - back atcha: Why is there such reluctance to just play it straight on matters which are largely agreed upon?

Tell us please. All I've read about thus far is different scientific theories, along with opinions about what mostly non-scientists think they mean. That and a lot of alarmist propaganda which ignores or obfuscates skeptical scientific opinion.

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I thought you read and understood the paper I suggested you read [emoji30].

When you say minuscule amount in the atmosphere, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the fundamental science. The other 99.96% doesn’t matter. It is transparent to infrared radiated from the earth.

Yes, I know. People who don't share your point of view are just dumb, right? We've heard it all before in a myriad of different ways. OK, maybe you can come up with another synonym for "minuscule," or otherwise describe how much CO2 exists in the atmosphere using less offensive terminology. I've already acknowledged how essential indispensable it is which I assumed would be obvious. Or are we going to go back to the science behind the greenhouse effect from 50/100/200 years ago? I get that one too, including that it doesn't fill any of the gaps in the state of the science NOW.

But given how difficult it's been to get a full picture about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how much it's increased, you guys seemed to have proven my point. The focus on the 40% increase alone is a meme repeated in Skeptical Science and other biased sources of CC information, and it is deliberately misleading. It's akin to presenting temperature graphs that ignore satellite data and scientific opinion about what it may mean.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

So what DID you say?? Or what DO you mean when you frequently resort to accusing posters who's opinions you don't like to read of being "trolls," and not arguing in good faith? What about the actual scientists with whom you don't agree? Are they trolls too? It certainly looks obvious to me that, rather than simply disapproving of others' opinions, you actually don't like the people writing them. Or you think you don't because, after all, how could you possibly know?

Sucks to be wrong, doesn't it?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

EV's presently fill a niche. They're not an outright panacea.

I wasn't specifically referring to EVs. I was referring to the fact that they're cutting production, closing lines, diversifying. Of course alternative energy sources (nat gas/propane, fuel cells, hybrids, full EV) are also part of the mix.

Whilst that is indeed a lesson that needs to be learnt, I don't believe any of those civilisations met they're downfall as a result of fossil fuel.

So the larger points of using up all of a necessary resource and/or destroying their means of future production doesn't have any application here... ok.

Yeah. tanks, planes and trucks powering the factories and sending men, supplies and munitions across oceans to the battle front would have turned out a treat.

Wow, speaking of analogy misapplication... Nobody switched off the steam in 1919, and no one will be shutting the oil taps overnight either. Rest easy.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Okay.. I guess that sums up your understanding of the basic physics [emoji50] surprising given much time you argue on this topic.

oh I fully understand the physics of it all I just know the facts. And the fact is it is all dependant on what the sun does .

I stand by my prior statement .

Here it is again
actually considering its all dependant on the sun none of it really matters in till it actually gets to lethal percentages . Which it won't get to till about a week before the sun cooks the atmosphere off the earth in an out 4 billion years .


Prove me wrong

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

But given how difficult it's been to get a full picture about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how much it's increased, you guys seemed to have proven my point. The focus on the 40% increase alone is a meme repeated in Skeptical Science and other biased sources of CC information, and it is deliberately misleading.

It is NOT misleading, it is the simple unvarnished truth.

There is currently approx 410 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is 40+% higher than the amount around 1900.

The CO2 situation is really that simple. What is wrong with you? Maybe YOUR denier crib sites have let you down.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It is NOT misleading, it is the simple unvarnished truth.

There is currently approx 410 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is 40+% higher than the amount around 1900.

The CO2 situation is really that simple. What is wrong with you?

eccept plant stomata studies say differently .

They actually say that in approx 1900 we had a co2 of 395 ppm
I posted the study 2 or 3 pages back go read it .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

eccept plant stomata studies say differently .

They actually say that in approx 1900 we had a co2 of 395 ppm
I posted the study 2 or 3 pages back go read it .

Question: what's the current (or most recent) concentration of CO2 as 'reported' by the same method?


(you can read up on the flaws in the stomata studies in your own time)

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Question: what's the current (or most recent) concentration of CO2 as 'reported' by the same method?


(you can read up on the flaws in the stomata studies in your own time)

you can and should read up on the flaws in the ice core data as well .
Its in the study report I posted already.
Its all the sun there is no question about that .
And we are cooling !!!!!!!!!!!!

[SV THIRD DAY]

When the MMGWC goes Militant
https://m.greenwichtime.com/news/art...n-14341707.php

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile

So what DID you say?? Or what DO you mean when you frequently resort to accusing posters who's opinions you don't like to read of being "trolls," and not arguing in good faith? What about the actual scientists with whom you don't agree? Are they trolls too? It certainly looks obvious to me that, rather than simply disapproving of others' opinions, you actually don't like the people writing them. Or you think you don't because, after all, how could you possibly know?

Sad that you feel the need to resort to such a low level of discourse, but even sadder that you're unable or unwilling to defend it.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sucks to be wrong, doesn't it?

You mean about the 40% increase in CO2, or that 150 years of burning fossil fuels has caused a .0115% increase of an essential nutrient that comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere? They both say the same thing, of course, but the former sounds much more ALARMING. But then so do the graphs that ignore datasets which show less warming, the articles which neglect to mention the role of land subsidence in sea level rise, the news reports of "record" heat waves which fail to mention how far back such records exist, and the evidence showing a 40% increase in CO2 without establishing a direct correlation with temperature rise.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

When the MMGWC goes Militant
https://m.greenwichtime.com/news/art...n-14341707.php

Strange times. In previous generations there was justifiable disgruntlement about unpopular wars, economic despair, and other all-too-real social upheavals. Now it's about an increase in atmospheric CO2. Maybe it's because all the unprecedented prosperity, alleviation of poverty, relative peace, availability of cheap energy, and technological advancement have created far too much space for people to feel far too safe. If CC doesn't pan out for those suffering from so much aggrievement, I wonder what the next source of hatred & resentment will be?