jhurkot
Active VIP Member
If you have facts, sure.
Is man made climate change real?
- Thread starter skegpro
- Start date
If you have facts, sure.
deaner
Active VIP Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Richard Lindzen is one of my favorites. Some very well respected, intelligent people on this list.
Does it definitively prove that man made climate change is a farce? No. I dont think many people will disagree that we are having some kind of effect on the environment.......but the current culture of alarmism and ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to question it is just sickening. Whats worse yet is the stupidity with which we are trying to address this "problem". Lets cripple our economy with a carbon tax yet continue to dig coal out of the ground and ship it to china as fast as we can (where it will be burned with no clean technology), and then let them undercut us by bringing their products back into our country tariff free. Its just stupid.
Real science allows for opposing opinions and intelligent debate. Not labelling someone with opposing opinions a "denier". And two, we should be working on real solutions, not feel good BS like electric cars. They have their place for some people, but they arent the answer IMHO, and they come with their own set of problems that are conveniently being ignored (battery production and disposal, clean electricity supply, etc)
Rene G
Active VIP Member
ABMax24
Active VIP Member
The problem with man made climate change is everyone has some vested interest in believing one way or another. One can profit off the sale of solar panels, or the sale of more energy efficient devices in the quest for renewable energy. Another person can benefit off the extraction of carbon based fuels, or the cheap energy they provide. Another can be harmed by putting a price on carbon emissions, increasing the cost of basic daily living. Every one of us on this forum, everyone on this planet has a vested interest one way or another.
The fundamental reality of it is we can't actually believe that we have no impact on this planet, all 9 billion of us. 11% of the land on earth is used for growing crops, another 26% for pasture land or some other agricultural use. We pave over thousands of square kilometers of land per year with gravel, asphalt and concrete roads. Last year the human race consumed 5.75 cubic kilometers of oil, that's half the volume of water in Lesser Slave lake.
An argument that is often made is that the climate is constantly changing, no reasonable climate scientist would argue that, the earth's climate does run in cycles. It was warmer on earth in the 1500's that it was in the 1800's, but it is warmer now than it was at both those times. The big issue most scientists are worried about is the rate of change, the climate runs in cycles, but it does so gradually, over centuries, not in the rapid increase seen in the last 150 years. What is known is that atmospheric CO2 levels hadn't been above 300 ppm in the last million years until 1950, today they are at 413 ppm, 37% higher then anytime in the last million years, a time frame which encompasses the entire history of human evolution. What is also known is the global average temperature has risen 0.9 degrees celsius in the last 150 years, most of that occurring in the last 35 years, which coincides with the fastest growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere. Funny how that works, the faster the CO2 levels increase the faster the temperature goes up.
What is also known is the other effects CO2 has on the environment. About 50% of the CO2 emitted by humans has been dissolved in the oceans, CO2 forms carbonic acid when dissolved in water (part of the reason carbonated drinks are hard on teeth), this increases the pH of ocean water making life difficult for marine life to survive. Particularly for shell fish whose calcium carbonate based shells are slowly eaten and dissolved by the carbonic acid. We also know that the pH of the ocean has gone from about 8.10 to 8.07 from 1990 to 2015, which doesn't seem like much but remember that pH is based on a logarithmic scale so an increase of 1 pH is actually a tenfold increase in acidity.
Another factor at play is the huge per capita energy use of the developed world. In Canada we emit 1.6% of global emissions, China emits 26%, but per person we consume 4 times more energy than the Chinese, the world simply could not produce enough oil to allow the Chinese to live a lifestyle like we do, never-mind if India tried to do the same. This is why the western world is pointed at when it comes to CO2 emissions and energy consumption, we are the technological leaders and the most capable of making change, yet we look at developing countries like China to lower emissions and lead us to a low-carbon economy.
This is my take on global warming, I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind, but these are some of the reasons why I can't believe the "Climate Change Isn't Real" argument. I still choose to live my life as I please, and do the things I want, but when an opportunity arises to use a little less, or use an energy source that is more sustainable long term I consider taking it. But I don't agree with a carbon tax as a form of control, but I do agree with policy changes and small incentives to make better technologies more viable.
For those that care to look here are the links for the sources used in the above post:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271823/daily-global-crude-oil-demand-since-2006/
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.co2.earth/
https://www.co2.earth/carbon-in-the-ocean
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-seashells-created/?redirect=1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
https://www.canada.ca/en/environmen...dicators/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html
The fundamental reality of it is we can't actually believe that we have no impact on this planet, all 9 billion of us. 11% of the land on earth is used for growing crops, another 26% for pasture land or some other agricultural use. We pave over thousands of square kilometers of land per year with gravel, asphalt and concrete roads. Last year the human race consumed 5.75 cubic kilometers of oil, that's half the volume of water in Lesser Slave lake.
An argument that is often made is that the climate is constantly changing, no reasonable climate scientist would argue that, the earth's climate does run in cycles. It was warmer on earth in the 1500's that it was in the 1800's, but it is warmer now than it was at both those times. The big issue most scientists are worried about is the rate of change, the climate runs in cycles, but it does so gradually, over centuries, not in the rapid increase seen in the last 150 years. What is known is that atmospheric CO2 levels hadn't been above 300 ppm in the last million years until 1950, today they are at 413 ppm, 37% higher then anytime in the last million years, a time frame which encompasses the entire history of human evolution. What is also known is the global average temperature has risen 0.9 degrees celsius in the last 150 years, most of that occurring in the last 35 years, which coincides with the fastest growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere. Funny how that works, the faster the CO2 levels increase the faster the temperature goes up.
What is also known is the other effects CO2 has on the environment. About 50% of the CO2 emitted by humans has been dissolved in the oceans, CO2 forms carbonic acid when dissolved in water (part of the reason carbonated drinks are hard on teeth), this increases the pH of ocean water making life difficult for marine life to survive. Particularly for shell fish whose calcium carbonate based shells are slowly eaten and dissolved by the carbonic acid. We also know that the pH of the ocean has gone from about 8.10 to 8.07 from 1990 to 2015, which doesn't seem like much but remember that pH is based on a logarithmic scale so an increase of 1 pH is actually a tenfold increase in acidity.
Another factor at play is the huge per capita energy use of the developed world. In Canada we emit 1.6% of global emissions, China emits 26%, but per person we consume 4 times more energy than the Chinese, the world simply could not produce enough oil to allow the Chinese to live a lifestyle like we do, never-mind if India tried to do the same. This is why the western world is pointed at when it comes to CO2 emissions and energy consumption, we are the technological leaders and the most capable of making change, yet we look at developing countries like China to lower emissions and lead us to a low-carbon economy.
This is my take on global warming, I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind, but these are some of the reasons why I can't believe the "Climate Change Isn't Real" argument. I still choose to live my life as I please, and do the things I want, but when an opportunity arises to use a little less, or use an energy source that is more sustainable long term I consider taking it. But I don't agree with a carbon tax as a form of control, but I do agree with policy changes and small incentives to make better technologies more viable.
For those that care to look here are the links for the sources used in the above post:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271823/daily-global-crude-oil-demand-since-2006/
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.co2.earth/
https://www.co2.earth/carbon-in-the-ocean
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-seashells-created/?redirect=1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
https://www.canada.ca/en/environmen...dicators/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html
X-it
Active VIP Member
I sure wish they had been keeping accurate data of the sun over the past 100 years, because it sure is not the constant that people think it is. As far as C02 causing the warming (Al Gores graph). That one proves without a doubt C02 trailed warming and cooling by 500 years, not the driver of the warming. So who has turned this around into believing C02 has caused the warming in the first place....where is the proof?
Last edited:
ABMax24
Active VIP Member
Shellfish build their shells from carbonate (Co3-2) which only exists in the ocean while the ocean is alkaline. At a pH of 7.0 the carbonate disappears into Bicarbonate (HCO3-) and many shellfish fail to grow and reproduce. The current drop in ocean pH is already have a serious effect on oyster populations.
So yes the ocean is basic, but it is moving to be more acidic, or acidifying.
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
Well that could be, but saying the water is slowly eating their shells is pure nonsense.
ABMax24
Active VIP Member
[FONT="]Meanwhile, oyster larvae fail to even begin growing their shells. In their first 48 hours of life, oyster larvae [/FONT]undergo a massive growth spurt[FONT="], building their shells quickly so they can start feeding. But the more acidic seawater eats away at their shells before they can form; this has [/FONT]already caused massive oyster die-offs[FONT="] in the U.S. Pacific Northwest.
[/FONT]https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification
ABMax24
Active VIP Member
ABMax24
Active VIP Member
About 90 percent or more of the oysters, mussels, and clams consumed worldwide are farmed.
https://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-eating/food-safety/article/best-farmed-shellfish-options
No wonder 95% of the oysters we eat are farm-raised
https://www.elementseafood.com/wild-versus-farm-raised-oysters-which-are-better/
ABMax24
Active VIP Member
Not arguing that at all, the topic of this thread is climate change, carbon tax and man made CO2, I just kept my thoughts within that.
If you haven't already have a look at "The Devil We Know" on Netflix, about the by-product chemicals of making teflon and their effects. C-8 I believe it was called, its detectable in the bloodstream of 99.7% of Americans.
Fair enough, might be slightly off topic. Here is my thoughts on climate change carbon tax thing: I live in Canada, it is fawking cold and I need to heat my house.
Its a big country and I need to be able to get around. I have gotten very accustomed to a high standard of living and Ill do what ever I can to not only sustain it, but to
make it as good as I can for myself and my blood.
I want to be on the 200 foot yacht, and Leonardo decaprio please just jump into the ocean and die haha
deaner
Active VIP Member
I think there are more important things to worry about than increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and a lot of them we cant do anything about. But that doesnt mean we shouldnt do something about the things we can control. I think we should be working to become less reliant on fossil fuels for many reasons (limited supply, power it gives to evil dictatorships, etc), but lets be thankful for them and work towards a better solution. Im more concerned about solar activity, the earths weakening magnetic field, toxicity that we are leaching into our waterways, and other things than the amount of plant food we are releasing into the air.
I think what most people are looking for is MEANINGFUL change. The current changes being made are a joke. Why not implement a modest "carbon" tax (id love to find a new word) and use that to fund innovation and development. Develop cost effective electricity generation and storage. Or work on technologies like cold fusion, geothermal, advanced building products, etc. It would transform the tax from a parasite on our economy to a net gain. Our country would attract investment and the greatest minds from around the world. We would have to figure out a fair process for allotting said money, but Im sure it could be done. At least people could get behind a plan like that.
I think what most people are looking for is MEANINGFUL change. The current changes being made are a joke. Why not implement a modest "carbon" tax (id love to find a new word) and use that to fund innovation and development. Develop cost effective electricity generation and storage. Or work on technologies like cold fusion, geothermal, advanced building products, etc. It would transform the tax from a parasite on our economy to a net gain. Our country would attract investment and the greatest minds from around the world. We would have to figure out a fair process for allotting said money, but Im sure it could be done. At least people could get behind a plan like that.
deaner
Active VIP Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jox0dtLNW_w
Is it just me or would anyone else like to light Bill Nye on fire and try to put him out with the butt end of a fire extinguisher?
Is it just me or would anyone else like to light Bill Nye on fire and try to put him out with the butt end of a fire extinguisher?
jhurkot
Active VIP Member
Ahhh you almost got me! Richard Lindzen is a scientist who doesn't think that there is a link between cigarette smoke and lung cancer. Also, what about this quote.. "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." ?
Similar threads
