Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Attenborough warns of climate 'crisis moment'


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ogbin said:

 Change is the only constant. What can be done about it? 

With Milankovitch Cycles continuing their slow evolution, there probably isn't anything that can be done to stop natural climate change, nor should we really care to, at least until something dangerous happens.  But if you mean man-made climate change, the first step is to stop producing more CO2.  The second step is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to get the level back down to around 300 ppm.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Dimwits would go back to Flat Earth and Nibiru offloading their lizards on us again!

Or they might just post climate denial rants that they can't find anything to back up.

49 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Do your own research and don't go to a BS junk site for answers, or individuals who want the world to end or be screwed up a lot, and are too mentally disturbed to see that the opposite is true!

Do as tmcom says, not as he does.  A BS is not the end-all in climate education.  I can furnish you with scores of articles by Ph.D.s.  Just name the top[ic.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

...the first step is to stop producing more CO2.

 Easier said than done. How would this be accomplished?

14 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

The second step is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to get the level back down to around 300 ppm.

 Trees?

14 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Or they might just post climate denial rants that they can't find anything to back up.

  We are still in the infancy of our understanding on the subject of climate change, yes?

14 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

I can furnish you with scores of articles by Ph.D.s. 

 So can the other side. Who then is right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ogbin said:

 Easier said than done. How would this be accomplished?

The world can convert to water, wind and solar by 250 if they want to do it.  With a little luck, the US can still get 25% of its power from renewables in about two years.  Windmills are one way; preovskites are another.

18 minutes ago, Ogbin said:

 Trees?

Trees are one way, but they have a limited capacity.  We're going to have to develop ways to sequester carbon dioxide under ground, or not generate it in the first place.  Another way:  develop scrubbers to remove it from the air:  terraform earth.

 

21 minutes ago, Ogbin said:

We are still in the infancy of our understanding on the subject of climate change, yes?

There is certainly a lot more to learn.  That's why science looks to the future.  It's not what we know today, but what we will know in five years, ten years, fifty years.

23 minutes ago, Ogbin said:

  So can the other side. Who then is right?

The articles I will furnish will mostly be references to peer-reviewed journal articles.  That's the gold standard of scientific truth.

Read them and see if they make sense.  For every question ask who is making the claim, where his evidence is (If there's no supporting evidence, you may consider the claim false), when this thing is/was true, why does it work, how does it work?

If you read an article and it explains things you wren't even looking for, you're probably on the right track.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ogbin said:
17 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

I can furnish you with scores of articles by Ph.D.s. 

 So can the other side. Who then is right?

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTg9C1AbQBuvgPPL1g6lDm

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTg9C1AbQBuvgPPL1g6lDm

The difference between climate change deniers and me is that I can actually prove that climate has changed.  If these people don't believe that, let them produce some evidence.

I am working on a paper on this topic which I plan to submit for publication this summer or fall.  I will keep you posted.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate has certainly changed, in the direction of warmer, as things like Swiss glaciers attest, and even where I live, I have not seen a frost for decades, and once there would be one or two most winters.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2020 at 1:39 PM, Doug1029 said:

I can actually prove that climate has changed.

not all that difficult since it has never stopped changing..

On 1/29/2020 at 1:52 PM, Habitat said:

I have not seen a frost for decades

so.. Decades are not even a blink of an eye in comparison to how long the Earth has existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ogbin said:

not all that difficult since it has never stopped changing..

so.. Decades are not even a blink of an eye in comparison to how long the Earth has existed.

Climate change is measured by 30-year running averages of any weather metric you care to use.  There's an added requirement of statistical significance at the 95% level.  If you've been keeping records, that is an easy, but tedious, job.  We have had about 30 climate shifts in North America since the Wisconsinan Ice Age (ended 10,660 BP +/-).  That's a climate shift about every 350 years.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warning Bob is a ......... idiot. He proves that he is wrong, and then uses big numbers, and fancy words to try to hide that fact that he is a ......idiot!

Some can never admit defeat, and as it has been shown recently, need to be kept away from, Attenborough being one of many, as their stupidity will become so cronic they will begin to trip over their own ineptitude, and become an embarrassment to themselves and who they associate with!

B)

Edited by tmcom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread now drips with more irony than a steelmaking factory....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2020 at 4:45 AM, Ogbin said:

So can the other side. Who then is right?

Ogbin, can you post the most authoritative example of a climate denier that you have seen?  

If you're not sure what I mean by 'authoritative'... well, that's kinda my point. I'll give you a hint, Published papers would be one of the factors..

Anyway, post the best example you have, and then I'll explain...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2020 at 8:27 PM, ChrLzs said:

Ogbin, can you post the most authoritative example of a climate denier that you have seen?  

If you're not sure what I mean by 'authoritative'... well, that's kinda my point. I'll give you a hint, Published papers would be one of the factors..

Anyway, post the best example you have, and then I'll explain...

 I agree things would be better if human beings would stop deforestation, burning down rain forests, polluting oceans and the atmosphere. I also know the earth warms and the earth cools. That rain freezes and ice melts. And that over Time everything changes. Are humans really bringing about an apocalyptic end to life as we know it?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ogbin said:

 I agree things would be better if human beings would stop deforestation, burning down rain forests, polluting oceans and the atmosphere. I also know the earth warms and the earth cools. That rain freezes and ice melts. And that over Time everything changes. Are humans really bringing about an apocalyptic end to life as we know it?    

No!

^_^

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2020 at 3:39 PM, Doug1029 said:

The difference between climate change deniers and me is that I can actually prove that climate has changed.  If these people don't believe that, let them produce some evidence.

I am working on a paper on this topic which I plan to submit for publication this summer or fall.  I will keep you posted.

Doug

I sent a poster proposal to a co-author who is a licensed weatherman.  He has suddenly started flooding me with articles.  Faster than I can read them.  He thinks I shouldn't be spending my time on a poster when there is a publishable article in the data.  We are negotiating.  I think we can probably do both and maybe other papers in the future.  Sounds like fun.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ogbin said:

 I agree things would be better if human beings would stop deforestation, burning down rain forests, polluting oceans and the atmosphere. I also know the earth warms and the earth cools. That rain freezes and ice melts. And that over Time everything changes. Are humans really bringing about an apocalyptic end to life as we know it?    

Whatever solution to climate change we concoct, it will have to provide for people's basic needs.  We have to provide food, clothing, housing and living space for everybody.  A starving man will kill the last spotted owl to feed his family, or cut the last redwood.  If we do not take the poor into account, our efforts to save the planet are doomed.  Because capitalism can exist only by taking wealth away from the people who produced it, this new form of economics will have strong socialist trends.  There is no way around this.  Capitalism is outmoded and has to be changed or abolished.

Most deforestation today is being done to clear land for agriculture.  Brazil has a lot of poor people and a lot of land in the Amazon.  Why not give each person a bag of seed corn and a few acres to clear and farm?  It's what the US did with the Homestead Act (1862).  Unfortunately, tropical soils do not retain their fertility when cleared for corn.  Most of the site's fertility is stored in leaves, twigs and bodies of living plants.  When they are killed, the wood quickly rots out and the soil nutrients leach into the ground.  The farmer has to clear more land just to maintain his production.  The forest returns very quickly - in four or five years - but it is a different forest with fewer high-quality lumber trees and everything grows slower, especially the corn.

Pollution is anything that is detrimental to life.  Too much CO2 in the air is detrimental to life, so it comes under the heading of pollution.

Apocalyptic end?  I don't know about that.  We are changing the earth's temperature and moisture regimes.  The southern Great Plains are disappearing, replaced by a new type of cedar forest that thrives under the conditions we have created.  There will be few, if any, more droughts like the Dust Bowl or the 1950s Drought.  Changes are likely to be slow for the foreseeable future with conditions gradually getting worse and worse.  We could eventually cause an ecological collapse that destroys us.  But more likely, it will leave remnant pockets of survivors.  That should slow CO2 pollution enough to halt climate change.  It does not appear that humans will go extinct.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Progress Report:  I sent a proposal to ESA for a poster presentation on eastern red-cedar and climate/ecological change in Oklahoma at their August meeting.  Now I sit down and wait for an answer.  if they say no, I'll re-write it as a research paper and submit it somewhere.  Don't know where yet.

In the meantime, I have a paper in-progress on a new technique for handling slopover plots in forestry and agricultural inventories.  Planning to write it as a research paper or concept paper.  Don't know which yet.

And I've been filling in with data entry for my paper on instrumental measurement of climate change.  Still have an awful long way to go on this, though.  Probably be next year before I even start analyzing the data.

No word yet on a publication date for the slopover paper I submitted to the Forest Service in November.  The paper is accepted pending publication.  And that shortleaf pine litter paper is still stuck in review.  I haven't hit a lick on it in going on four months.  I'm beginning not to care.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2020 at 8:17 AM, Doug1029 said:

Because capitalism can exist only by taking wealth away from the people who produced it, this new form of economics will have strong socialist trends.

:huh:

On 2/19/2020 at 8:17 AM, Doug1029 said:

Too much CO2 in the air is detrimental to life

Couldn’t CO2 levels be better controlled if deforestation was stopped and more trees, plants and grass were planted?

On 2/19/2020 at 8:17 AM, Doug1029 said:

Apocalyptic end?

Yes, apocalyptic end. That’s all the dems preach these days isn’t it? 

On 2/19/2020 at 8:17 AM, Doug1029 said:

The southern Great Plains are disappearing, replaced by a new type of cedar forest that thrives under the conditions we have created.

Is this fact or speculation? 

On 2/19/2020 at 8:17 AM, Doug1029 said:

We could eventually cause an ecological collapse that destroys us

 Sounds like the rest of the world better figure it out then..

On 2/19/2020 at 8:17 AM, Doug1029 said:

It does not appear that humans will go extinct.

Doug

Maybe.. time will tell.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Ogbin said:

:huh:

We have to produce a society where the poor have enough to eat and drink, a home to live in and basic education for their kids.  If we do not, they will take the steps they have to take to achieve those goals, even if it destroys the world we are trying to save.  "Saving the world" is a luxury for the world's poor.  They have to keep body and soul together, even if only for one more day.  Planning a century ahead is far beyond their horizon.  One way or another, we must free up the resources needed to do that.  Capitalism concentrates resources in the hands of a few.  That will have to end.

42 minutes ago, Ogbin said:

Couldn’t CO2 levels be better controlled if deforestation was stopped and more trees, plants and grass were planted?

A grass stand reaches its carbon carrying capacity in two to three years.  Trees reach their carbon carrying capacity in somewhere between 40 years and 120 years.  Both then enter a steady state where they can absorb no more carbon.  The only way to continue this is to plant more and more land to grass and trees.  When yoo have planted all available land, you have to stop.  Then what do you do?

Judging by sales from the various state nurseries around the country, the US is running out of old fields and odd areas to plant.

42 minutes ago, Ogbin said:

Yes, apocalyptic end. That’s all the dems preach these days isn’t it? 

Like I said, I don't know about that.  There's reason to think we might turn this thing around.  The thing that is most-likely to get us is an ecological collapse in which the ecosystem that supports us quits working.  Even the most-pessimistic estimates put it two or three centuries in the future, if the methane gun doesn't fire in the meantime.

42 minutes ago, Ogbin said:

Is this fact or speculation? 

Proven.  Paper to be presented at the Ecological Society of America convention in Salt Lake in August.

42 minutes ago, Ogbin said:

 Sounds like the rest of the world better figure it out then..

The longer we wait to take effective action, the harder it will be to halt, then reverse, climate change.  If we wait too long, it becomes impossible.  We are currently at about 1.6 degrees of carbon-induced warming.  There will be an acceleration of ecosystem damage beginning at about 2.0 degrees.  4.0 degrees is considered the cut-off point.  If we go past that, we may not be able to recover, no matter how much we spend.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/25/2020 at 10:19 AM, Doug1029 said:

The longer we wait to take effective action, the harder it will be to halt, then reverse, climate change.  If we wait too long, it becomes impossible.  We are currently at about 1.6 degrees of carbon-induced warming.  There will be an acceleration of ecosystem damage beginning at about 2.0 degrees.  4.0 degrees is considered the cut-off point.  If we go past that, we may not be able to recover, no matter how much we spend.

Doug

P.S.:  the thing that pains me is that in order to save the world, we will have to save tmcom too.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

P.S.:  the thing that pains me is that in order to save the world, we will have to save tmcom too.

Doug

Here is your green new deal, wind farms after 18 years, that are too expensive to remove, and are a rusting, pile of chemical laced crap.

A5OpJ57.jpg

HgPwq0s.jpg

Southern tip of Hawaii, but it costs up to 200k to remove each of these propaganda tools, you are welcome!

Yeah, let's take action, get intermittent, bird slicers to cover the land, and awe at rusting hulks as far as the eye can see, l bet our children won't be thrilled!

^_^

Edited by tmcom
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tmcom said:

Here is your green new deal, wind farms after 18 years, that are too expensive to remove, and are a rusting, pile of chemical laced crap.

A5OpJ57.jpg

HgPwq0s.jpg

Southern tip of Hawaii, but it costs up to 200k to remove each of these propaganda tools, you are welcome!

Yeah, let's take action, get intermittent, bird slicers to cover the land, and awe at rusting hulks as far as the eye can see, l bet our children won't be thrilled!

^_^

$200,000 is propaganda.  Dynamite them; pull up a front end loader and a dump truck, scoop them up, haul them away and bury them.  Doesn't cost any $200,000.  And each of those magnets is worth a small fortune for its rare earths.

I have to wonder why those windmills are in that bad shape after 18 years when we still have 25-year old turbines in Oklahoma still in operation.

Those are either the Kamaoa Wind Farm or the Lalamilo Wind Farm.  I can't tell which.  Both have been decommissioned and are scheduled for cleanup as the law requires.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

$200,000 is propaganda.  Dynamite them; pull up a front end loader and a dump truck, scoop them up, haul them away and bury them.  Doesn't cost any $200,000.  And each of those magnets is worth a small fortune for its rare earths.

I have to wonder why those windmills are in that bad shape after 18 years when we still have 25-year old turbines in Oklahoma still in operation.

Those are either the Kamaoa Wind Farm or the Lalamilo Wind Farm.  I can't tell which.  Both have been decommissioned and are scheduled for cleanup as the law requires.

Doug

Can't take reality, no, they are there for all time. Dynamite them, lol, health and safety, and the explosives, cost money, and since they are unviable crap to start with, and are only investment opportunities since they are subsidied to death, no one will bother with  removal.

They have substantial amounts of cement for its base, and that costs a lot to jackhammer up and remove.

And removing them in lorries and find a hole.

Quote

Estimates put the tear-down cost of a single modern wind turbine, which can rise from 250 to 500 feet above the ground, at $200,000.

With more than 50,000 wind turbines spinning in the United States, decommissioning costs are estimated at around $10 billion.

In Texas, there are approximately 12,000 turbines operational in the state. Decommissioning these turbines could cost as much as $2.3 billion.

https://www.energycentral.com/news/retiring-worn-out-wind-turbines-could-cost-billions-nobody-has

This is the Green future, a landscape of rusting crap, no one is going to remove, since d....heads that are falling for the taking action and climate emergency, don't think long term or think much at all, it is gung-ho, as long as we do something.

But they can always strap a new one near the old, so the landscape of rusting rubbish is offset by new ones, for the next 20-25 years!

^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Can't take reality, no, they are there for all time. Dynamite them, lol, health and safety, and the explosives, cost money, and since they are unviable crap to start with, and are only investment opportunities since they are subsidied to death, no one will bother with  removal.

They have substantial amounts of cement for its base, and that costs a lot to jackhammer up and remove.

And removing them in lorries and find a hole.

https://www.energycentral.com/news/retiring-worn-out-wind-turbines-could-cost-billions-nobody-has

This is the Green future, a landscape of rusting crap, no one is going to remove, since d....heads that are falling for the taking action and climate emergency, don't think long term or think much at all, it is gung-ho, as long as we do something.

But they can always strap a new one near the old, so the landscape of rusting rubbish is offset by new ones, for the next 20-25 years!

^_^

US law requires that decommissioned windmills be removed in their entirety.  Like it or not, that's the way it is.  I might believe $200,000 to remove an entire wind farm (Hawaii only has 114 commercial wind turbines.).  And how did you get billions out of $200,000?  We have reclamation laws for old well sites and mines, too.

Doug

FYI:  The production tax credit ended on December 31, 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.