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 -
Sign in to follow this  
Still Waters

Attenborough warns of climate 'crisis moment'

168 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Doug1029
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Doug1029
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ogbin
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ogbin
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
4 hours ago, tmcom said:

tmcom self portrait

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
ChrLzs
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ogbin
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?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
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!

^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.