Climate change denial

originally posted by: Advantage
Its all china's fault. I saw that pollution in Beijing. Get rid of china.. save the world.

Then again living in a tropical rain forest in the MidWest and having super size insects and dinosaurs and more o2 due to the crazy co2 driven forestation of every continent would be cool too.


Its a combination of cyclic change and temp and people and geological changes. Its a mix of things. Plus the ozone repaired itself.. suckas!

Yeah, blame one country lolololol This is a collective problem, not just one country.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Skorpiogurl

Denial nothing. All your solutions are bull# meant to fleece the populace rather than actually fix the problem. At best all the solutions presented by the alarmist can do is, slow the process while taxing everyone into destitution.

We have solutions that can not only fix, but reverse and control the problem. We have technologies that if improved and refined can give us the ability to literally control how much or how little carbon is in the air, and in many cases even turn this carbon into objects of use.

Instead they just want to tax, tax, tax everything, ignore the tech that could actually fix things if supported, and instead only focus on options that will treat the symptoms to drag things out as long as possible to milk the populace through taxes for as long as possible.

Again - Missing the point of the post. Your reply actually falls into one of the denial categories I have read so many of these generic and defensive responses. They are all the same. Attack the original post/author. Talk about amazing solutions that can never be implemented. Focus on evil powers of doom and their evil intentions. Forget about the issue at hand. I do not have a solution. I am not looking for a solution. I do my best to do my part and take care of my home planet with the resources I am given.

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: Phage

CO2 levels are higher than any natural fluctuations over more than a million years

So why not look at CO2 levels over the last billion years.

Why would that be relevant?

Why should a million year period be any more relevant than a billion year period?

It isn't. Either is longer than Humans have been around so asking to look at a period that long back absolutely no relevance.

The point, I assume, of Phage's post is that we are adding carbon at an unprecedented rate in relevant history.

That doesn't really seem to be in debate, so asking about a billion year period just seems like an effort at deflection.

Cimate change is cyclical, like many here have said. Humans are not causing climate change.

What country has done more to clean up our environment than the US? China? Russia? India? Give us a break on this BS.

originally posted by: panoz77
Cimate change is cyclical, like many here have said. Humans are not causing climate change.

What country has done more to clean up our environment than the US? China? Russia? India? Give us a break on this BS.

See, it's just turns into "we are better than you" BS. Three countries come to the top of my head regarding doing more for the environment.

Denmark
Finland
Norway

Sure you will find more if you actually look.

originally posted by: Skorpiogurl

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Skorpiogurl

Denial nothing. All your solutions are bull# meant to fleece the populace rather than actually fix the problem. At best all the solutions presented by the alarmist can do is, slow the process while taxing everyone into destitution.

We have solutions that can not only fix, but reverse and control the problem. We have technologies that if improved and refined can give us the ability to literally control how much or how little carbon is in the air, and in many cases even turn this carbon into objects of use.

Instead they just want to tax, tax, tax everything, ignore the tech that could actually fix things if supported, and instead only focus on options that will treat the symptoms to drag things out as long as possible to milk the populace through taxes for as long as possible.

Again - Missing the point of the post. Your reply actually falls into one of the denial categories

I have read so many of these generic and defensive responses. They are all the same. Attack the original post/author. Talk about amazing solutions that can never be implemented. Focus on evil powers of doom and their evil intentions. Forget about the issue at hand. I do not have a solution. I am not looking for a solution. I do my best to do my part and take care of my home planet with the resources I am given.

There are denial categories? Is this like classifications of sins by other religions?

The general term "Climate Change Denier" does not distinguish between those saying that climate change is not happening and those saying that the change is not anthropogenic. This makes for an easier defense when painting those who question the science as unreasonable. Then there is the "the science is settled" sect, some of whom suggested that questioning the "science" should be made a crime. These folks are either the truly unbalanced or have a vested interest in R&D money. The Parks Service recently took down the signs in Glacier National Park that said the park would be ice free by 2020. They should leave the date blank to allow for more predictions so they can reuse the signs at some point.

The Climategate scandal and famous faked "hockey stick" curve [that was done for your own good to save the earth] are but a few cracks in the veneer of the belief system.

Fixation on anthropogenic CO2 avoids the fact that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It also neglects effects of long term cyclic changes in the ellipticity of earth's orbit, solar output, volcanic activity, and other such influences on global temperature.

The Paris Accord is merely a tax scheme to transfer wealth to undeveloped countries [with a rake-off by IPCC] and does not reduce the villainous CO2 in any way. It actually allows for more emissions... if the emitting country can pay for it.

a reply to: pteridine

Fixation on anthropogenic CO2 avoids the fact that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas.

No it doesn't. The feedback effects of increased water vapor are part of the models. The thing is, water vapor content is dependent upon temperature, CO2 is not.

It also neglects effects of long term cyclic changes in the ellipticity of earth's orbit, solar output, volcanic activity, and other such influences on global temperature.

No it doesn't. All of those factors are considered as they are crucial to radiative forcing calculations. According to the Milankovich cycles (a very long term proposition, indeed) we should be in a cooling phase. Has solar output increased over the past 50 years or so? Volcanic activity, as well as other sources of aerosols (natural and anthropogenic) are also considered but like the actual numbers for CO2 production are difficult to predict.

You forget to add cometary impacts, btw. They too have a great effect on climate.

The Paris Accord is merely a tax scheme to transfer wealth to undeveloped countries

Can you provide some more information about that? I was not aware that the accord contains any tax provisions.

a reply to: Phage

You are wasting your time! The only way most people will change there mind on here is if trump changes his mind

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: [post=24863095]pteridine[/post

Can you provide some more information about that? I was not aware that the accord contains any tax provisions

The Paris Accord is merely a tax scheme to transfer wealth to undeveloped countries

Can you provide some more information about that? I was not aware that the accord contains any tax provisions.

The Green Climate Fund is part of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC and serves the Paris Agreement The Fund has set itself a goal of raising $100 billion a year by 2020 to ,"assist developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change,"
So yes,it is a transfer of wealth from first world countries to third world under the guise of Climate Change.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Do you really have to reduce every thread to partisan politics?

Your political leaning has absolutely nothing to do with climate change.

Trump won the election in the USA, Boris won it here, get over it.

It's sad that every thread on ATS now has this undertone of left v right and invoking the boogey man Trump at every opportunity. We get it, you don't like him and you think anyone who supports him is trash.

This BS is destroying the spirit of ATS.

Rather ironically if Trump was to change his mind you would probably switch to the other side of the argument.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Norway is the largest producer of oil in Europe outside of Russia. In fact it's oil production per capita is arguably the highest of any country in the world. Certainly in the top 3.

a reply to: fernalley

The Green Climate Fund is part of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC and serves the Paris Agreement The Fund has set itself a goal of raising $100 billion a year by 2020

Where is the part about taxation? And what year is this? www.greenclimate.fund...

So yes,it is a transfer of wealth from first world countries to third world under the guise of Climate Change.

$100 billion? That's not a lot of wealth in global terms. US annual military spending is nearly 10 times that. If the funds are being applied to specific programs, how is that a "transfer of wealth?"

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

Norway is the largest producer of oil in Europe outside of Russia. In fact it's oil production per capita is arguably the highest of any country in the world. Certainly in the top 3.

Norway is 3rd in the world in doing the most to help the environment.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

Do you really have to reduce every thread to partisan politics?

Your political leaning has absolutely nothing to do with climate change.

Trump won the election in the USA, Boris won it here, get over it.

It's sad that every thread on ATS now has this undertone of left v right and invoking the boogey man Trump at every opportunity. We get it, you don't like him and you think anyone who supports him is trash.

This BS is destroying the spirit of ATS.

Rather ironically if Trump was to change his mind you would probably switch to the other side of the argument.

Oh come on! On this site it's a huge problem! Is it a coincidence that on this site, the most avid man made climate change denier is a trump supporter?

So, of course, regarding this site, it has a lot to do with it.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Oil production does not help the environment.

Again, Norway produces more oil than most European countries combined.

a reply to: Phage

As per your previous post, CO2 is temperature dependent, as temperature affects the distribution of CO2 between sinks and the atmosphere. This can be argued as a feedback loop that increases CO2 in the atmosphere as the planet warms.

One of the solutions proposed to store captured CO2 is deep ocean disposal to form CO2 hydrates of which there are abundant naturally occurring examples. The problem with this is the unintended consequences of affecting deep ocean currents that may be meta stable. Hydrate formation is accompanied by a heat of formation, so warming a large volume of deep ocean water would decrease its density, causing it to rise toward the surface. Should this shift a metastable current to a stable state, this could change the worldwide circulation pattern and, consequently, global weather. There would be no way to reverse the process. It is certainly too dangerous a "solution" to attempt.

Another possibility is storage in deep aquifers. Technically this is possible and the few laws that would prevent this could easily be repealed or modified, e.g., RCRA. The problem here is that there is no certainty that the CO2 would stay sequestered without first finding a basic aquifer. Dissolution under pressure is not a good plan should the caprock be breached by pressure.

Some solutions are at hand should one wish to use them. In the short term, one could plant CO2-sorbing, fast-growing plants that can be used as structural materials; giant bamboo comes to mind. Plant forests for the longer term, matching future temperature estimates for geographic locations. The food basket may well move north and adaptation will be more important than some form of short term mitigation. Adaptation will be the final solution.
If there is a worry about CO2, the easiest thing to do is to burn less carbonaceous material by making things more efficient. LED lighting and other improvements in energy use help a great deal. A few years back, refrigerators were the largest power users in US households. Improved insulation and motor design has greatly improved the efficiencies of such and reduced demand.
Electric vehicles are a small improvement unless power is nuclear and they would roughly double the demand for electricity. One way to alleviate this is to only permit charging off-peak so that power generation and transmission infrastructure stresses would be minimized. Development of batteries that also act as ultracapacitors would help with localized energy storage. Calcium may well be the replacement element for Lithium in metal-ion batteries as it has less tendency to light up and has two electrons per atom vice one. It is still more massive but has a much better supply than lithium.

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

It can't be implemented and the science improved? Says who? You?

Not a single one of the solutions presented by the politicians wanting to implement change based on climate predictions can actually fix anything, at best it can slow it down.

These sciences I'm mentioning are the the things that can, not only stop the problem, but change the problem, and put even more control in our hands. These technologies should not only be pursued because they can help the earth, but be a means by which to further control our climate. These are necessary technologies if we are to expand into the cosmos. Think about how these things can be used to help in Terra forming an atmosphere?

Heck, I wonder if we could reverse the situation on Venus with this tech if we were to improve it enough.

a reply to: pteridine

As per your previous post, CO2 is temperature dependent, as temperature affects the distribution of CO2 between sinks and the atmosphere. This can be argued as a feedback loop that increases CO2 in the atmosphere as the planet warms.

Since you were talking about water vapor in the atmosphere, I was talking about CO2 in the atmosphere. But, As I pointed out earlier, all things being equal warmer oceans will release CO2 into the atmosphere. The problem is, all things are not equal. Because the burning of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations (and thus its partial pressure) oceans are absorbing CO2 even as they warm, and yet, atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise.

The "greening" of temperate latitudes has been mentioned. Does this mean that forests are absorbing more CO2? Does this mean that warming increases the capacity of that particular carbon sink?

Water vapor content is related directly to temperature. A warmer atmosphere means more water vapor. A cooler atmosphere means less water vapor. CO2 content is dependent upon temperature.


Your argument about water vapor seemed to imply that increased CO2 concentrations cannot be causing global warming because water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. You go on about other things; solar output, orbital cycles. Anything but CO2.

Fixation on anthropogenic CO2 avoids the fact that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas.

This is a strawman argument but since you are now discussing mitigation of carbon emissions, have you altered your position?

a reply to: Puppylove

Not a single one of the solutions presented by the politicians wanting to implement change based on climate predictions can actually fix anything, at best it can slow it down.

Indeed. Perhaps the greatest problems presented by climate change are a result of the rate of that change. Reducing the rate of change would allow more time to further mitigate the change as well as provide the means to deal with its impacts.

a reply to: Phage

Ok, here's a question, why is 90% of the pressure put on the US while countries like China that comparatively make us look like saints in this matter, basically go ignored?