Are human activities influencing the climate?

13-11-2017 5:38pm

srsly78 wrote: »

Then the release will be delayed somewhat. Maybe in a few million years it will have transformed into some kind of hydrocarbon that a future civilisation will use for fuel.

Exactly. So its being taken out of the atmosphere. Has anybody bothered to quantify it?

Akrasia · 13-11-2017 5:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly. So its being taken out of the atmosphere. Has anybody bothered to quantify it?

The carbon cycle has been well studied and there have been long term experiments to investigate how various types of vegetation and soil types affect the carbon cycle.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/41794.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3229
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6359/101
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/1/1/014001/meta

13-11-2017 6:23pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The carbon cycle has been well studied and there have been long term experiments to investigate how various types of vegetation and soil types affect the carbon cycle.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/41794.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3229
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6359/101
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/1/1/014001/meta

So basically nobody has quantified how much carbon would be taken out of the atmosphere if everybody securely bagged their grass clippings?

Interesting because its something eveybody could do at minimal expense and given the amount of grass cut worldwide every week, it would seem to have the potential to mount up....
It would be akin to making (artificial) bogs grow again...

srsly78 · 13-11-2017 6:30pm

It's called carbon sequestration and there has been lots of talk about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

Akrasia · 13-11-2017 8:02pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So basically nobody has quantified how much carbon would be taken out of the atmosphere if everybody securely bagged their grass clippings?

Interesting because its something eveybody could do at minimal expense and given the amount of grass cut worldwide every week, it would seem to have the potential to mount up....
It would be akin to making (artificial) bogs grow again...

Grass cuttings are about 90% water so it would probably cost a lot more CO2 to store and transport the cuttings than it would to just leave them on the ground where they can fertilise your garden.

There are better ways to sequester carbon, it would be more efficient to do it on an industrial level where biomass can be treated correctly.

There are carbon absorbing technologies that could currently be utilised in factories, power stations etc, but they need to be regulated because it is an extra cost that few companies will voluntarily impose on themselves.

There are also some promising technologies in development that can cheaply and quickly capture C02 from the air, but these are still in development and it would be great if there was more resources made available to speed up this research.

one world order · 13-11-2017 10:57pm

Interesting listening to Geoengineering whistleblower Kristen Meghan. She was a bioenvironmental engineer in the US military. She had to know the different chemical hazards affecting peoples health so they weren't getting sick and were in compliance with EPA.

She was coming across orders for tons and tons of metal chemicals like Aluminium, barium, strontium, cadmium etc. She refused to sign off on these orders as she didn't know what they were being used for. As a result her demonization began.

From threatening to lock her up, take away her child and after being transferred, she delisted from the military. She started doing her own sampling of the air and soil and got very high levels of the above named containments. She now tries to spread the truth about chemtrails that the mainstream media doesn't go near.

dense · 14-11-2017 12:22am

srsly78 wrote: »

It's called carbon sequestration and there has been lots of talk about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

And it's basically magic fairy stuff.

Subcomandante Marcos · 14-11-2017 12:33am

dense wrote: »

And it's basically magic fairy stuff.

Photosynthesis is "magic fairy stuff"?

dense · 14-11-2017 12:59am

Akrasia wrote: »

Do you know where the heat comes from? It is generated in our cells by the act of respiration. Our cells respire, generating heat, which is what the 'heat engine' in that link refers to.

The amount of heat generated by human respiration and metabolism is insignificant compared to other sources of heat.

I thought you might be trolling because I gave you more credit than to think you actually believed that global warming could be caused by the increase in the number of humans generating body heat.

But it is interesting that you'll consider any mad idea more credible than the one that we know is happening

Well yes, why not consider everything?

It's no less mad than cherry picking a selected tree for rings, gas bubbles and subsequently repeatedly adjusting temperatures, almost exclusively from the NH, to come up with "global" warming and then refusing to share the data.

I thought that valid scientific claims are supposed to be reproducible.

8 billion bodies generating heat that has never been quantified seems a bit remiss, especially when we're discussing a theory that completely relies on tenths of a degree, even if its just to rule it completely out.

From the MSM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/07/31/tree-ring-circus.html

dense · 14-11-2017 1:00am

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Photosynthesis is "magic fairy stuff"?

Carbon sequestration?

Subcomandante Marcos · 14-11-2017 1:10am

dense wrote: »

Carbon sequestration?

Yeah. The majority of sequestration projects are afforestation, agroforestry, wetland renewal work, mangrove management. Tree breaths CO2, three uses "magic fairy stuff" called the Calvin-Benson cycle to convert said CO2 to simple sugars which it uses as food to increase biomass, viola, CO2 is sequestered.

Planting leguminous crops alongside traditional tillage crops, leguminous crop uses magic fairy stuff to fix nitrogen in soil, as a result less fertilizer is used to produce same or increased yield as traditional method, nitrogen fixed in soil, CO2 stored as biomass in leguminous crop and reduced fert use all add to sequestration.

I know it's hard to understand this magic fairy stuff that all these scientists are making up as they go along.

Other sequestration techniques involve reduce till farming, not cutting up pest banks, etc but the main focus is CSA practices and afforestation.

Subcomandante Marcos · 14-11-2017 1:15am

On the consensus subject, here's a letter published today signed by 15,364 scientists from 184 countries warning of the effects of Anthropogenic climate change.

But they're all shills sucking on the teeth of "big socialism" form that sweet sweet grant money so why listen to them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/letter-to-humanity-warning-climate-change-global-warming-scientists-union-concerned-a8052481.html

dense · 14-11-2017 1:32am

Akrasia wrote: »

Here's what you actually said "The earth has indeed warmed, by around a degree Celsius since the late 19th century. "

You said that to try to seem reasonable in the face of overwhelming evidence that the world has indeed warmed. You're now backtracking to the BS that climate scientists have invented the warming because of lizard people

We have been over and over and over the US temperature records. You agree that there are reasons why the raw data has to be adjusted, but when adjustments are made, you are using this as proof of fraud.

It's fundamentally dishonest. You have never shown any evidence that any of the temperature adjustments have been to deliberately skew the temperature records in favour of global warming. and in fact, it has been shown to you several times, that the temperature adjustments often reduce the rate of measured warming.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records

Dropping "fraud" and "lizard people" into your post does nothing to detract from my point.

I have time and again given you the link to NASA on the NASA website stating that it's adjustments account for half a degree of US warming in the 20th century.

Time and again I have asked you and others what NASA says is the degree of warming (including that half a degree) for the US is, for the 20th century.

And not one person can supply the figure.

So will we just say that nobody knows the figure?

Everyone is ignorant of it.

And we can also agree that we do KNOW that whatever it is, we also KNOW that it comprised of NASA's adjustment's which is +half a degree C.

At some point a rational person has to question the whole thing.

One minute NASA widely acknowledges a hiatus, the next it's adjusted out by claiming to have had faulty satellites, that guess what, are now "adjusted" and hey, it's far worse than we thought.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

A few months later and it's not as bad as we thought:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-paris-climate-agreement-nature-geoscience-myles-allen-michael-grubb-a7954496.html

In another few months it'll be worse, something else will need adjusting to fit the agenda.

dense · 14-11-2017 2:07am

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

On the consensus subject, here's a letter published today signed by 15,364 scientists from 184 countries warning of the effects of Anthropogenic climate change.

But they're all shills sucking on the teeth of "big socialism" form that sweet sweet grant money so why listen to them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/letter-to-humanity-warning-climate-change-global-warming-scientists-union-concerned-a8052481.html

Must be a darn big letter.

Where is it exactly? No link supplied.

I wonder what the actual credentials of the signatories are?

I see that just like an IPCC "Expert Reviewer", you don't actually NEED any professional qualifications to be a member of the Concerned Scientists, you just need to believe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists

https://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/01/climate-science-denialist-lord-monckton-s-ipcc-appointment-wasn-t

Subcomandante Marcos · 14-11-2017 2:29am

Here ya go, Oxford University Press' BioScience Journal is one of the publishing institutions. Pfft, Oxford, what would those guys know about stuff? Am I right?

World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice

riffmongous · 14-11-2017 2:54am

dense wrote: »

Well yes, why not consider everything?

It's no less mad than cherry picking a selected tree for rings, gas bubbles and subsequently repeatedly adjusting temperatures, almost exclusively from the NH, to come up with "global" warming and then refusing to share the data.

I thought that valid scientific claims are supposed to be reproducible.

8 billion bodies generating heat that has never been quantified seems a bit remiss, especially when we're discussing a theory that completely relies on tenths of a degree, even if its just to rule it completely out.

From the MSM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/07/31/tree-ring-circus.html

It's pretty much the maddest thing I've read on the subject. Well after chemtrails

dense · 14-11-2017 8:28am

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Yeah. The majority of sequestration projects are afforestation, agroforestry, wetland renewal work, mangrove management. Tree breaths CO2, three uses "magic fairy stuff" called the Calvin-Benson cycle to convert said CO2 to simple sugars which it uses as food to increase biomass, viola, CO2 is sequestered.

Planting leguminous crops alongside traditional tillage crops, leguminous crop uses magic fairy stuff to fix nitrogen in soil, as a result less fertilizer is used to produce same or increased yield as traditional method, nitrogen fixed in soil, CO2 stored as biomass in leguminous crop and reduced fert use all add to sequestration.

I know it's hard to understand this magic fairy stuff that all these scientists are making up as they go along.

Other sequestration techniques involve reduce till farming, not cutting up pest banks, etc but the main focus is CSA practices and afforestation.

Planting one crop beside another is NOT what comes to mind when carbon capture rears it's stupid head, much as you would like people to believe it is.

In the sense of carbon sequestration/recovery and the storage of co2, it is one of the most stupid scientifically endorsed ideas ever put forward.

Even the greens are aghast at the stupidity of it.

http://m.greenpeace.org/international/en/high/campaigns/climate-change/Solutions/Reject-false-solutions/Reject-carbon-capture--storage/

Akrasia · 14-11-2017 9:23am

one world order wrote: »

Interesting listening to Geoengineering whistleblower Kristen Meghan. She was a bioenvironmental engineer in the US military. She had to know the different chemical hazards affecting peoples health so they weren't getting sick and were in compliance with EPA.

She was coming across orders for tons and tons of metal chemicals like Aluminium, barium, strontium, cadmium etc. She refused to sign off on these orders as she didn't know what they were being used for. As a result her demonization began.

From threatening to lock her up, take away her child and after being transferred, she delisted from the military. She started doing her own sampling of the air and soil and got very high levels of the above named containments. She now tries to spread the truth about chemtrails that the mainstream media doesn't go near.

Ok, lets think this through.

Is it possible that the airforce have been experimenting with technology to alter the weather?
Maybe, that's the kind of thing the US would be interested in exploring. But its a big difference between testing something and deploying it world wide in secret and without anyone in the mainstream scientific or academic system noticing.

Is it possible that there are other uses for those chemicals on an airforce base?
Yes, most of these are very important raw materials in aircraft manufacturing and overhaul (I'd be skeptical about how much if any barium they were ordering, but it can be used in metal alloys and in high tech components like spark plugs, so it's plausible that an aircraft manufacturing and overhaul facility like Tinker Air Force Base might need some of it.

There are proposed geo-engineering technology, which involves spraying a tiny amount of aerosols into the stratosphere which disperse and seed stratospheric clouds which reflect the sun. We know this isn't happening because we would nave noticed the clouds and the drop in solar radiation reaching the surface, but the point is, the amounts of chemicals required for this are tiny, and they don't reach the surface in any noticable concentration because they remain suspended in the stratosphere.

What the chemtrail conspiracy says, is that there are large scale operations involving large amounts of aircraft and huge volumes of chemicals that are enough to cause illness and poor health amongst the population.
Use Occams Razor, for Meghan Kristen to be true, it means hundreds of thousands of other people are lying. Is it more likely that all the scientists in the world are lying and she is telling the truth, or the other way around

Note that She hasn't provided any evidence for her claims other than her 'story'
If she does a Ed Snowden and releases the files to the public showing that this is happening, then we'll have something to talk about.

WinnyThePoo · 14-11-2017 9:29am

Just want to thank akrasia and Co. For teaching me so much on this subject. As I hadn't really read into global warming before to any large extent.

Akrasia · 14-11-2017 9:34am

dense wrote: »

And it's basically magic fairy stuff.

Carbon sequestration is not easy, it is costly and time consuming, so we should probably do the sensible thing and reduce our emissions faster rather than have to put the toothpaste back into the tube

Akrasia · 14-11-2017 9:38am

dense wrote: »

Well yes, why not consider everything?

It's no less mad than cherry picking a selected tree for rings, gas bubbles and subsequently repeatedly adjusting temperatures, almost exclusively from the NH, to come up with "global" warming and then refusing to share the data.

I thought that valid scientific claims are supposed to be reproducible.

8 billion bodies generating heat that has never been quantified seems a bit remiss, especially when we're discussing a theory that completely relies on tenths of a degree, even if its just to rule it completely out.

From the MSM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/07/31/tree-ring-circus.html

Why not consider everything?
Because that is the tactic used by the Tobacco industry to delay and obfuscate and spread uncertainty.

In diagnosing a problem, you start with the most likely causes and only if they are ruled out, you look for the more exotic causes.
If my car doesn't start I check that the battery isn't dead. I don't 'consider everything' and check if a wizard has put a curse on my car at the same time that I'm making sure there is petrol in the petrol tank.

Subcomandante Marcos · 14-11-2017 10:26am

dense wrote: »

Planting one crop beside another is NOT what comes to mind when carbon capture rears it's stupid head, much as you would like people to believe it is.

In the sense of carbon sequestration/recovery and the storage of co2, it is one of the most stupid scientifically endorsed ideas ever put forward.

Even the greens are aghast at the stupidity of it.

http://m.greenpeace.org/international/en/high/campaigns/climate-change/Solutions/Reject-false-solutions/Reject-carbon-capture--storage/

See that's CCS, a specific form of physical sequestration where CO2 is captures from the emission source and turned into a solid or liquid, sometimes in there form of a substance called biochar, in theory it allows us to carry on burning gas and oil and coal and capture and store it but pumping the captured mass into old salt pillars or depleted oil wells.

Guess who uses this to promote the fallacy of "clean fossil fuel", the fossil fuel industry, because it's a magic bullet for them because even they acknowledge Anthropogenic climate change is real.

This whole idea has largely been ignored in practice and in research because it's ludicrously expensive and the storage options probably aren't viable or are too risky. There is potential on using BioChar to help integrated soil fertility management projects, but again it's not cost effective thus far.

Chemical sequestration methods like converting CO2 to oxalic acid through exothermic reaction are nice in theory but haven't been proved scalable just yet.

Biological sequestration like I described earlier are the major focus of sequestration advancement and have been for a while now. Growing companion and cover crops or leguminous trees, wetland renewal, mangrove management, afforestation, agroforestry, reducing fertilizer overuse, Peatland preservation, reduction of spontaneous fermentation from rice production, etc, etc, etc.

cfuserkildare · 14-11-2017 11:31am

Just found this,
Seems that we may have almost no influence on Global Temperatures What-So-Ever:-

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/mar/25/earth-is-closer-to-the-edge-of-suns-habitable-zone

Doctor Jimbob · 14-11-2017 12:49pm

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Just found this,
Seems that we may have almost no influence on Global Temperatures What-So-Ever:-

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/mar/25/earth-is-closer-to-the-edge-of-suns-habitable-zone

You're going to need to point out where in that article it states what you're claiming, because I can't find it.

dense · 14-11-2017 1:22pm

Akrasia wrote: »

If my car doesn't start I check that the battery isn't dead.

I don't 'consider everything' and check if a wizard has put a curse on my car at the same time that I'm making sure there is petrol in the petrol tank.

You drive an ICE car??? LOL

That's interesting given all the preaching here about c02 emissions and the damage we're causing the planet.

If your car engine over heats, you'd probably try opening the sun roof to see if that help diagnose the problem.

The heat generated by 8 billion bodies, does anyone know anything about it out of curiosity?

Danny Healy Rae is on the other line. Gotta run.

dense · 14-11-2017 1:50pm

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Here ya go, Oxford University Press' BioScience Journal is one of the publishing institutions. Pfft, Oxford, what would those guys know about stuff? Am I right?

World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice

It's just 15,000 scientists.

Were you impressed by the figure, and if so, why?

It's a tiny, tiny figure in any context.

There is almost 8 million employed in scientific research around the world.

According to UNESCO's Science Report, revised edition published 2016.

Human resources

There were 7.8 million full-time equivalent researchers in 2013, representing growth of 21% since 2007.

Researchers accounted for 0.1% of the global population.

https://en.unesco.org/node/252282

Akrasia · 14-11-2017 2:17pm

dense wrote: »

It's just 15,000 scientists.

Were you impressed by the figure, and if so, why?

It's a tiny, tiny figure in any context.

There is almost 8 million employed in scientific research around the world.

According to UNESCO's Science Report, revised edition published 2016.

https://en.unesco.org/node/252282

Nice deflection.

I'm still waiting for you to find a single reputable scientific body who supports your position on global warming.

Should be easy if you're right and there is no scientific consensus

cfuserkildare · 14-11-2017 2:27pm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're going to need to point out where in that article it states what you're claiming, because I can't find it.

Proximity of Earth to the Sun in current Orbit.

Akrasia · 14-11-2017 2:33pm

dense wrote: »

If your car engine over heats, you'd probably try opening the sun roof to see if that help diagnose the problem.

No, i would check the coolant level because thats the most likely cause of an overheating car.

You think all causes should be investigated before taking action, you'd therefore have to get out of the car in case your own bodyheat was the cause of your car overheating.

The heat generated by 8 billion bodies, does anyone know anything about it out of curiosity?

Danny Healy Rae is on the other line. Gotta run.

i know you don't know anything about it, you've made that clear.

dense · 14-11-2017 2:33pm

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to find a single reputable scientific body who supports your position on global warming.

Should be easy if you're right and there is no scientific consensus

There is no onus on me to prove something I havent claimed.

I have never said any support my position, whereas you on the other hand have said 100% of Universities and science academies endorse your position on the AGW theory.

Which we now know is a claim you cannot back up.

Are human activities influencing the climate?

Comments