Bad scientists: you have given bad info on global warming

[Earthling]

Which took it out of the air millions of years ago, and didn't put it back in. We're basically re-adding CO2 to the atmosphere that's not been in it for millions of years.

Millions of years ago, there was way more of it in the atmosphere than there was now. So, I guess you could call it a closed loop, but only if you want to use a timescale of millions of years.

Like I said, every thing in that post except what I quoted was entirely unscientific and wrong though, so it's not really worth the time to repoint out things like this one by one, but of course you're right here choxorn.

 

[BasketCase]

You've not provided any evidence to any of your claims nor evidence that your claims mean what you wish them to mean regarding climate change theory, such as this one.

You can easily verify or disprove it by looking it up yourself. If you could have proved me wrong on something, I'm pretty damn sure you (or somebody else) would have posted it.

Try looking up the Paleocene epoch for an idea of what the Earth did look like last time it had a huge bout of global warming. Here's a hint: the poles were temperate zones, part of the United States was tropical, and there was almost no desert anywhere on the planet. No data on what ocean levels were at the time, though. Seriously, go have a look. If nothing else, for some interesting reading.

The thing that really fries my circuits here is the fact that I did post all kinds of evidence. Here on CFC. In many global warming threads. FOR FIVE GODDAMN YEARS. You people didn't listen. So, really, what's the point? Hell, Earthling just posted that I'm wrong without saying why I'm wrong. Did you see me whining about it anywhere except here? Nope.

Which took it out of the air millions of years ago, and didn't put it back in. We're basically re-adding CO2 to the atmosphere that's not been in it for millions of years.

So what? Human breathing is the same. The CO2 goesn't go back into the system until you eat a cheeseburger and belch. Actually, a more alarming contribution to global warming would be the gas that comes out the other end of your digestive tract after you eat a cheeseburger...... They're all closed systems.

Yes, I'm sure the rainforest will expand when our bad logging practices make it shrink every year, and I'm sure the crops will stand up well to desertification and rising sea levels.

Yup. The benefits of global warming may well outrun the depredations by big yellow bulldozers. Partially because changing climate will allow rainforest to grow in other parts of the world. Wouldn't that be great for biodiversity?? I thought that was the kind of thing all the Nature Nazis wanted???

And also conveniently ignore what El_Mac said about the effects of increasing carbon on plants that utilize C4 photosynthesis, i.e. the world's major food crops.

Ah, yes. Missed that one. Disagree with it. I've seen a large number of studies (such as the FACE studies, which were outdoor tests and therefore a bit dicey) about the effects of varying CO2 levels on crops, and the real truth is: CO2 is usually beneficial to plants. Not always. Of course, in any good study, there will always be outliers. The cases where CO2 poisons plants? Those are the outliers. The exceptions. The cases where you flipped a coin four times and got heads four times in a row (that one test does NOT prove coins always come up heads when flipped)

 

[Tani Coyote]

The conservative talk radio was all over this on the way here.

But a very pro-environment ex-Greenpeace member also came onto the show and said the environmentalist movement has been hijacked by ideologues and isn't science based like before.

But back on topic - even if the planet isn't being affected in this manner, pro-environment methods will create cleaner air, sustainable development, a more beautiful planet, and water that doesn't mutate your children. Is that so bad?

"The world is not inherited from our parents but borrowed from our children."

 

[Earthling]

If you could have proved me wrong on something, I'm pretty damn sure you (or somebody else) would have posted it.

You're wrong about burning fossil fuels being part of a "closed loop" on any human timeframe, and you're wrong about polar bears being the only species threatened by global warming - thousands and thousands are. You are wrong at the level of very basic concepts and everyone else HAS been posting so.

also, in your five years of thinking you were contributing to the debate on global warming, you've still never retracted your wrong claims about James Hansen being an anti-global warming advocate, though that was very lolzworthy.

 

[choxorn]

So what? Human breathing is the same. The CO2 goesn't go back into the system until you eat a cheeseburger and belch. Actually, a more alarming contribution to global warming would be the gas that comes out the other end of your digestive tract after you eat a cheeseburger...... They're all closed systems.

I'm fairly certain the CO2 I exhale will immediately go into the atmosphere.

Yup. The benefits of global warming may well outrun the depredations by big yellow bulldozers. Partially because changing climate will allow rainforest to grow in other parts of the world. Wouldn't that be great for biodiversity?? I thought that was the kind of thing all the Nature Nazis wanted???

It might get warm enough, yes. What about rain? You kind of need that to have a rainforest.

Besides, even if it does, the areas that could grow rainforests would take a really long time to do so. Life doesn't adapt to something overnight.

They're also areas that humans and other living things currently occupy, and said humans probably don't want to be displaced by a rainforest.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Also, rainforests aren't necessarily a good thing to have in the most populated parts of the world. Rainforests tend to be rife with disease-carrying animals.

 

[Tee Kay]

They're also areas that humans and other living things currently occupy, and said humans probably don't want to be displaced by a rainforest.

Agroforestry FTW.

Also, rainforests aren't necessarily a good thing to have in the most populated parts of the world. Rainforests tend to be rife with disease-carrying animals.

Fight diseases, not rainforests.

The real world isn't Civ where the best thing to do with a jungle is to chop it down.

 

[El_Machinae]

The conservative talk radio was all over this on the way here.

But a very pro-environment ex-Greenpeace member also came onto the show and said the environmentalist movement has been hijacked by ideologues and isn't science based like before.

It's true, in that most of the people arguing don't really understand the science. It's the same with discussions regarding finance issues or issues of rights. There're lots of LOUD people, and very few of them will spend the ~22 hrs required to become conversant on a topic that they care about.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

CO2 is usually beneficial to plants.

If you actually read what El_Mac posted, higher CO2 is beneficial to plants but not to us. We don't care if the plants feel good, we care about their food yield.

Try looking up the Paleocene epoch for an idea of what the Earth did look like last time it had a huge bout of global warming. Here's a hint: the poles were temperate zones, part of the United States was tropical, and there was almost no desert anywhere on the planet. No data on what ocean levels were at the time, though. Seriously, go have a look. If nothing else, for some interesting reading.

And I'm sure the transition to that state will be without any ramifications, ecological principles be damned!

 

[Arwon]

Just because you can repeatedly make any old crap up and deliberately misunderstand things doesn't mean the actual science is wrong.

 

[El_Machinae]

Huh. I thought I'd posted a thread on C4 and C3 concerns. I can't find it, but it's early in the morning.

 

[Cutlass]

polar bears will be fine

Extinct is fine?

 

[GamezRule]

We should preserve the polar bears by moving some to a cut off area in the Antarctic and keeping some in zoos. When the Artic has been stabilized, we can move them back.

 

[choxorn]

Because introducing species to new areas always works out great.

 

[GamezRule]

I said isolated area of the Antarctic. We could create an isolated area.

 

[uppi]

Extinct is fine?

Well, there is this recent Nature issue:

with this corresponding article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7326/full/nature09653.html

The gist is, that the polar bears might luck out in the milder global warming scenarios. However, the longer we do nothing about CO2 emissions, the less probable those milder predictions will be.

 

[Tani Coyote]

It's true, in that most of the people arguing don't really understand the science. It's the same with discussions regarding finance issues or issues of rights. There're lots of LOUD people, and very few of them will spend the ~22 hrs required to become conversant on a topic that they care about.

As an example of the inefficiency of the movement's leadership, he cited solar and wind power, which are dependent on weather conditions and thus poor choices in reality. He cited hydrogen, nuclear, and hydroelectric as much better alternative energies, as they do not run out, and that they are the ones that need to be funded.

I believe electric cars and corn ethanol also count as ideological platforms rather than science-based ones - the former merely re-routes where pollution comes from and the latter tends to pollute more than actual fuel!

While on topic, he also said that the overhype of climate change is a combination of various diverse interests - ideologues not realising they're making little if any difference, businesses seeking more subsidies and free money, and politicians wanting to make it seem as if they're benefiting the planet.

 

[Cutlass]

When someone says that hydrogen, nuclear, and hydroelectric as much better alternative energies, I distrust that on basic principles. Where does this hydrogen come from? It's a net loss of energy to separate hydrogen from water and then use it as a fuel. So that's certainly not an alternative energy source. Hydroelectric isn't really all that good of a choice, because the limitations on the locations that hydro can be added and not have other environmental impacts has pretty well been reached. Nuclear has advantages, but the creation of the fuel for a nuclear power plant is environmentally ugly in the extreme. As is the storage of the waste afterward.

 

[choxorn]

He cited hydrogen, nuclear, and hydroelectric as much better alternative energies, as they do not run out, and that they are the ones that need to be funded.

Nuclear leaves behind radioactive waste and hydroelectric creates giant lakes behind the dams that drown forests and displace people. It doesn't damage the environment after it's already there, but building it does cause some damage.

Hydrogen Power, though, doesn't have any negative effects at all. There's also no problem finding fuel when said fuel is the most common thing in the universe and it's renewable.

 

[Cutlass]

Except none of that free hydrogen is on Earth or close enough to use as a fuel....