Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[atlkvb]

You can learn basic science and still keep your faith I’m sure.

I do. Scientific discovery and exploration confirm Almighty God's intelligent design and creation of known things not obviates it. YOU however believe and yearn for the exact opposite, in vain attempts to disprove both his existence and origins behind all created things.

 

[atlkvb]

Mule, you are a very patient, intelligent, and thoughtful poster. Run for office! We need more people like you. What do you do for a living?

I have mentioned the same thing to him several times. I actually enjoy posting with him because he is thoughtful as well as respectful.

You're a teacher, why don't you become a student and take some lessons from him?

 

[atlkvb]

LMAO!

I thought you left the thread?

 

[atlkvb]

Me (in a whisper): “you realize your circle jerk buddies all left because you said some really crazy stuff right?”

That wasn't an answer. That was a dodge...the very thing you Leftists accuse me of. Answer this question:

Can you tell me what has more effect on our climate? Earth's rotation around the Sun or Diesel powered engines?

We can turn off all the Diesel engines and maybe save the planet. What the Hell do we do to stop Earth's rotation around the Sun?

What is your answer.

(Silence is not permitted)

 

[atlkvb]

Geez. And you were trying to argue climate change.

I'll let Mule take this one. He has much more patience than me.

Good the other day we were trying to define infanticide and YOU ran off. You can run along now too.

 

[atlkvb]

I know. Unbelievable.

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/tropics-may-now-emit-more-carbon-dioxide-they-absorb


Excerpt:
It now appears that tropical forests have been emitting 862 teragrams of carbon to the atmosphere annually. (A teragram is one quadrillion grams, or 2.2 billion pounds.) That’s more than the carbon released (in the form of CO2) from all the cars in the United States in 2015! At the same time, those forests absorbed 437 teragrams (961 billion pounds) of carbon each year. So the release outweighed the absorption by 425 teragrams (939 billion pounds) of carbon each year

 

[atlkvb]

What you can't explain is why that theory doesn't hold up when the tree to human ratio was much higher than it is today. If your premise was correct, 100 years ago, or a 1000 years ago, the trees would have been keeping atmospheric CO2 levels much higher than they are today.

In fact they are.

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/tropics-may-now-emit-more-carbon-dioxide-they-absorb

 

[Boomboom521]

I have mentioned the same thing to him several times. I actually enjoy posting with him because he is thoughtful as well as respectful.

You're a teacher, why don't you become a student and take some lessons from him?

You should too

 

[atlkvb]

You should too

I try to be respectful. It's never a problem with Mule, always a problem with you. I ignore most of your nasty darts, but when I've had enough I throw a few back just within my own standards of decorum.

 

[Boomboom521]

I try to be respectful. It's never a problem with Mule, always a problem with you. I ignore most of your nasty darts, but when I've had enough I throw a few back just within my own standards of decorum.

You are always pissing some type of passive aggressive Bullsh1t all over every thread you ever post on. STFU

 

[Boomboom521]

You think trees emit CO2 and don’t have the slightest idea of how climate historical record is compiled — yet you post, post, post calling climate science a fraud.

The only fraud is you

 

[atlkvb]

You are always pissing some type of passive aggressive Bullsh1t all over every thread you ever post on. STFU

I appreciate that respectful advice. Your insolence is exceeded only by your arrogance.

 

[atlkvb]

You think trees emit CO2 and don’t have the slightest idea of how climate historical record is compiled — yet you post, post, post calling climate science a fraud.

The only fraud is you

Maybe I am a fraud, and I don't pretend I have all the answers. However I do relish your amortizations of my intellect when you can't answer one factual question on this subject I've asked you.

I think that's a pretty damn good observation that the originator of uneducated BS when it comes to proving human initiated climate change is YOU human mind controlled marching band conductor.

 

[mule_eer]

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/tropics-may-now-emit-more-carbon-dioxide-they-absorb


Excerpt:
It now appears that tropical forests have been emitting 862 teragrams of carbon to the atmosphere annually. (A teragram is one quadrillion grams, or 2.2 billion pounds.) That’s more than the carbon released (in the form of CO2) from all the cars in the United States in 2015! At the same time, those forests absorbed 437 teragrams (961 billion pounds) of carbon each year. So the release outweighed the absorption by 425 teragrams (939 billion pounds) of carbon each year

If you read that whole article, you realize that some of that is coming from the areas that we damage (whether by cutting or otherwise). Dead plant material releases CO2 as it degrades (ashes to ashes, dust to dust, had to include that for my amusement).

Regardless, all of that being true. You are still left with a gaping hole in your argument. When there were more trees and fewer humans, the CO2 levels were never this high. If trees are the major contributing factor to this problem, why are CO2 levels rising faster than we've measured from the last 800,000 years? The variable that you are discounting is the increased amount of pollution produced by humans - more humans and more industrialization - over the period of time when CO2 levels began to rise at much faster rates.

Frankly, we need to look for a new normal. I think that's an opportunity economically. If we jump on this train, we can lead the advances. If we lead the advances, we stay on the winning track economically. That's how we rose to the front of the pack in the past. We developed things that people wanted. We can continue to do that. Riding the same horse that got us here is only going to tire him out.

I'll caveat that, and sort of in response to your V6 comment earlier. I drive about 80 miles per day, and I do it powered by a 4.0 liter V6. I'm not sitting in judgement of anyone on this.

 

[atlkvb]

You think trees emit CO2 and don’t have the slightest idea of how climate historical record is compiled — yet you post, post, post calling climate science a fraud.

The only fraud is you

You bask in your Scientific ignorance thinking trees don't emit CO2, then arrogantly claim intellectual depth and superiorty of understanding about climate change?

Arrogant shrimp.

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/tropics-may-now-emit-more-carbon-dioxide-they-absorb

 

[mule_eer]

Mule, you are a very patient, intelligent, and thoughtful poster. Run for office! We need more people like you. What do you do for a living?

I have mentioned the same thing to him several times. I actually enjoy posting with him because he is thoughtful as well as respectful.

You're a teacher, why don't you become a student and take some lessons from him?

Hey, I appreciate the kind words. I'm a simple caveman mathematician. I'm all about logical arguments and facts to back them up. Sometimes that's a fault (try doing that in an argument with your wife). This is all discussions though. We're folks on a message board.

As for running for office, nuh uh. Not interested. I've been around politicians, both real ones and people who play that stuff in the office, and I hate it. Reason doesn't win because reason doesn't raise emotions. Emotions, 9 times out of 10, win in politics. As an observer of that process, I hate it. And, if you don't believe me, emotion elected Trump. Emotion is guiding the selection of someone to run against him in 2020.

 

[atlkvb]

If you read that whole article, you realize that some of that is coming from the areas that we damage (whether by cutting or otherwise). Dead plant material releases CO2 as it degrades (ashes to ashes, dust to dust, had to include that for my amusement).

Regardless, all of that being true. You are still left with a gaping hole in your argument. When there were more trees and fewer humans, the CO2 levels were never this high. If trees are the major contributing factor to this problem, why are CO2 levels rising faster than we've measured from the last 800,000 years? The variable that you are discounting is the increased amount of pollution produced by humans - more humans and more industrialization - over the period of time when CO2 levels began to rise at much faster rates.

Frankly, we need to look for a new normal. I think that's an opportunity economically. If we jump on this train, we can lead the advances. If we lead the advances, we stay on the winning track economically. That's how we rose to the front of the pack in the past. We developed things that people wanted. We can continue to do that. Riding the same horse that got us here is only going to tire him out.

I'll caveat that, and sort of in response to your V6 comment earlier. I drive about 80 miles per day, and I do it powered by a 4.0 liter V6. I'm not sitting in judgement of anyone on this.

I do not discount Mule our impact on our environment. I discount how much if any impact we make to phyiscally change it?

Remember when that Volcano erupted on the main Hawaiian Island I think last summer? There was more CO2 and other dangerous gases spit from that thing than humans could produce in 300 years of "industrialization".

What power did we have to stop that? What did we do to protect Earth's atmosphere from those emissions? How much damage did all of that pollution cause to our air?

No one bothers to measure it, cause no one was bothered by it except for inhabitants living right below the Volcano on the Island.

Earth went to work cleaning up the mess in our atmosphere and no one hardly noticed.

I'm for being good stewards of our resources. I'm for a clean environment, and cleaning up our messes. I'm OK with reasonable safeguards to protect our rivers and streams. I'm not for destroying Capitalism and our way of Life to accomplish that, and I remain convinced humans have no control over how our climate "changes" .

We were not given driver licenses over Earth's travel around the Sun. So we should just sit back and enjoy the ride. It's all under control but it's not by us.

 

[mule_eer]

I do not discount Mule our impact on our environment. I discount how much if any impact we make to phyiscally change it?

Remember when that Volcano erupted on the main Hawaiian Island I think last summer? There was more CO2 and other dangerous gases spit from that thing than humans could produce in 300 years of "industrialization".

What power did we have to stop that? What did we do to protect Earth's atmosphere from those emissions? How much damage did all of that pollution cause to our air?

No one bothers to measure it, cause no one was bothered by it except for inhabitants living right below the Volcano on the Island.

Earth went to work cleaning up the mess in our atmosphere and no one hardly noticed.

I'm for being good stewards of our resources. I'm for a clean environment, and cleaning up our messes. I'm OK with reasonable safeguards to protect our rivers and streams. I'm not for destroying Capitalism and our way of Life to accomplish that, and I remain convinced humans have no control over how our climate "changes" .

We were not given driver licenses over Earth's travel around the Sun. So we should just sit back and enjoy the ride. It's all under control but it's not by us.

I think your numbers on the eruption are wrong. I'm providing a link I found quickly to back that up. It's not about that specific eruption, but it does give an estimate of the amount of CO2 spilled from all surface and underwater volcanic activity, and that's 200 million tons per year. A lot, but a drop in the bucket compared to the 24 billion tons per year that humans push out from cars and industry.

I think you are misreading my intent on the economic front too. Fossil fuels are limited. That's a simple fact. At some point we all have to move away from that source. If we can be pioneers in the new and emerging technologies to replace that, it has a huge positive impact on our long term economy. That doesn't mean you drop all combustion engines or close every coal-fired power plant. That means you position yourself for a time when you can do that without collapsing the economy.

We've got changes coming - self-driving cars, higher levels of automation in manufacturing, etc. If we don't prepare for that, we're in a bad place anyway. I'm not an Andrew Yang voter, but I will say that the guy is at least looking to the future. I may not agree with some of his solutions to get us there, but at least he's got an eye toward what's coming. Biden? Not that I've seen. Trump? It looks like he's looking to yesterday's solutions for tomorrow. We aren't going to have many people who punch a clock and operate a machine or bolt on a bumper for 8 hours a day in 10 to 20 years. We aren't going to have folks who get behind the wheel of a big rig and haul goods across the country in 10 to 20 years. We're going to have people who work on the machines that do those things for us. We're going to have people who design machines to take those jobs too. Prepare for that now. When it happens, you aren't preparing, you're reacting. If you are reacting, you're behind.

ETA the stupid link I forgot while I was on my soapbox.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

 

[Pospecteer]

When presented with evidence that counters your premise (trees emit more CO2 than our planes, trains and automobiles), it's usually a good idea to verify that your premise has as much merit as you think. See, that's how a scientist would go about it.

Bad site but the guy is real
https://newspunch.com/princeton-professor-debunks-man-made-global-warming/

 

[Pospecteer]

The levels are determined by sampling bubbles of air trapped in ice sheet cores in the arctic and antarctic. That's the method used to get us back to 800,000 years ago.

Lets be honest, this is not an exact science...Look no further than carbon dating

 

[atlkvb]

That volcano spit out more dangerous gases in a concentrated and limited amount of time than anything we've ever done over the past 100 years Mule

https://qz.com/1272863/hawaiis-kila...into-the-air-at-potentially-dangerous-levels/

As for everything else you said technology will of course advance and we will eventually move to the next generation of energy to power our free enterprise economy. But so far, and for the foreseeable future fossil fuels are it. Nothing works better or more cheaply for us. Oil is the Lifeblood of free enterprise, and I'm not for arbitrarily destroying it over climate change generated by humans hysteria.

We clean up our messes better than any other nation. Why are the real polluters always exempted from the remedies?

Why is the solution always more Government or more income redistribution? That's not what causes "climate change". Capitalism liberates us from filth and squalor and unclean air and dirty water and sickness and disease. You see all that stuff in Socialist sh*t holes.

If we should be "changing" anything we do have control over, it should be getting rid of those misguided Socialists who make more mess and cause more human misery from inefficient stewardship of natural resources than any other humans!

 

[Pospecteer]

If you read that whole article, you realize that some of that is coming from the areas that we damage (whether by cutting or otherwise). Dead plant material releases CO2 as it degrades (ashes to ashes, dust to dust, had to include that for my amusement).

Regardless, all of that being true. You are still left with a gaping hole in your argument. When there were more trees and fewer humans, the CO2 levels were never this high. If trees are the major contributing factor to this problem, why are CO2 levels rising faster than we've measured from the last 800,000 years? The variable that you are discounting is the increased amount of pollution produced by humans - more humans and more industrialization - over the period of time when CO2 levels began to rise at much faster rates.

Frankly, we need to look for a new normal. I think that's an opportunity economically. If we jump on this train, we can lead the advances. If we lead the advances, we stay on the winning track economically. That's how we rose to the front of the pack in the past. We developed things that people wanted. We can continue to do that. Riding the same horse that got us here is only going to tire him out.

I'll caveat that, and sort of in response to your V6 comment earlier. I drive about 80 miles per day, and I do it powered by a 4.0 liter V6. I'm not sitting in judgement of anyone on this.

Can you explain why some scientists attribute the heating and cooling of the earth to cycles of the sun? Is that just a bunch of BS and they are out of their minds? Has there been one climate model that accounts for sun cycles which have been documented over time? Not saying it the only thing that impacts climate change, but it has an impact it never gets factored into all of these climate studies.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/06_3.shtml

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html

 

[mule_eer]

That volcano spit out more dangerous gases in a concentrated and limited amount of time than anything we've ever done over the past 100 years Mule

https://qz.com/1272863/hawaiis-kila...into-the-air-at-potentially-dangerous-levels/

As for everything else you said technology will of course advance and we will eventually move to the next generation of energy to power our free enterprise economy. But so far, and for the foreseeable future fossil fuels are it. Nothing works better or more cheaply for us. Oil is the Lifeblood of free enterprise, and I'm not for arbitrarily destroying it over climate change generated by humans hysteria.

We clean up our messes better than any other nation. Why are the real polluters always exempted from the remedies?

Why is the solution always more Government or more income redistribution? That's not what causes "climate change". Capitalism liberates us from filth and squalor and unclean air and dirty water and sickness and disease. You see all that stuff in Socialist sh*t holes.

If we should be "changing" anything we do have control over, it should be getting rid of those misguided Socialists who make more mess and cause more human misery from inefficient stewardship of natural resources than any other humans!

Read the last paragraph of that article. We are talking about CO2, a greenhouse gas. We produce far more of that than massive volcanic eruptions. Sulfur dioxide contributes to acid rain, but it does not stay sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere, and it does not have a warming effect.

Tripping over to your earlier point about the earth's rotation about the sun having the largest effect on our temperature. Sure, we are a cold, icy rock without the sun. I get that. Our orbit hasn't changed dramatically. Our rotation hasn't changed dramatically. What has changed dramatically is the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That has a similar effect to putting plastic over a drafty window in the winter. It holds more heat in.

 

[WVU82]

"the goal is altering the world economy, and the imaginary climate crisis is the excuse."

 

[mule_eer]

Can you explain why some scientists attribute the heating and cooling of the earth to cycles of the sun? Is that just a bunch of BS and they are out of their minds? Has there been one climate model that accounts for sun cycles which have been documented over time? Not saying it the only thing that impacts climate change, but it has an impact it never gets factored into all of these climate studies.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/06_3.shtml

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html

The sun isn't adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

 

[mule_eer]

"the goal is altering the world economy, and the imaginary climate crisis is the excuse."

View embedded media

View embedded media

Show a time lapse photo of Greenland or glaciers in Alaska over that same time period. Although I'm personally shocked that we haven't seen any changes in the glaciers in La Jolla in almost 150 years. Hint: that last bit is sarcasm.

 

[Pospecteer]

The sun isn't adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

But it is adding to warming and cooling cycles, which is what we are concerned about. If you want to get a little crazy, some say that higher C02 levels/ increased temps will actually make the world more inhabitable and help solve world hunger.

What exactly is the perfect temperature/climate for the world? Who decided it?

 

[WVU82]

 

[mule_eer]

But it is adding to warming and cooling cycles, which is what we are concerned about. If you want to get a little crazy, some say that higher C02 levels/ increased temps will actually make the world more inhabitable and help solve world hunger.

What exactly is the perfect temperature/climate for the world? Who decided it?

Solar cycles are periodic with about 10 years between a max and a min. The warming trend has continued through several of those. Does it have an impact? Maybe. Does it have a greater impact than record levels of CO2? Apparently not.

Is climate change something that we can survive? I'm sure. At what cost though? Rising oceans (no, I'm not saying Miami is underwater in 12 years) will cost trillions of dollars in adjustments. Think of how many population centers are on a coast, U.S. or otherwise. It also impacts agriculture in a huge way. Incremental adjustments now are cheaper than what's coming otherwise.

 

[countryroads89]

Bad site but the guy is real
https://newspunch.com/princeton-professor-debunks-man-made-global-warming/

Good lord, man. That guy is a certified quack.

 

[WVU82]

it would be stupid to buy this house then...

what an idiot...

 

[countryroads89]

Why is the solution always more Government or more income redistribution? That's not what causes "climate change". Capitalism liberates us from filth and squalor and unclean air and dirty water and sickness and disease. You see all that stuff in Socialist sh*t holes!

Less regulation, great idea. Let’s go back to watching rivers literally catch on fire and smog so thick you can’t see the skyline in NYC.

 

[Pospecteer]

Solar cycles are periodic with about 10 years between a max and a min. The warming trend has continued through several of those. Does it have an impact? Maybe. Does it have a greater impact than record levels of CO2? Apparently not.

Is climate change something that we can survive? I'm sure. At what cost though? Rising oceans (no, I'm not saying Miami is underwater in 12 years) will cost trillions of dollars in adjustments. Think of how many population centers are on a coast, U.S. or otherwise. It also impacts agriculture in a huge way. Incremental adjustments now are cheaper than what's coming otherwise.

You just proved the original post was accurate. When do you feel that my buddies beach house in LBI will be underwater? 10-20-100-1000 years?

 

[atlkvb]

Read the last paragraph of that article. We are talking about CO2, a greenhouse gas. We produce far more of that than massive volcanic eruptions. Sulfur dioxide contributes to acid rain, but it does not stay sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere, and it does not have a warming effect.

Tripping over to your earlier point about the earth's rotation about the sun having the largest effect on our temperature. Sure, we are a cold, icy rock without the sun. I get that. Our orbit hasn't changed dramatically. Our rotation hasn't changed dramatically. What has changed dramatically is the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That has a similar effect to putting plastic over a drafty window in the winter. It holds more heat in.

Mule as a hypothetical...let's just say we wanted to heat the earth 25 degrees over the next 12 years. I mean deliberately warming it up. How would we do that?

Then regarding the analogy you mentioned about greenhouse gases, how little impact is our rotation around the Sun relative to what otherwise occurs in nature? In other words what do we do to alter those natural processes and how much less are those natural processes in relation to our domination over them?

Do you know?

In my opinion it's zero. Know why? The oceans heat up too. We aren't anywhere down there and at some depths we can't even go there! How are we causing any "climate change" 300 miles below sea level?

Don't tell me its not happening down there either other wise I'll blast you with Scientific data exposing your error.

 

[Pospecteer]

Good lord, man. That guy is a certified quack.

I did not know you teach at Princeton. Going there on Sunday to see a play, want to meet up? I would like to meet him.

Check out his CV...seems legit to me

https://dof.princeton.edu/about/clerk-faculty/emeritus/william-happer

 

[atlkvb]

Less regulation, great idea. Let’s go back to watching rivers literally catch on fire and smog so thick you can’t see the skyline in NYC.

Why don't you go find a contaminated river filled with feces and other filth and take a swim in it? You'd be perfectly at home.

 

[countryroads89]

Why don't you go find a contaminated river filled with feces and other filth and take a swim in it? You'd be perfectly at home.

Here is a very good read for you.

https://sciencing.com/trees-turn-carbon-dioxide-oxygen-10034022.html

 

[atlkvb]

Here is a very good read for you.

https://sciencing.com/trees-turn-carbon-dioxide-oxygen-10034022.html

And I'm returning the favor for you.

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017...co2-findings-anu-canberra/9163858?pfmredir=sm

 

[countryroads89]

And I'm returning the favor for you.

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017...co2-findings-anu-canberra/9163858?pfmredir=sm

Thank you. Here are three excerpts from your source.

“What will happen in the future will be that those rates of carbon released by plants will increase as the world gets warmer, and it will have an impact on how much carbon is stored in vegetation, how much accumulates in the atmosphere in the future."

“Our work suggests that this positive contribution of plants may decline in the future as they begin to respire more as the world warms."

“Researchers said plants could also see a declining ability to absorb carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere through photosynthesis, and that carbon flow models and budget projections would need to be altered in response to the findings.”

They obviously contradict practically everything you have been saying.

 

[atlkvb]

“Our work suggests

plants could also see

carbon flow models and budget projections

Our work suggests that this positive contribution of plants may decline in the future

No one knows if any of this will happen and no one has idea how to stop it if it is happening.

That contradicts everything you and the alarmists are saying. It's not happening, hasn't happened, and income redistribution won't prevent it from happening if it ever does?