Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues

[JeetKuneDo]

I don't understand why some are so against the very idea of climate change? I mean...it doesn't contradict anyones religion....it's not technically even a political issue. So what gives? Why are there some so opposed to it?

Some are opposed to poor people not being able to afford to heat their homes due to rising energy costs. Cold kills people (more than heat...surprise..the human race thrives in warmer climate). Others object to the idea that we must prevent 3rd world countries from becoming prosperous and joining the developed world....the worst kind of racism. Rising costs of food due to ethanol policies also will have great negative effects on health worldwide. Cancer rates would of course go up as people ate less fruit and vegetables. All those things together mean millions of deaths worldwide. That is a pretty good reason to want some real evidence for this before we go on a mass murder spree.

Then when you catch all the various lies and distortions of the truth coming from alarmists, it sets off warning bells.

The hypocrisy of alarmists doesn't help either. The loudest ones don't have any problem having a massive "carbon footprint". They only seem to want other people to reduce their standard of living. There are many alarmists in this very thread who will loudly claim that we are dooming the planet...but you notice they won't cut off their electricity (Unless they are on the internet via solar panels) or stop driving cars. That's not convincing me they really believe what they say. Sounds like another kind of agenda when you are that hypocritical.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Oh it was quite clear. You just avoided my points.

If you say so.

Nice try. How about I offer to educate you on this topic? Would you "vehemently refuse" that?

Of course not. Please, educate me in the matters of population biology. I've got my textbooks handy, should anything need clarification.

*Sits cross-legged on floor, looking up expectantly, pen and paper in-hand.*

Shall we begin with logistic growth of populations? Perhaps geometric or exponential growth? These seem like reasonable starting points. Or, perhaps, basic algebra? The floor is yours.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

If you say so.

I do. t:

Of course not. Please, educate me in the matters of population biology. I've got my textbooks handy, should anything need clarification.

*Sits cross-legged on floor, looking up expectantly, pen and paper in-hand.*

Shall we begin with logistic growth of populations? Perhaps geometric or exponential growth? These seem like reasonable starting points. Or, perhaps, basic algebra? The floor is yours.

Ok. First, are you aware of the projections for population growth in the 21st century based on recent decadal trends in birthrates?

 

[Doctor Evo]

First, are you aware of the projections for population growth in the 21st century based on recent decadal trends in birthrates?

No, tell me.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

No, tell me.

You'll like this...it's the UN....projections based on models! (In other words we don't really know)

But we are expected to peak somewhere around 9 billion at mid-century and slightly decline from there. Easily sustainable as I'm sure you know.

 

[Doctor Evo]

You'll like this...it's the UN....projections based on models! (In other words we don't really know)

But we are expected to peak somewhere around 9 billion at mid-century and slightly decline from there. Easily sustainable as I'm sure you know.

Congratulations on destroying your own argument and (perhaps unwittingly) endorsing mine.

Forgive me...where are my manners? You were teaching.

Continue.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Congratulations on destroying your own argument and (perhaps unwittingly) endorsing mine.

Forgive me...where are my manners? You were teaching.

Continue.

You appear to be a poor student and...what was it?...."vehemently refusing"?

Obviously the projections do not support the idea that population is going to be a problem. Poor Paul R. Ehrlich....we were supposed to be doomed already according to him. Good for me though because I love watching yet another doomsday prediction fail....and it doesn't fail any more spectacularly than that.

 

[Doctor Evo]

You appear to be a poor student and...what was it?...."vehemently refusing"?

Which part of that constituted a refusal? Do you know what that word means?

Obviously the projections do not support the idea that population is going to be a problem. Poor Paul R. Ehrlich....we were supposed to be doomed already according to him. Good for me though because I love watching yet another doomsday prediction fail....and it doesn't fail any more spectacularly than that.

This isn't what we were discussing. We are discussing whether populations can exceed their long-term carrying capacity.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Which part of that constituted a refusal? Do you know what that word means?

I thought you were supposed to believe everything I say? Isn't that what you expect me to do with your "teaching"?

This isn't what we were discussing. We are discussing whether populations can exceed their long-term carrying capacity.

Actually we are supposed to be talking about Global Warming.

More hilarity from the doomsayer in chief:

Will overpopulation drive us to eat our own DEAD? Controversial academic claims humanity is moving towards cannibalism at 'ridiculous speed'
Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich predicts population increases will lead to food crisis


A controversial Stanford professor has claimed overpopulation could lead to humanity having to eat the bodies of the dead.
Paul Ehrlich, best known for his prediction of human 'oblivion' 46 years ago, says that current population trends are on a course that could leave cannibalism as one of the only options. Ehrlich claimed that scarcity of resources will get so bad that humans will need to drastically change our eating habits and agriculture.

Ehrlich claimed that scarcity of resources will get so bad that humans will need to drastically change our eating habits and agriculture.
'We will soon be asking is it perfectly okay to eat the bodies of your dead because we’re all so hungry?,' he told HuffPost live host Josh Zepps.
He added that humanity is 'moving in that direction with a ridiculous speed.

'In other words between now and 45 years from now, 2.5 billion people will be added to the planet.
'We are moving towards resource wars.
Ehrlich is widely known for his 1968 publication of 'The Population Bomb' which called for 'population control' to prevent global crises from overpopulation.
'In the 1970’s the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death,' he predicted.
'our children will inherit a totally different world, a world in which the standards, politics, and economics of the 1960’s are dead.'

Ehrlich claims that the dangers of overpopulation are once again growing, blaming Republicans and the media for failing to take action.
'We all have to eat, and it's very destructive.
The ethical issues around the way we raise cattle are important, but relatively trivial compared to the wrecking of our life support systems.
'I can much more about people, because I'm a person.'
In his new book, called 'Hope On Earth,' Ehrlich worked with Michael Tobias.
'There's a tremendous amount of optimism in the book,' said Tobais.
'I really think we have a capacity to come to the aid of individuals.'
Tobias believes that young investors could hold the key to solving the problem, by investing in technologies to solve the problem.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...s-humanity-moving-issue-ridiculous-speed.html

Tobias sounds far more reasonable and more like this guy...one of the most logical thinkers around...who responds to Ehrlich:

Is Humanity Moving Towards Cannibalism?

Is humanity moving towards cannibalism as a result of food shortages due to overpopulation? Worried environmentalist Paul Ehrlich’s statement that "We will soon be asking is it perfectly okay to eat the bodies of your dead because we’re all so hungry" is disturbing, but it is also dead wrong.

Ehrlich has been wrong for much of his long career. Most famously, he predicted that hundreds of millions would die of starvation in the 1970s—ironically just around the time plant scientist were actually beginning to solve the problem with the Green Revolution.

For the first Earth Day in April 1970, he predicted a United States decimated by hunger by the year 2000. He foresaw a country of just 23 million inhabitants surviving on fewer calories (2400 per day) than the average African gets today. In reality, the US today supports more than 300 million people who consume an average of about 3600 calories per person per day.

Today, Ehrlich is hawking a new book in which he argues that scarcity of resources will become so severe that humans will need to drastically change their eating habits and agricultural practices. In one particularly eye-catching claim, he predicts we'll have to start eating our dead. He even adds that humanity is “moving in that direction with a ridiculous speed.”

Of course he is wrong, once again. The graph shows the upward trend of calorie availability since 1961. The data comes from actual experts at the UN Food and Agricultural Organization. We're not running out of food.

However, we do have work to do. We still need to get about 850 million people globally out of hunger. But this is not because of a lack of food; it is because these people are too poor to afford proper nutrition.

The key to solving hunger is to ease the poverty that causes it. Getting people out of poverty requires more free trade, more technology, and more access to affordable energy -- unfortunately all things toward which Ehrlich, in his misplaced worry, displays indifference or actively works against.

Instead of preaching vaguely apocalyptic scenarios, we should help make cheaper food more widely available to those who need it.

For the Copenhagen Consensus, some of the world’s top economists have found that agricultural R&D is one of the smartest ways to spend money and do good in the world. An extra 8 billion dollars invested annually in research and development would increase yields and decrease prices, allowing billions to spend less of their scarce resources on food. And for every dollar invested in agricultural R&D, we’d see a direct benefit of at least 18 dollars. By developing varieties that are more robust and heat-resistant, we can reduce the likelihood of hunger catastrophes.

A Green Revolution 2.0 could mean that by mid-century, 200 million fewer people would go hungry. All without wasting any thought on Ehrlich’s cannibalistic fantasies.

https://www.linkedin.com/today/post...580126-is-humanity-moving-towards-cannibalism

 

[Doctor Evo]

I thought you were supposed to believe everything I say? Isn't that what you expect me to do with your "teaching"?

Of course not. The whole point was to allow you to explore and verify the concepts yourself. Why would I bother to teach you basic mathematics if I didn't expect you to use it somehow?

I'm getting the distinct impression that you're trying to remain willfully ignorant. And, of course, that is your right, sad as that decision may be.

Actually we are supposed to be talking about Global Warming.

I'm not interested in that conversation right now, and that isn't the conversation we've been having for the past several pages. You can pretend that that's what we've been talking about, if you'd like, but that would make you either incredibly forgetful or incredibly dishonest. Pick one.

 

[floreairfoot]

Of course not. Please, educate me in the matters of population biology. I've got my textbooks handy, should anything need clarification.

*Sits cross-legged on floor, looking up expectantly, pen and paper in-hand.*

Shall we begin with logistic growth of populations? Perhaps geometric or exponential growth? These seem like reasonable starting points. Or, perhaps, basic algebra? The floor is yours.

 

[:eek:]

​

CO2 concentrations top 400 parts per million throughout northern hemisphere​

Geneva, 26 May 2014 (WMO) - For the first time, monthly concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere topped 400 parts per million (ppm) in April throughout the northern hemisphere. This threshold is of symbolic and scientific significance and reinforces evidence that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are responsible for the continuing increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gases warming our planet.
All the northern hemisphere monitoring stations forming the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Global Atmosphere Watch network reported record atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the seasonal maximum. This occurs early in the northern hemisphere spring before vegetation growth absorbs CO2.
Whilst the spring maximum values in the northern hemisphere have already crossed the 400 ppm level, the global annual average CO2 concentration is set to cross this threshold in 2015 or 2016.
“This should serve as yet another wakeup call about the constantly rising levels of greenhouse gases which are driving climate change. If we are to preserve our planet for future generations, we need urgent action to curb new emissions of these heat trapping gases,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “Time is running out.”
CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Its lifespan in the oceans is even longer. It is the single most important greenhouse gas emitted by human activities. It was responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate - over the decade 2002-2012.
Between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing because of greenhouse gases, according to the latest figures from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
According to WMO’s Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 393.1 parts per million in 2012, or 141% of the pre-industrial level of 278 parts per million. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased on average by 2 parts per million per year for the past 10 years.
Since 2012, all monitoring stations in the Arctic have recorded average monthly CO2 concentrations in spring above 400 ppm, according to data received from Global Atmosphere Watch stations in Canada, the United States of America, Norway and Finland.
This trend has now spread to observing stations at lower latitudes. WMO’s global observing stations in Cape Verde, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Spain (Tenerife) and Switzerland all reported monthly mean concentrations above 400 ppm in both March and April.
In April, the monthly mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere passed 401.3 at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, according to NOAA. In 2013 this threshold was only passed on a couple of days. Mauna Loa is the oldest continuous CO2 atmospheric measurement station in the world (since 1958) and so is widely regarded as a benchmark site in the Global Atmosphere Watch.
The northern hemisphere has more anthropogenic sources of CO2 than the southern hemisphere. The biosphere also controls the seasonal cycle. The seasonal minimum of CO2 is in summer, when substantial uptake by plants takes place. The winter-spring peak is due to the lack of biospheric uptake, and increased sources related to decomposition of organic material, as well as anthropogenic emissions. The most pronounced seasonal cycle is therefore in the far north.
The WMO Global Atmosphere Watch coordinates observations of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases like methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere to ensure that measurements around the world are standardized and can be compared to each other. The network spans more than 50 countries including stations high in the Alps, Andes and Himalayas, as well as in the Arctic, Antarctic and in the far South Pacific. All stations are situated in unpolluted locations, although some are more influenced by the biosphere and anthropogenic sources (linked to human activities) than others.
The monthly mean concentrations are calculated on the basis of continuous measurements. There are about 130 stations that measure CO2 worldwide.
A summary of current climate change findings and figures is available here

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

They still parading out that distorted "97% consensus" claim? Exactly how many times do they plan to lie about that?


The CAGW belief system appears to operate on the idea that "How could humans not be controlling the earth?". Incredible ego.

We aren't that big a deal.

Perhaps you would care to explain how the climate changed throughout millions of years of earth history without us? And exactly why do you believe the climate should now not be changing for the very first time in the history of this planet? You got a logical reason to believe that?


Seriously? You actually believe we are going to cause earthquakes now?

Wow....religious people are funny.

Those "big companies" are a great example of how and why we adapt to problems and also why the doom predictions always fail and always will fail.

You're a pretty funny guy and I like that. It seems no matter what is presented to you that you will always evade the point and try and bring in some dissenting viewpoint that really has no relevancy at all. But I see you're from TX so I can't really expect all that much from you. It really is funny how Dr. Evo destroys you page after page yet you keep coming. You do relaize that the only reason some scientist don't agree with climate change is because it pads their wallets right?

 

[Destructus86]

Marco Rubio on Climate Change

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...humans-arent-behind-climate-change/?hpt=hp_t2


So he is saying that he knows that the climate scientists agree that humans cause global warming, but he is just going to ignore that fact. Got it.

And Mark, most respectable climatologists say that it is impossible to look at one specific weather event and say it is caused by global warming. They only look at long term trends.

I believe that climate change is a natural course for the planet. It goes from very hot to very cold and everything in between. We've seen it in our own history and we will continue to see this trend in the future. It's just a natural part of the Earth's cycle. I don't even see how it's debatable...I mean...how does anyone explain the ice age and the melting of said ice age as NOT being climate change? I do think we ARE having a huge impact on the climate though...as I will explain below.

As for overpopulation that some are mentioning...I am not convinced on that. I believe that it isn't a case of over-population. The problem is that we still stuck in our natural herd mentality. We like to keep close. So all our cities are squeezed together and thereby producing much more harmful chemicals and what not into the air causing issues with climate. We need to spread out...start living in many of the more wide open spaces that no one inhabits.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

I'm getting the distinct impression that you're trying to remain willfully ignorant. And, of course, that is your right, sad as that decision may be.

And I get the impression you are a bit religious in your adherence to a flawed theory. (Yet you are still on the internet "dooming the planet"....so your belief only goes so far) Aren't impressions fun? Do Katherine Hepburn next!

I'm not interested in that conversation right now, and that isn't the conversation we've been having for the past several pages. You can pretend that that's what we've been talking about, if you'd like, but that would make you either incredibly forgetful or incredibly dishonest. Pick one.

I don't think you get to dictate what I decide. If you get to be interested in something, I can certain do the same.

This is hopefully good news for everyone in this debate.

New Dual Carbon Battery Charges 20x Faster Than Lithium Ion

May 19, 2014 | by Lisa Winter
Power Japan Plus has announced an innovative new battery that charges up to twenty times faster and lasts longer than high-end lithium ion batteries. The company boasts that electric vehicles with the ability to drive 300 miles (480 km) on a single charge may soon be a reality. The Ryden dual carbon new battery is cheaper, safer, and 100% recyclable, making it an attractive option that could bring high-performance electric cars to market more quickly.

http://www.iflscience.com/technology/new-dual-carbon-battery-charges-20x-faster-lithium-ion

And from the "settled science" files:

Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests
May 23, 2014 by Sci-News.com
« PREVIOUS |
According to a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the Universe is not expanding at all.


In the space around us, on Earth, in the Solar System and our Milky Way Galaxy, as similar objects get farther away, they look fainter and smaller. Their surface brightness, that is the brightness per unit area, remains constant.

In contrast, the Big Bang theory tells us that in an expanding Universe objects actually should appear fainter but bigger. Thus in this theory, the surface brightness decreases with the distance. In addition, the light is stretched as the Universe expanded, further dimming the light.

So in an expanding Universe the most distant galaxies should have hundreds of times dimmer surface brightness than similar nearby galaxies, making them actually undetectable with present-day telescopes.

But that is not what observations show, as demonstrated by this new study published in the International Journal of Modern Physics D.

The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average luminosity of the near and far samples.

Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.

These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis.

“Of course, you can hypothesize that galaxies were much smaller, and thus had hundreds of times greater intrinsic surface brightness in the past, and that, just by coincidence, the Big Bang dimming exactly cancels that greater brightness at all distances to produce the illusion of a constant brightness, but that would be a very big coincidence,” Mr Lerner said.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

 

[JeetKuneDo]

​

CO2 concentrations top 400 parts per million throughout northern hemisphere​

I still notice "more CO2" somehow is "evidence" that "it's all because of mankind". Similar to the "warmer proves man caused it" logic.

This even though CO2 has risen far higher in the past without any input from humans at all. We are at historically low CO2 levels and a mere 400 ppm is a problem? Where is the logic here?

 

[JeetKuneDo]

You're a pretty funny guy and I like that. It seems no matter what is presented to you that you will always evade the point and try and bring in some dissenting viewpoint that really has no relevancy at all. But I see you're from TX so I can't really expect all that much from you. It really is funny how Dr. Evo destroys you page after page yet you keep coming. You do relaize that the only reason some scientist don't agree with climate change is because it pads their wallets right?

Interesting things you put out here. You actually seem to believe living inside an imaginary line on the earth's surface has something to do with anything. So you agree with Evo....naturally you think he is "destroying" me.

Any of course you also believe that every scientist who disagrees is being paid. That's a great way to not bother to listen to what they say. Never mind the fact that all the money is being made on the alarmist side of this. To the tune of 1 billion a day. Why would anyone be a skeptic if they were after money?

The Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2013 finds that global climate finance flows have plateaued at USD 359 billion, or around USD 1 billion per day – far below even the most conservative estimates of investment needs.

http://climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/global-landscape-of-climate-finance-2013/

That's right....1 billion a day isn't enough!

 

[KevanG]

I think the biggest impact we're having on the planet is that we're all complete idiots. Everything else is secondary.

 

[BestGirl]

As for overpopulation that some are mentioning...I am not convinced on that. I believe that it isn't a case of over-population. The problem is that we still stuck in our natural herd mentality. We like to keep close. So all our cities are squeezed together and thereby producing much more harmful chemicals and what not into the air causing issues with climate. We need to spread out...start living in many of the more wide open spaces that no one inhabits.

Many of these wide open spaces are either virtually uninhabitable, like deserts or tundra, or are places that ought to be preserved, like the Amazon rainforest.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

GISS loves to "adjust" the temperature data. By an amazing coincidence adjustments prior to 1960 are almost always downward (cooling the record) and adjustments post 1960 are almost always upward (warming the record). That's not suspicious at all, is it?



Fully expecting the last 15-20 years of data to be "adjusted" soon to get rid of the "pause".

 

[Doctor Evo]

And I get the impression you are a bit religious in your adherence to a flawed theory. (Yet you are still on the internet "dooming the planet"....so your belief only goes so far) Aren't impressions fun? Do Katherine Hepburn next!

I don't think you get to dictate what I decide. If you get to be interested in something, I can certain do the same.

You can keep shifting the frame of the discussion all you like (and it's rather apparent now that you're doing it on purpose). None of this changes the fact that populations can - and do - exceed their long-term carrying capacity.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

You can keep shifting the frame of the discussion all you like (and it's rather apparent now that you're doing it on purpose). None of this changes the fact that populations can - and do - exceed their long-term carrying capacity.

I don't agree with that at all. No human can exist without the means to exist.

 

[Feenix]

I don't agree with that at all. No human can exist without the means to exist.

But humans can continue to be born, regardless of whether the means to exist are there or not.

You're also forgetting that humans aren't spread out evenly around the globe. There are countries that are tearing at the seams because there are more people in that area than can be supported.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

But humans can continue to be born, regardless of whether the means to exist are there or not.

And if there is no way to support them, they die...very quickly.

You're also forgetting that humans aren't spread out evenly around the globe. There are countries that are tearing at the seams because there are more people in that area than can be supported.

We may be defining "more than can be supported" differently. I'm talking about having enough food to live. Even the most crowded places on earth like India and Hong Kong have enough to keep all the people alive.

We've got more than enough food today to feed everyone....there are some who can't get access to the food though. That is something we should talk about more instead of mythical global warming.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I don't agree with that at all. No human can exist without the means to exist.

The humans who cause the overshoot of carrying capacity do have the means to exist, but only temporarily. Just how temporary this period of time is depends upon several factors, as I mentioned before.

When you looked up the UN projection, did you even once stop to wonder why the population decreases before reaching a stable equilibrium? Do you understand what that stable equilibrium actually represents?

Again: you fail to take into account rates associated with these processes, instead opting to consider the more simplistic and less realistic set of assumptions implicit in your argument.

You can disagree until you're blue in the face. You're still wrong.

Read a book on the subject. It'll do you good. I recommend the text by Stephen Case.