Climate Change

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby saul » Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:59 am

John Starr wrote:I am writting this post to gain insight into the EU position on climate change. As I gather, EU dispells with the mainstream view of weather prediction and temprerures rises being generated by CO2 emissions and opt for weather correalations to sun spot cycles. I base this on Ben Davidsons you tube vid on the topic. I was posed a question today as to why the ice (presumably at the poles) is melting. Does EU acknowledge that the ice is in fact melting and sea levels rising? If so, is tempreture the cause and does this rising temp correlate to sun spot cycles?


Wow, climate change. Thanks for bringing it up. A lot of my heroes here seem to have been pulled in various directions and need centering.

First of all, as usual, please be precise about what you are talking about if you are addressing this topic! Many of you assume that "climate change" means something specific to your viewers. It doesn't. This could mean my air conditioner, the heat and air pollution in a city, desertification, changing biomes and loss of habitat, or global mean temperature and the Earth-Heliosphere connected system.

Second, I would say avoid taking the bait on this issue. Don't take a "side". If there are any "sides" on this issue I see those who wish to have a meaningful discussion, and those who wish for political polarization and to avoid asking the tricky questions. The tricky questions such as when will the current mass extinction turn around? What are we doing wrong now that could be improved to help the survival and happiness of future generations? In my opinion future generations are likely to be more interested in biodiversity, clean air and water and arable land than exactly where the coastline is or what latitudes still allow for ski resorts.
saul
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Jun 05, 2014 5:45 am

saul wrote:The tricky questions such as when will the current mass extinction turn around?
Which and how many animals have recently become extinct?

saul wrote:What are we doing wrong now that could be improved to help the survival and happiness of future generations?
Alternatively, what about preventing millions of premature deaths by providing access to cheap energy and clean water right now, and let future generations use their future technology to mitigate for their currently unknowable future problems.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby Zendo » Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:52 am

Aardwolf wrote:
saul wrote:The tricky questions such as when will the current mass extinction turn around?
Which and how many animals have recently become extinct?


As far as I know the biodiversity decrease is the result of habitat loss because of human habitat expansion, transformation of rain forest to agricultural lands, over-fishing and the release of toxins into fragile ecosystems. Being almost unable to take care of our own species, with over 1 billion people starving although we produce more than enough food, I find it unsurprising that we are also fueling extinctions of other species on a massive scale.
Zendo
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:15 am

Zendo wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
saul wrote:The tricky questions such as when will the current mass extinction turn around?
Which and how many animals have recently become extinct?


As far as I know the biodiversity decrease is the result of habitat loss because of human habitat expansion, transformation of rain forest to agricultural lands, over-fishing and the release of toxins into fragile ecosystems. Being almost unable to take care of our own species, with over 1 billion people starving although we produce more than enough food, I find it unsurprising that we are also fueling extinctions of other species on a massive scale.
Like I said, which and how many animals have recently become extinct?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:28 am

Zendo wrote:As far as I know the biodiversity decrease...
What biodiversity decrease? On the contrary, according to satellite research;
Abstract wrote:Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. The role in this greening of the “CO2 fertilization” effect—the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels—is yet to be established. The direct CO2 effect on vegetation should be most clearly expressed in warm, arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth. Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analyzed to remove the effect of variations in precipitation, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby Zendo » Fri Jun 06, 2014 5:05 am

Aardwolf wrote:
Zendo wrote:As far as I know the biodiversity decrease...
What biodiversity decrease? On the contrary, according to satellite research;
Abstract wrote:Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. The role in this greening of the “CO2 fertilization” effect—the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels—is yet to be established. The direct CO2 effect on vegetation should be most clearly expressed in warm, arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth. Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analyzed to remove the effect of variations in precipitation, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract


Thanks for the update. I wasn't aware of this data:)
Zendo
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby saul » Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:46 am

Aardwolf wrote:
saul wrote:The tricky questions such as when will the current mass extinction turn around?
Which and how many animals have recently become extinct?


Of course the exact number is impossible to arrive at but we may be losing something like 30,000 species per year.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -extincti/
http://www.mysterium.com/extinction.html
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/0 ... story.html
<-- some places to start

Aardwolf wrote:
saul wrote:What are we doing wrong now that could be improved to help the survival and happiness of future generations?
Alternatively, what about preventing millions of premature deaths by providing access to cheap energy and clean water right now, and let future generations use their future technology to mitigate for their currently unknowable future problems.


I certainly agree with letting future generations use their technology as they choose. Not much choice about that is there :) I'm curious what premature deaths you are referring to? Certainly, enabling more areas to get cheap energy and clean water is a noble goal and will help with many things. It's hard to consider the effect of our actions on the larger system when we have to focus on getting clean water at a specific location.
saul
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:56 pm

saul wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
saul wrote:The tricky questions such as when will the current mass extinction turn around?
Which and how many animals have recently become extinct?


Of course the exact number is impossible to arrive at but we may be losing something like 30,000 species per year.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -extincti/
http://www.mysterium.com/extinction.html
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/0 ... story.html
<-- some places to start
Articles discussing mass extinctions isn't good enough. If you believe circa 30,000 animals a year are going extinct, name just one for each year going back 20 years. Apparently you have about 600,000 animals to choose from. It's not up to me to research facts behind your statement.

saul wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
saul wrote:What are we doing wrong now that could be improved to help the survival and happiness of future generations?
Alternatively, what about preventing millions of premature deaths by providing access to cheap energy and clean water right now, and let future generations use their future technology to mitigate for their currently unknowable future problems.


I certainly agree with letting future generations use their technology as they choose. Not much choice about that is there :) I'm curious what premature deaths you are referring to?
Seriously? You have multiple links to spurious "reports" of animal extinction but have never visited or heard of the World Health Organisation?
WHO wrote:Infant mortality

Situation

A child's risk of dying is highest in the neonatal period, the first 28 days of life. About 3.3 million babies died in 2009 in their first month of life and 2.6 million are stillborn. Within the first month, one quarter to one half of all deaths occurs within the first 24 hours of life, and 75% occur in the first week. Preterm birth, birth asphyxia (lack of breathing at birth), and infections cause most neonatal deaths. From the end of the neonatal period and through the first five years of life, the main causes of death are pneumonia, diarrhoea, malaria, measles and HIV/AIDS. Malnutrition is the underlying contributing factor in over one third of all child deaths, making children more vulnerable to severe disease. In urban areas of Africa, Americas and Asia we can see that children in the poorest 20% population are twice as likely to die before their first birthday compared to children in the richest 20% population.
http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/outcomes/infant_mortality_text/en/

This is just the children. With help most if not all these deaths are preventable.

saul wrote: Certainly, enabling more areas to get cheap energy and clean water is a noble goal and will help with many things. It's hard to consider the effect of our actions on the larger system when we have to focus on getting clean water at a specific location.
It will help with many things, saving lives mainly. However, billions spent on unknowable future problems doesn't help anyone.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby Sparky » Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:00 pm

I heard a good argument on utube: The downside of doing nothing is enormous if there is something that can be done. The upside of doing something , even if there is nothing that can help, is improvements that will benefit everyone.

Why take the chance. Let's clean up our act. ;)
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby kell1990 » Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:22 pm

Sparky wrote:I heard a good argument on utube: The downside of doing nothing is enormous if there is something that can be done. The upside of doing something , even if there is nothing that can help, is improvements that will benefit everyone.

Why take the chance. Let's clean up our act. ;)


Because it is the variations in the output of the sun that causes fluctuations in the temperature of the oceans. Fluctuations in the temperature of the oceans determine the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Those fluctuations in ocean temperature are caused by fluctuations in the output energy of the sun.

We are entering a cooling period on Earth. It is very easy to follow the temperature of the Earth with the output of the Sun. Everyone here has seen numerous illustrations of the connectivity between the activity on the Sun and the temperature on the Earth. We've all seen the pictures of the Thames River frozen over, and "Washington Crossing the Delaware". Both are instances when the various bodies of water were frozen over, something that doesn't happen very often. Both these instances happened because of a lack of output of energy from the Sun. It correalates exactly with sunspot activity.

Take the word "tax" out of this argument, and it soon disappears. "Cap and Trade" is code for taxing the poor to feed the rich.
kell1990
Guest
 

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby Sparky » Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:05 am

Because it is the variations in the output of the sun that causes fluctuations in the temperature of the oceans.


Dogmatic speculation. :? It's all way above my pay grade. :oops: A little tax now may prevent one hellva outlay to rebuild the world. :? But, what do I know? Not much, when it comes to saving the world...So, watch your pennies carefully, that the
rich don't take them... ;)
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:30 am

Sparky wrote:I heard a good argument on utube: The downside of doing nothing is enormous if there is something that can be done. The upside of doing something , even if there is nothing that can help, is improvements that will benefit everyone.
The trouble is there is no way of knowing what problems will occur in the future to be able to determine what that something should be.

Sparky wrote:Why take the chance. Let's clean up our act. ;)
Nothing wrong with that sentiment but why are we spending billions on an unknown future problem while those billions could be used to save lives and generally improve the living condintions and health of millions of people right now.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby Sparky » Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:13 am

The cost argument! Not logical at all, when you consider all useless expenditures. :roll:
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby nick c » Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:10 pm

Sparky wrote:The cost argument! Not logical at all, when you consider all useless expenditures

Actually it is quite logical.
Private companies that are forced by government regulations designed to fight global warming will suffer increased costs that will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods produced. This enormous cost is pure waste if climate change has nothing to do with human actions, and can only serve to lower the overall standard of living.
Your use of the term "useless expenditures" is probably directed at government inefficiency, but that is another issue and not relevant to putting a "carbon tax" or other regulations on private businesses.
Earth's climate change originates in the electrical connection with the Sun, and there is no legislation that can affect that.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2464
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Climate Change

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:16 pm

Sparky wrote:The cost argument! Not logical at all, when you consider all useless expenditures. :roll:
Please elaborate. What cost argument are you referring to?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest