Eaarth

[NeilBlanchard]

Lake Mead was at a record low this past year; and it could not be able to provide water for the southwest USA in about 10 years:

Lake Mead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jason, leaving the discussion doesn't change the reality. Have you ever taken medical drugs? Then you owe the safety of those medicines to horseshoe crab blood. Isn't this pretty amazing news to you? Doesn't it make you curious about other things in the world that are totally unexpected? Science takes us in unexpected directions, and also shows that all life forms are important.

We humans are totally interdependent with all other life and the reason that the Earth is the way it is -- is because of life. Cyanobacteria first split water and made the oxygen available for animal life to form, and all along the way for several billion years, plants pulled carbon dioxide out of the air and put it into the Earth's crust. All life is in balance -- this is proven by survival.

Now, humans have taken a lot of that carbon back out of the Earth's crust and put it into the air, in the blink of an eye.

[NeilBlanchard]

Some of my science sources:

sciencefriday.com - making science user-friendly

PhysOrg.com - Science News, Technology, Physics, Nanotechnology, Space Science, Earth Science, Medicine

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/

Robert Krulwich : NPR

Energy Channel - Technology Review

NOVA | PBS

Nature | PBS

UCS | Union of Concerned Scientists

Science : NPR

[user removed]

Quantify with precise percentages the amount of carbon in the atmosphere today that is directly attributed to deforestation?

Quantify with precise percentages the amount of carbon in the atmosphere that is directly attributable to the increase in human population?

Two fairly simple basic questions. With all these various factors as the direct cause of human induced global climate change, I ask these two questions to see what these two simple causes would be as a percentage of the total increase in carbon particle percentages.

Just the facts please. If these two simple questions can not be answered precisely how can any credible precision be attributed to any other cause of increased atmospheric carbon.

regards
Mech

[t vago]

That's great, Neil. You chose sources that either get funding from the government, or that are run by true believers just like yourself. "Organized interests seeking to delay desperately needed actions to reduce heat-trapping emissions have manufactured controversies and misrepresented the facts." Oh, please. "Tell Rupert Murdoch: Get the Facts Straight. Send a message today." Are you kidding me?

No skepticism, no alternative explanations for what could cause what we're seeing, no defense of AGW on its merits. Just calling the opposition a bunch of deniers and "special interests." Oh, and calling for drastic changes in our lifestyles to head off hypothetical changes called for by a half-baked pseudoscientific political idea.

[t vago]

Oh, and I love this little tidbit.

In addition to being cleared by the National Academies of Science, Mann's work was cleared by a chief critic. Keith Briffa, a University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit scientist, initially questioned the hockey stick being included in the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report because it conflicted with his tree ring data findings. Briffa now agrees that Mann's findings, including the sharp increase in temperatures in the late twentieth century, are correct.

Oh, let's see. A scientist who worked at a now-discredited university (because that university published fabricated results, misrepresented data, moved to suppress dissenting voices from being published by scientific publications, and resisted repeated Freedom of Information Act requests by their government concerning AGW) defends this fraudster Michael Mann. And the website calls on its true believers to contact the VA attorney general's office to tell them to quit "harassing" this fraud, because using the power of law enforcement to prosecute fraud is somehow "chilling" to this "scientific community."

Scientific misconduct does occasionally occur, but the responsibility for policing that misconduct should reside with other scientific experts, such as journal editors, university colleagues or the National Academies of Science.

Not when you drag government funding into it, buster. Once government funding is brought into the picture, scientific misconduct becomes fraud.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

Quantify with precise percentages the amount of carbon in the atmosphere today that is directly attributed to deforestation?

Quantify with precise percentages the amount of carbon in the atmosphere that is directly attributable to the increase in human population?

Not sure about the first question, but the second question is answered easily enough. It is estimated that the oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon dioxide, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT, the atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2, and Mankind contributes 6 GT. That's 8/10s of 1 percent caused by Mankind.

[user removed]

Deforestation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The estimates seem to vary considerably, but the average seems to be around 12%. The question remains as to how far back they go, since deforestation was one of the first human impacts on the carbon cycle dating back thousands of years.

Global population in the year of my birth, 1950, was around 2.57 billion. Today it is something like 6.5 billion.

I would consider the sum of those two factors alone would be a significant amount of any carbon increase from human induced effects.

I am neither advocate or adversary in this fight, but when you consider just these two very significant factors, you could rationally conclude that they would be the prime reasons for increased carbon in the atmosphere. In fact you could possible argue that the per capita carbon emissions have actually been reduced as human kind has used up the forests for heat and switched to better sources. Even coal is an improvement over wood.

I remember when I was young and London England outlawed the use of bituminous coal for heating, switching to anthracite coal. It seems like that single act had much to do with the reduction in the fogs London was notorious for 50 years ago.

I believe that the issue of climate change will be resolved by many different efforts, and one of the most significant (in my biased and agenda driven opinion) would be adoption of my design into vehicles, which has been demonstrated to reduce fuel consumption dramatically.

Whether that adoption would be driven by the economics of elimination of oil imports into the US (as well as the rest of the planet), or whether it would significantly reduce pollution as a result of the same adaption, is irrelevant. What is relevant, is the driving force behind the design was to make energy conservation cost effective, which makes adoption virtually automatic, when you eliminate the, normally multi decade payback period of many other options that seem to be preferred by some.

regards
Mech

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Conspiracy theories require extraordinary proof.

But your scientific theories require NO proof. It's 'heads I win, tails you lose'.

Accusing the messenger of personal failings doesn't work, either. Are you calling me a fool and a stooge?

YES. And not just you but all the other gullible fools (useful idiots) who subscribe to this politically expedient hoax. There are two possibilities: either you are a fanatical 'believer' and are doing it out of pure belief (see below), or your activism is paying off for you in some tangible way.

Have you even glanced at my online record? I'm guessing I have at least 20,000 posts all over the Internet, and as many emails. I have put my name on every single one of 'em. Check my record; and then if you still feel like calling me a fool, then you've got bigger problems than me. Read my blog, look at my CarBEN EV open source design -- I am a serious, concerned, civil person, and I don't appreciate being accused of being a shill.

You definitely, unequivocally are a zealot as befits your own description. The "record" you just described shows that this is your raison d'etre. You are getting something out your avowed, extensive activity as an activist, otherwise you would not be obsessed with it.

But, we can choose to change before we are forced to.

Obviously if enough useful idiots support this movement we will eventually be forced by a Leftist government to comply with whatever legal regulations and restrictions they enact. That's the real "forced" part. It won't just be theoretical - it will be rammed down our throats, like every other coercive measure. But the first step is to generate mass acceptance of it (which is what this movement is trying to do.)

Isn't that what our knowledge and intelligence is for?

Look at it from the other end of the telescope: knowledge and intelligence can be utilized to make people aware of a political ploy when they see it. This activist movement is dependent upon mass delusion, as in the Emperor's New Clothes: the 'experts' declared that the clothes were real, the king bought into it and everyone else fell into line and saluted the idea, agreeing that it must be true - (well, almost everyone... )

[NeilBlanchard]

We will see how things progress, won't we? Physics and chemistry don't wait to be verified beyond all doubt; or until all the skeptics are convinced.

Will average temperatures continue to rise?
Will the ocean level continue to rise?
Will the ocean continue to acidify (by absorbing carbon dioxide turning it into carbonic acid)?
Will the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica continue to thin?
Will Arctic ice cap continue to shrink?
Will we see more frequent intense storms?
Will droughts become normal (as they have in Australia)?
Will the world's glaciers retreat faster and faster?
Will weather patterns continue to fluctuate outside of the norm?
Will the tropical zone continue to expand?
Will there be more corral bleaching?
Will plankton continue to decline?
Will the fossil water aquifers be depleted?
Will the boreal forests continue to die off?
Will the tundra continue to melt, and release even more methane?
Will there be more climate driven migrations (as parts of East Africa, Bangladesh, and low elevation islands and deltas are having)?
Will there be more crop failures?
Will there be more jellyfish and algae blooms?
Will we see more and more wildfires caused by the increased droughts along with more lightning?

****

Will we make the switch to renewable energy before we are forced to?
Will we go back to organic farming before we run out of oil and chemical fertilizers?
Will we turn out the cattle, pigs, and chickens onto natural pastures, or continue with factory farms that reduce calories 20:1?
Will superweeds outstrip our ability to poison them, or will we abandon monoculture?
Will we continue to strip away all the forests, and end up like Haiti, or will we reforest our land like South Korea?
Will we acknowledge our complete dependence on this Earth, and the interdependence of all life to maintain the delicate balance we have evolved into?

[t vago]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

We will see how things progress, won't we? Physics and chemistry don't wait to be verified beyond all doubt; or until all the skeptics are convinced.

Oh, yes... doom and gloom... we must act NOW!!! Eaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarth is dying!!!

This is the best rebuttal you can come up with? In the face of all sorts of irregularities that have shown to be associated with AGW?