Irreversible climate damage is imminent

[Unrepresented]

From GALLUP.com

The people won't concern themselves with things their perceived leadership tells them are non-concerns. Thankfully, there're qualified people studying this stuff even if the general public are being done the disservice of being misled by interest-laden leadership.

 

[Tom Bomb]

It's an amazing world we live in.

Record rains made Australia a giant green global carbon sink​

The swollen Fitzroy River in Queensland, Australia, where heavy rains in early 2011
led to extraordinary regrowth with a global impact. Capt. W. M. & Tatters/Flickr, CC BY-NC
​

22 May 2014, 6.22am AEST

Record-breaking rains triggered so much new growth across Australia that the continent turned into a giant green carbon sink to rival tropical rainforests including the Amazon, our new research shows.

Published in the international journal Nature, our study found that vegetation worldwide soaked up 4.1 billion tons of carbon in 2011 – the equivalent of more than 40% of emissions from burning fossil fuels that year.

Unexpectedly, the largest carbon uptake occurred in the semi-arid landscapes of Australia, Southern Africa and South America.

It set a new record for a land-based carbon sink since high-resolution records began in 1958, in a remarkable example of ecosystems working to stabilise the Earth’s climate.

And that had a global impact. While atmospheric carbon dioxide still rose in 2011, it grew at a much lower rate – nearly 20% lower – than the average growth over the previous decade.

Almost 60% of the higher than normal carbon uptake that year, or 840 million tons, happened in Australia. That was due to a combination of factors, including geography and a run of very dry years, followed by record-breaking rains in 2010 and 2011.…

 

[Tom Bomb]

Here's a little essay that provides some insights into the pseudo-science of scuttling. It comes from a link in a comment from the article above.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.​

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Published on November 16, 2008 by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist

Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. I have dispelled some of them (misconceptions, not scientists) in earlier posts (for example, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, beauty is only skin-deep, and you can’t judge a book by its cover). Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my ass tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.

 

[DwaynieAD]

I don't want to hear an argument over whatever they're calling climate change this week, I don't want the government's nose in it. I do want some practical and sustainable green energy solutions that don't need propped up by billions in government money.

go.

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

Wow, how did you get all that from my statement . I think if we as a species could live even a little more conservative across the board it would make a VAST difference. Everyday I drive down the street around gigantic trucks that have no noticeable work look to them, I see couples living in houses made for 10, I see drive through paper and plastic by the mountain load, I see highway right away's mowed for no reason, indoor malls kept at 68 degrees, Wal Marts full of absolute junk bought at amazing rates etc etc on and on. We could easily live very comfortably with way less without eating grass or "always" walking to work. I never suggested going back to the stone age. There is no way to not leave a foot print, but how big does it have to be? Honestly.
Your statement is a superb example of why I think it is futile to believe a change could ever really happen.

My statement was intentionally over the top. Your post made it sound like it was necessary to get absurd to make a point. I can't disagree with you reply. I agree we don't really need what we are consuming. I agree we should be more conservative with all our resources. What I can't agree on is the idea that we humans can destroy all life on the planet with our misbehavior. As I have said previously, we can certainly make a localized mess. We have a long history of that, but we don't have to be Chicken Little, either.

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

You do realize you are responding to and quoting your own posts, GravDav?
This way lies madness.

That's weird. Thought I was responding to a different post.

 

[Darth Handsome]

You do realize you are responding to and quoting your own posts, GravDav?
This way lies madness.

He's from Texas, eh.

 

[Gab124]

My statement was intentionally over the top. Your post made it sound like it was necessary to get absurd to make a point. I can't disagree with you reply. I agree we don't really need what we are consuming. I agree we should be more conservative with all our resources. What I can't agree on is the idea that we humans can destroy all life on the planet with our misbehavior. As I have said previously, we can certainly make a localized mess. We have a long history of that, but we don't have to be Chicken Little, either.

Cool. I am glad to hear your statement was more over the top, it was just so easy to believe because multitudes of people actually feel that way. I would completely agree with you that we cannot destroy all life on earth, particularly since my major and occupation is biology. However, that is not to say that we cannot ruin things for ourselves very easily, and seem to continue to try as hard as we might to do just that. I would certainly disagree with you that we are only capable of a 'localized mess', we are very capable of a global mess. The thing about ecological systems is that they are extremely sensitive and fragile to changes (second most sensitive being our economy, which is tied to a healthy ecosystem that people tend to forget), and although life in general will not be lost by a long shot, our way of living could certainly be destroyed leaving people chanting 'whut happened'. I think for all our intelligence we are the dumbest species on earth. Bring politics, religion and greed into that pool of ignorance and oh baby have you got a runaway train on your hands hell bent on not thinking anything out It is kind of entertaining to watch though, kind of a mass Darwin Awards'.

 

[Unrepresented]

I don't want to hear an argument over whatever they're calling climate change this week, I don't want the government's nose in it. I do want some practical and sustainable green energy solutions that don't need propped up by billions in government money.

go.

You want a fledgling industry to be competitive with an industry that's been established for over a century and already has been propped up by billions in government money?

 

[DwaynieAD]

You want a fledgling industry to be competitive with an industry that's been established for over a century and already has been propped up by billions in government money?

I want actual alternatives instead of arguing and straw men.

how many companies that tax payers were forcibly invested in have gone belly up?

when it costs twice as much to buy my electricity from a wind farm than it does from a coal fired plant all the feel goods in the world don't refill my wallet so I can feed my family

less bs more actual solutions, because that's all this thread has been is bs about what we should be doing, damned if you don't agree for any reason, who gives a rip if your family is starving atleast you didn't burn any natural gas.

 

[Unrepresented]

I want actual alternatives instead of arguing and straw men.

how many companies that tax payers were forcibly invested in have gone belly up?

when it costs twice as much to buy my electricity from a wind farm than it does from a coal fired plant all the feel goods in the world don't refill my wallet so I can feed my family

less bs more actual solutions, because that's all this thread has been is bs about what we should be doing, damned if you don't agree for any reason, who gives a rip if your family is starving atleast you didn't burn any natural gas.

How many companies that tax payers were forced to subsidize have resulted in massive ecological disasters like, say five million barrels of oil being dumped in the gulf of Mexico?

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

Cool. I am glad to hear your statement was more over the top, it was just so easy to believe because multitudes of people actually feel that way. I would completely agree with you that we cannot destroy all life on earth, particularly since my major and occupation is biology. However, that is not to say that we cannot ruin things for ourselves very easily, and seem to continue to try as hard as we might to do just that. I would certainly disagree with you that we are only capable of a 'localized mess', we are very capable of a global mess. The thing about ecological systems is that they are extremely sensitive and fragile to changes (second most sensitive being our economy, which is tied to a healthy ecosystem that people tend to forget), and although life in general will not be lost by a long shot, our way of living could certainly be destroyed leaving people chanting 'whut happened'. I think for all our intelligence we are the dumbest species on earth. Bring politics, religion and greed into that pool of ignorance and oh baby have you got a runaway train on your hands hell bent on not thinking anything out It is kind of entertaining to watch though, kind of a mass Darwin Awards'.

See, I told you we agree on a lot. Saddly, were I to place a bet, it would be on the "whut happened" being the eventual outcome. You did nail it on the ecomomy, although one could argue the economy is more fragil and certainly totally affected by whatever we do at a social or political level. There in lies a big part of the argument.
Previously I had stated that the environmental issue is used by some as an excuse to gain more social control. I stand by that. Additionally, their activities are having a detrimental effect on the economy and sometimes negative effects on the environment. But, on the other hand, over production and over indulgent lifestyles have negative effects on both as well. The problem is finding a reasonable balance.
Here is an example of what I mean by over zealous environmentalists. Electric Cars. Let's look at the environmental effects. First, the batteries are very toxic. They create toxic waste and consume large quantities of energy to produce. Disposal is a problem, because the worn out battery is toxic. And the electricity to power them is not free. Oil or coal will most likely be burned to create the electricity to charge the battery, and with line loss and other inefficiencies in the delivery system, less than 100% of the energy produced is used by the car. Yes, there is wind, hydro, and nuclear, but those are ony a small part of the electric system. So I see them doing more harm than good. Oh, and just for fun, read the federal standards on the procedure to follow should you break one of the new light bulbs. You have to clean them up quickly so the fumes don't kill your puppies, kitties, or babies. Some a demo of the procedure on TV. It was, at one level, very funny. It involves protective clothing.
So when I'm told the environmentalists have it all figured out and all we need to do is follow their instuctions, I ain't buying in.

 

[Immigrant]

I guess curing Cancer or other horrible diseases includes progress being made in small increments, so we might as well just give up on it. All at once or nothing.

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

He's from Texas, eh.

I guess curing Cancer or other horrible diseases includes progress being made in small increments, so we might as well just give up on it. All at once or nothing.

Bleeding with leeches was once considered and acceptable medical practice. I don't think anyone is saying all or nothing. The point is to do the right things with no politics involved and when we recognize it isn't working or is doing harm, then stop and try something else.

 

[pacojas]

Tesla solved the worlds "energy needs" problem in the last century! he demonstrated it and still TPTB have shelfed this technology in favor of fo$$il fuels.
we live in an atmosphere of charged particles and broadband frequencies. i'm not the only novice that understands what happens when you introduce a quartz crystal into the equation!
if i ran the world,... FREE CLEAN ENERGY FOR EVERYONE!!! it's our birth right as humans (in a perfect world). money & greed are the prominate mitigating factors in the downfall of a healthy environment, IMHO.

carry on!

 

[NWB]

Tesla solved the worlds "energy needs" problem in the last century! he demonstrated it and still TPTB have shelfed this technology in favor of fo$$il fuels.
we live in an atmosphere of charged particles and broadband frequencies. i'm not the only novice that understands what happens when you introduce a quartz crystal into the equation!
if i ran the world,... FREE CLEAN ENERGY FOR EVERYONE!!! it's our birth right as humans (in a perfect world). money & greed are the prominate mitigating factors in the downfall of a healthy environment, IMHO.

carry on!

Implement this technology to power your home to show us how it all works. When you can power your bass rig with quartz, I'm sure everyone on this board will follow your example!

 

[Darth Handsome]

Tesla solved the worlds "energy needs" problem in the last century!

He also recorded Signs, one of my favorite Drunk Songs.

 

[nukes_da_bass]

Quartz power supply is Tr0o Kvlt!

 

[DerHoggz]

A thread isn't a tr0o TB0T thread until pacojas chimes in.

 

[pacojas]

Implement this technology to power your home to show us how it all works. When you can power your bass rig with quartz, I'm sure everyone on this board will follow your example!

i'm sure the military has these circuits in use as we speak. they can literally draw electricity out of thin air! consumers will once again have to wait 50-100yrs before its "the next big thing"!