EV's

wrote:

This article about Carbon cycle is interesting below is two paragraphs I thought were of particular interest.

www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topic...cycles/carbon-cycle/




Some groups collect water samples from the oceans, analyzing them for carbon content. Repeated over many years, such studies provide basic information on how the oceans are absorbing and releasing carbon dioxide. But they have revealed unexpected complexities in these processes, making it more difficult to fully understand how human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, impacts the carbon cycle.

To address those complications, scientists turn to mathematical and computer models of the carbon cycle. They input the basic variables that are known to affect the cycle, then test the model using real-world data. Variables included in the models include wind speeds, temperature, currents, and more. These models have found that natural processes affect the ocean’s ability to absorb carbon in a variety of ways.

 

Interesting website.  It goes to the heart of climate change, that it's a complex subject.  Here is another quote from it.

"Human activity has driven up atmospheric carbon dioxide to levels not seen in more than 800,000 years. A greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide acts as a blanket, trapping heat from the sun and holding it close Earth’s surface. As we increase levels of this gas in the atmosphere, we have been causing Earth to warm, which has wide-ranging implications."

wrote:

All charts are made by man. We would be naïve if we blindly accept they are made out of pure mankind’s interest in mind. The climate “industry” has to be a multi, multi, billion dollar entity. If we fall for the fact these guys are not chasing money we are taking a huge factor out of all of the equations. I’m trying to be open minded but add in the money pumped into this and how hypocritical some of the biggest climate warriors are really makes me stop and think

I have to say that I don't have the time, the interest or the knowledge to sift through the plethora of information available on this topic and to try an decide what is accurate and what isn't. There are certain religious orders in the UK that believe that the world is 2022 years old and that the "big bang theory" "dinosaurs" and evolution are lies dreamt up by "non-believers" and they are teaching their children this in schools which leaves their young people poorly prepared for the world when they enter it. To my mind it is a simple question

As an individual what level of risk do you feel is acceptable based on scepticism ?

PS: I am not trying to open a new debate around religion, but am pointing out the range of beliefs that people hold

wrote:

wrote:

This article about Carbon cycle is interesting below is two paragraphs I thought were of particular interest.

www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topic...cycles/carbon-cycle/




Some groups collect water samples from the oceans, analyzing them for carbon content. Repeated over many years, such studies provide basic information on how the oceans are absorbing and releasing carbon dioxide. But they have revealed unexpected complexities in these processes, making it more difficult to fully understand how human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, impacts the carbon cycle.

To address those complications, scientists turn to mathematical and computer models of the carbon cycle. They input the basic variables that are known to affect the cycle, then test the model using real-world data. Variables included in the models include wind speeds, temperature, currents, and more. These models have found that natural processes affect the ocean’s ability to absorb carbon in a variety of ways.


 

Interesting website.  It goes to the heart of climate change, that it's a complex subject.  Here is another quote from it.

"Human activity has driven up atmospheric carbon dioxide to levels not seen in more than 800,000 years. A greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide acts as a blanket, trapping heat from the sun and holding it close Earth’s surface. As we increase levels of this gas in the atmosphere, we have been causing Earth to warm, which has wide-ranging implications."

Interesting how later in that article as I posted they thread the needle and play both side by saying how the don’t really understand how mankind affects carbon. They must be collecting money from both sides. Lol. We are not going to resolve this within a Motorcycle forum, I’m sure its way to muddy to do that. HardRockMiner I appreciate your intelligent thought out reply’s. I was not trying to one up you, only to show you opposing views, without the intent of changing your stance. We need both side of a subject to be expressed. It called checks and balances. If we still had an objective media, these discussions would be documented in a more equal view. I’m a big outside guy, I love the natural beauty places present to us. If we could purely rely on true science I’m sure the majority of us would be more willing to meet in the middle and help. It our leaders and big money that push us into our respective corners and vehemently fight off the other side. As with most things money corrupts!

wrote:

wrote:

All charts are made by man. We would be naïve if we blindly accept they are made out of pure mankind’s interest in mind. The climate “industry” has to be a multi, multi, billion dollar entity. If we fall for the fact these guys are not chasing money we are taking a huge factor out of all of the equations. I’m trying to be open minded but add in the money pumped into this and how hypocritical some of the biggest climate warriors are really makes me stop and think

I have to say that I don't have the time, the interest or the knowledge to sift through the plethora of information available on this topic and to try an decide what is accurate and what isn't. There are certain religious orders in the UK that believe that the world is 2022 years old and that the "big bang theory" "dinosaurs" and evolution are lies dreamt up by "non-believers" and they are teaching their children this in schools which leaves their young people poorly prepared for the world when they enter it. To my mind it is a simple question

As an individual what level of risk do you feel is acceptable based on scepticism ?

PS: I am not trying to open a new debate around religion, but am pointing out the range of beliefs that people hold


 

Are they wearing black jogging suites and wearing Nike tennis shoes. Lol. Yikes!!! The socialist in the US have been targeting our youth also. They play the long game and know if they can corrupt the youth now, when they grow up they will have heards of sheep. 

Admittedly, I have not read all the pages on this thread but I’ll throw my .02 in anyway. This is what I believe is a major source of the planet's woes… we’re stuffing ten pounds of crap in a five pound box. These charts with detailed explanations are available everywhere on the web. It frightens me to look at it.
Edit: I just noticed this graph only goes to 2019. I believe there are 8.5 billion people now.
 

I know the amount of people on earth now seems like a scary number but if you took the entire acreage of the United States (2.43 billion acres) and put the entire world's population inside of it (say 8 billion people)  each person would have 1/3 of an acre to live on.

I'm not saying you do that but this will give you some perspective about the size of the world and how much land we don't inhabit.

wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

This article about Carbon cycle is interesting below is two paragraphs I thought were of particular interest.

www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topic...cycles/carbon-cycle/




Some groups collect water samples from the oceans, analyzing them for carbon content. Repeated over many years, such studies provide basic information on how the oceans are absorbing and releasing carbon dioxide. But they have revealed unexpected complexities in these processes, making it more difficult to fully understand how human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, impacts the carbon cycle.

To address those complications, scientists turn to mathematical and computer models of the carbon cycle. They input the basic variables that are known to affect the cycle, then test the model using real-world data. Variables included in the models include wind speeds, temperature, currents, and more. These models have found that natural processes affect the ocean’s ability to absorb carbon in a variety of ways.



 

Interesting website.  It goes to the heart of climate change, that it's a complex subject.  Here is another quote from it.

"Human activity has driven up atmospheric carbon dioxide to levels not seen in more than 800,000 years. A greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide acts as a blanket, trapping heat from the sun and holding it close Earth’s surface. As we increase levels of this gas in the atmosphere, we have been causing Earth to warm, which has wide-ranging implications."

Interesting how later in that article as I posted they thread the needle and play both side by saying how the don’t really understand how mankind affects carbon. They must be collecting money from both sides. Lol. We are not going to resolve this within a Motorcycle forum, I’m sure its way to muddy to do that. HardRockMiner I appreciate your intelligent thought out reply’s. I was not trying to one up you, only to show you opposing views, without the intent of changing your stance. We need both side of a subject to be expressed. It called checks and balances. If we still had an objective media, these discussions would be documented in a more equal view. I’m a big outside guy, I love the natural beauty places present to us. If we could purely rely on true science I’m sure the majority of us would be more willing to meet in the middle and help. It our leaders and big money that push us into our respective corners and vehemently fight off the other side. As with most things money corrupts!

To be clear, the physical properties of CO2 have been clearly understood for several hundred years.  It absorbs radiative energy at the wavelengths I mentioned several pages ago.  As CO2 concentration increases in the atmosphere its increased heat impact on the greenhouse effect can be estimated.  There is a formula to do that, but scientists use a more accurate method by counting the impact at each and every wavelength in what is called longwave radiation.  The result is measured by satellite as the spectrum I published where you can see how much is absorbed and by which gas.  This can be compared to the theoretical value, and it compares fairly closely.  The math gets complicated by a number of factors, including clouds, which tend to prevent radiation from moving upwards into space.  There are other variables that I won't get into here.  Suffice to say that scientists have a pretty good handle on this, but not a complete one.

My view is that regardless of why climate is changing we need to prepare for the consequences of greater variability in weather patterns due to climate change.  1 in 100 year floods may become 1 in 10 years.  Similar pattern for droughts.  A greater concern in my view is the social disruption we'll begin to see in areas where summer temperatures begin to reach unliveable levels, causing millions or even hundreds of millions of people to head for cooler climates.  This will cause massive problems for countries like Canada and the USA.  Whether one believes that climate change is human caused or not....it's changing and we will need to prepare for a very different planet in the future.

Blipco I think you might be onto something here, what is the solution ?
How about we start by "culling" the sick, weak, criminal and unemployed. Then phase 2 could be 1 child per household and mandatory euthanasia at age 55. This would remove all the economic drains on society and those that are left can all run "blown big blocks" without jeopardising the polar bears 

 

Just "kicking the nest" not trying to be condescending  

hardrockminer post=875144

SWest post=875138Did you watch the whole interview?
Steve

No Steve.  That first statement was enough for me.  It was a real belly laugher!  

Look..I'm not interested in a debate where I provide facts and you throw up links to silly websites.  I thrown up a couple myself.  Have you investigated them?  If not, then we are done.

I thought so. He makes a very good case about how oil is formed and all facets on both sides leading up to this day.  He takes into account the different views without using buzz words and left handed slights exhibited here. He has come to the conclusion it is about money and control not science and fuzzy math,  Fear porn is also a favorite to stifle debate. All leading down the path to NWO being the ultimate goal. They ignore the fact we have the cleanest air quality in decades while in Asia they have the worst. I grew up in the LA area and I remember the smog in the 70's. It's much better now but when I drove to Vic's to pick up the wheels and forks, as I climbed that last hill I could still see the smog down below. It's better but not gone. 
LA got rid of their electric mass transit in the 50/60's as did SD, LB, and all the beach cities going north as well as SF + surrounding cities including Sacramento. It's horrible driving the 5 to Oregon and to think all those electric street cars are sitting at the bottom of the various bays acting as reefs driven by big money interests proves the point money is at the root of all of this and they're dreaming up ways to extort more from us in the name of "Climate Change." It's one big scam always has been. 
Then we have the multi billion $ train to nowhere that is now abandoned. No wonder California has a $94 billion surplus and they want more taxes. Bottom line it's about money and control nothing else. 

Steve

Wheelhop, yes, considering my entire lot is 1/8 of an acre, that would be an improvement for me. LOL.
But of course we need room for roads, factories for jobs and to build motorcycles to ride on those roads. Then farms because we gotta eat. Schools, hospitals and I’m sure there’s other things I’m leaving out.
Anyways, there’s too many people right now for what the Earth can provide.
Maybe if we went to Mars, we could start over. Except Mars is only a quarter the size of Earth and there’s no atmosphere.
I think we have it nice here on Earth, I know of no planet as wonderful. There’s some beautiful place for everyone. Only some want it all.

Wookie, when you think about it, this whole over-population problem can be fixed within 100 years. China tried it (I won’t go into the gory details) but because of the way it was done it’s turned into a “sausage-fest" over there. The premier has lifted the 'one child' limit but the women are saying "nah, I’m good".