Australia bushfires contribute to big rise in global CO2 levels - UK's Met Office

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

While everyone's caught up in their underwear debating whether CO2 is causing climate change, the pH of the ocean is decreasing due to C02 absorption, killing off the carbonate based plankton that sits at the bottom of the food chain.

 

you have been subjected to propaganda, plankton requires co2 for their growth

just like plants, and just like plants they are starving for more co2 at current

historically low level. they originated at many times higher co2 then today,

that is their origin, that environment is their optimal condition, just like plants

Edited January 25, 2020 by brokenbone

[mike787]

Australia is like a larger version of chiang mai's 6 moth burn.  Keep it up everyone.

[Thunder26]

12 hours ago, madmitch said:

 

 

1 hour ago, impulse said:

While everyone's caught up in their underwear debating whether CO2 is causing climate change, the pH of the ocean is decreasing due to C02 absorption, killing off the carbonate based plankton that sits at the bottom of the food chain.

 

Reminds me of Nero fiddling while Rome burned...

 

Climate actually changes. It's a natural process, but it doesn't change in an istant as the activists claim by giving deadlines. Since I was born the weather varied. Some years were warm, some years were cold, some years were wet, some years were dry and so on. There is no definite pattern to tell that the climate is chaning right now in an instant. It takes thousands of years for significant change and the Sun plays the major role. Humans cannot control the Sun, so all this talk about climate change is ridiculous. We should focus on reducing polluiton, such as plastic, pm 2.5 and so on. But in no means we can control the climate. That's beyond our power at the moment.

 

 

 

[impulse]

6 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

you have been subjected to propaganda, plankton requires co2 for their growth

just like plants, and just like plants they are starving for more co2 at current

historically low level. they originated at many times higher co2 then today,

that is their origin, that environment is their optimal condition, just like plants

 

Phytoplankton or zooplankton?  

 

The problem with your claims is that evolution took millions of years to adjust to the changing conditions.  Sure, life will eventually adjust to whatever conditions are thrown at it.  But in the short term, we can't predict how we're affecting food and water supplies.  And in the intervening millions of years, billions may starve as an unintended consequence that we can't even predict.  And it may be a case of feast in the Pacific and famine in the Atlantic.  Or great for the tropics and pretty bad for the great white north.  Nobody knows.

 

 

[impulse]

6 minutes ago, Thunder26 said:

2 hours ago, impulse said:

While everyone's caught up in their underwear debating whether CO2 is causing climate change, the pH of the ocean is decreasing due to C02 absorption, killing off the carbonate based plankton that sits at the bottom of the food chain.

 

Reminds me of Nero fiddling while Rome burned...

Climate actually changes. It's a natural process, but it doesn't change in an istant as the activists claim by giving deadlines. Since I was born the weather varied. Some years were warm, some years were cold, some years were wet, some years were dry and so on. There is no definite pattern to tell that the climate is chaning right now in an instant. It takes thousands of years for significant change and the Sun plays the major role. Humans cannot control the Sun, so all this talk about climate change is ridiculous. We should focus on reducing polluiton, such as plastic, pm 2.5 and so on. But in no means we can control the climate. That's beyond our power at the moment.

 

You'll notice that I carefully and deliberately avoided any discussion of climate change...

 

[brokenbone]

19 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Phytoplankton or zooplankton?  

 

The problem with your claims is that evolution took millions of years to adjust to the changing conditions.  Sure, life will eventually adjust to whatever conditions are thrown at it.  But in the short term, we can't predict how we're affecting food and water supplies.  And in the intervening millions of years, billions may starve as an unintended consequence that we can't even predict.  And it may be a case of feast in the Pacific and famine in the Atlantic.  Or great for the tropics and pretty bad for the great white north.  Nobody knows.

 

 

no reason to hope plants, algae and plankton will adjust to co2 levels below 150 ppm,

there is evidence that when co2 hit rock bottom of 180 ppm co2 at the depth of

last glacial period, plants at higher altitude died of starvation,

and it was a close call to complete extinction of complex life altogether.

 

we are restoring balance as we speak, but we are still a far cry from optimal conditions,

they are still starving for more co2

 

there is also no such thing as adjusting, if oxygen was switched off for You,

you dont need a gradual oxygen increase, you need lots of it asap,

a fish doesnt need to get drop by drop of water to adjust

when you caught it, the fish needs to get back into that water,

fully submerged

 

a few plants have evolved to cope with this historically low level of co2,

but the vast majority are just starving, in desperate need

of mankind stepping up and recycle co2 back into the atmosphere where it belong

Edited January 25, 2020 by brokenbone

[Krataiboy]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

Each of those red dots signify fires but not the extent/size of individual areas that are burning. Quite a lot in Thailand too but although the air is crappy we have no threat to life and property here that might be consumed by spreading fire. 

I don't know about a threat to property, but air pollution contributes to 50,000 premature deaths a year in Thailand - compared with just 3,000 in Australia - and impairs the health of many more. In the last couple of decades alone LOS death rate has soared by 20,000. 

 

https://www.pacificprime.co.th/blog/health-effects-air-pollution-thailand/

 

https://www.thethailandlife.com/air-pollution-thailand

 

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/3000-deaths-caused-by-air-pollution-each-year-prompt-calls-for-tougher-standards-20151113-gkygv1.html

[impulse]

7 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

no reason to hope plants, algae and plankton will adjust to co2 levels below 150 ppm,

there is evidence that when co2 hit rock bottom of 180 ppm co2 at the depth of

last glacial period, plants at higher altitude died of starvation,

and it was a close call to complete extinction of complex life altogether.

 

we are restoring balance as we speak, but we are still a far cry from optimal conditions,

they are still starving for more co2

 

there is also no such thing as adjusting, if oxygen was switched off for You,

you dont need a gradual oxygen increase, you need lots of it asap,

a fish doesnt need to get drop by drop of water to adjust

when you caught it, the fish needs to get back into that water,

fully submerged

 

Optimal conditions for what?  Life as it existed millions of years ago before civilization settled billions of people in the areas that will be underwater when the earth reach your so called optimal conditions? 

 

Look at a map of the land masses as they existed under your optimal conditions, overlay that with a map of today's population centers and come back with the number of people that will be displaced by rising sea levels under that scenario. 

 

Spoiler alert... If you're posting from Bangkok, you'll probably be moving in the next 50 years...

 

[brokenbone]

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Optimal conditions for what?  Life as it existed millions of years ago before civilization settled billions of people in the areas that will be underwater when the earth reach your so called optimal conditions? 

 

Look at a map of the land masses as they existed under your optimal conditions, overlay that with a map of today's population centers and come back with the number of people that will be displaced by rising sea levels under that scenario. 

 

Spoiler alert... If you're posting from Bangkok, you'll probably be moving in the next 50 years...

 

spoiler alert, theres two gauges in bkk bay, one of them predict flooding 2050,

the other one 2600, one of the gauges was built on a swamp with some dirt sprinkled

on top, the other gauge was built on solid ground, i'll leave it to you to figure out what youre getting your data from

[Krataiboy]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

 

There are fires and there are fires. Since there's been no report of major forests burning or droughts in Central Africa or Cambodia it seems likely that these are the yearly burning of the stubble left over after crops are harvested. How much CO2 is locked up in a hectare of stubble versus a hectare of mature forest? What's more how hot are the flames in a controlled burn of a field of stubble vs. that of a wildfire in a forest afflicted by drought of 3 years duration and in abnormally high temperatures? The fires in Australia don't just destroy vegetation, they're so hot they even destroy organic matter in the soil. So hot that they create their own weather system generating lightning and windstorms which in turn generate more fires.

One can speculate endlessly, but there is clear evidence that Cambodia - where the "fire season" can run from February until May - makes a disproportionate contribution to air pollution and CO2 levels in the region.

 

Over recent years, NASA's Earth Observatory has detected four to five times as many fires in Northern Cambodia compared to its neighbours. For example, on February 3, 2018 alone there were 1,868 active fires in Cambodia, as against 217 in Thailand, 185 in Laos, 114 in Vietnam and 77 in Myanmar.

 

The majority of these blazes were the result of human activity - slash-and-burn agriculture, hunting, foraging and resin collection, land grabbing and clearing - while others occured naturally in deciduous forests.

 

Airborne particulates from Cambodia have been blamed for exacerbating Bangkok's smog problems and lowering air quality in a string of popular seaside resorts along the Eastern seaboard, notably Hua Hin, Petchaburi and Cha Am.

 

https://phnompenhpost.com/national/cambodia-tops-region-fires-detected-space

 

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by Krataiboy

[impulse]

2 hours ago, brokenbone said:

spoiler alert, theres two gauges in bkk bay, one of them predict flooding 2050,

the other one 2600, one of the gauges was built on a swamp with some dirt sprinkled

on top, the other gauge was built on solid ground, i'll leave it to you to figure out what youre getting your data from

 

If you're only aware of 2 gauges, there's not much to discuss, or much value to gain in any discussion.

 

[Tulak]

22 hours ago, Chazar said:

I  was slagged  off for mentioning  a lot of those burnt trees  would  grow  back, someone spouted  sterile  soil at me..............great  it  means an easy ride for the eucs to get going again as  well as other plants https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51036608

can also check what NASA thinks about it 

This link's been posted b'fore, but I think it is important

https://www.climate.news/2019-04-26-nasa-declares-carbon-dioxide-is-greening-the-earth.html

[emptypockets]

20 hours ago, brokenbone said:

i think australia should harvest or cut down for no profit the bush in bands

wide enough that fire cant jump between, in a 80 year cycle or so,

and in between burn much smaller areas, to keep the fire localized

The Greenies would go nuts even at the suggestion of such a thing. Australia has always had bushfires and always will. it is a land of extremes. The present fires are nothing out of the ordinary - merely being blown out of proportion by the current quasi religious climate change apostles. Blame anything and everything on climate change.

[charlie farnsbarns]

What I draw from all this. Tell me where I lose you:

- More CO2 enhances plant growth - which is nice - but too much CO2 produces global warming - which could conceivably collapse the whole system.

- There has to be CO2, but in proper, natural quantity in order to maintain the delicate balance of things.

- Human activity has upset the balance by coughing the stuff unnaturally into the atmosphere very suddenly (in geological terms).

- Such activity has unforeseen and knock-on effects, for example, it gets into the oceans and affects weather systems.

- Clearly the climate is extremely sensitive - we are still discovering that.

- The prudent, rational, intelligent thing is to get the balance right, which means not going too far too fast.

- The status quo - which is the goal of climate change deniers and guilt avoiders - is not an option.

- The only solution is gradual deceleration of human activity to a rate at which the harmful effects can be dealt with by ingenuity/technology before the damage is done.

- Slow down or go down. The choice is everyone's.

[Tulak]

19 minutes ago, charlie farnsbarns said:

What I draw from all this. Tell me where I lose you:

- More CO2 enhances plant growth - which is nice - but too much CO2 produces global warming - which could conceivably collapse the whole system.

- There has to be CO2, but in proper, natural quantity in order to maintain the delicate balance of things.

- Human activity has upset the balance by coughing the stuff unnaturally into the atmosphere very suddenly (in geological terms).

- Such activity has unforeseen and knock-on effects, for example, it gets into the oceans and affects weather systems.

- Clearly the climate is extremely sensitive - we are still discovering that.

- The prudent, rational, intelligent thing is to get the balance right, which means not going too far too fast.

- The status quo - which is the goal of climate change deniers and guilt avoiders - is not an option.

- The only solution is gradual deceleration of human activity to a rate at which the harmful effects can be dealt with by ingenuity/technology before the damage is done.

- Slow down or go down. The choice is everyone's.

Quote..."The only solution is gradual deceleration of human activity"...

It sounds fine in principle. The question is implementation.

The most people on this planet wouldn't like to lower their standard of living.

Quite opposite. Great majority of people are trying to "catch up" with richer part of population. 

It seems that drastic reduction of global population may help - but I think that majority of people wouldn't want to depart this world voluntarily ????

Any suggestions?

There is a party I will go tonight, so please don't ask me to go first.

...and don't ask me after the party either...

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, charlie farnsbarns said:

What I draw from all this. Tell me where I lose you:

- More CO2 enhances plant growth - which is nice - but too much CO2 produces global warming - which could conceivably collapse the whole system.

- There has to be CO2, but in proper, natural quantity in order to maintain the delicate balance of things.

- Human activity has upset the balance by coughing the stuff unnaturally into the atmosphere very suddenly (in geological terms).

- Such activity has unforeseen and knock-on effects, for example, it gets into the oceans and affects weather systems.

- Clearly the climate is extremely sensitive - we are still discovering that.

- The prudent, rational, intelligent thing is to get the balance right, which means not going too far too fast.

- The status quo - which is the goal of climate change deniers and guilt avoiders - is not an option.

- The only solution is gradual deceleration of human activity to a rate at which the harmful effects can be dealt with by ingenuity/technology before the damage is done.

- Slow down or go down. The choice is everyone's.

where you lost me was

1] too much CO2 produces global warming

when i look at history, i see inverse correlation over millions of years, see graph,

an inverse correlation going on for million of years prove there is definitely no positive feedback

 

2] natural proper quantity you say ? it has been fluctuating between 3000 ppm during the peak of

evolution to 180 ppm at the depth of the latest glacial period.

by all accounts, plants and algae, which form the basis for all other multi cellular life

thrive at 1500 to 2000 ppm co2, that as far as i can judge is a proper natural quantity,

in the sense that its optimum conditions for life on earth

 

3] Human activity has upset the balance by coughing the stuff unnaturally

there is no chemical difference between the co2 we recycle

and the co2 that has been sequestered, its basically corpses of life organisms,

they took it with them into their grave and we are recycling it back into the atmosphere,

restoring the natural proper quantity towards what it was during the times of more biomass.

the plants do not suffer a sudden influx of co2 just as you wouldnt suffer

a steak if you had been starving for hundreds of millions of years,

they are craving more food as would you if you had been on a diet that deplete your mass

 

4] the air and the seas will seek an equilibrium in co2 saturation depending on temperature

 

5] the plants cant get more food soon enough, they are starving, even at todays levels,

they die altogether at 150 ppm, an analogy would be people in concentration camps

that resemble skeletons more then living humans, and a philosophic observer

nod that the skeletons must only be fed no more then a cookie per day

on behalf of all that is prudent

 

6] the status quo of plant starvation is an option, but not a sensible option,

specially as we know both that co2 concentration in atmosphere plummet

during glacial periods, and we know that plants go extinct if it drops to 150 ppm,

and with them all other complex life.

on a 2nd thought i agree with you, status quo is not an option,

we simply have to take responsibility and raise co2 levels sufficient

that a drop in upcoming glacial period will not wipe out life for good,

we need a safety margin well above current level of co2

 

recycle or bring down life on earth, the only life we know of exist in universe,

its not really an option on the face of it

 

 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by brokenbone

[charlie farnsbarns]

1 hour ago, brokenbone said:

where you lost me was

1] too much CO2 produces global warming

when i look at history, i see inverse correlation over millions of years, see graph,

an inverse correlation going on for million of years prove there is definitely no positive feedback

 

2] natural proper quantity you say ? it has been fluctuating between 3000 ppm during the peak of

evolution to 180 ppm at the depth of the latest glacial period.

by all accounts, plants and algae, which form the basis for all other multi cellular life

thrive at 1500 to 2000 ppm co2, that as far as i can judge is a proper natural quantity,

in the sense that its optimum conditions for life on earth

 

3] Human activity has upset the balance by coughing the stuff unnaturally

there is no chemical difference between the co2 we recycle

and the co2 that has been sequestered, its basically corpses of life organisms,

they took it with them into their grave and we are recycling it back into the atmosphere,

restoring the natural proper quantity towards what it was during the times of more biomass.

the plants do not suffer a sudden influx of co2 just as you wouldnt suffer

a steak if you had been starving for hundreds of millions of years,

they are craving more food as would you if you had been on a diet that deplete your mass

 

4] the air and the seas will seek an equilibrium in co2 saturation depending on temperature

 

5] the plants cant get more food soon enough, they are starving, even at todays levels,

they die altogether at 150 ppm, an analogy would be people in concentration camps

that resemble skeletons more then living humans, and a philosophic observer

nod that the skeletons must only be fed no more then a cookie per day

on behalf of all that is prudent

 

6] the status quo of plant starvation is an option, but not a sensible option,

specially as we know both that co2 concentration in atmosphere plummet

during glacial periods, and we know that plants go extinct if it drops to 150 ppm,

and with them all other complex life.

on a 2nd thought i agree with you, status quo is not an option,

we simply have to take responsibility and raise co2 levels sufficient

that a drop in upcoming glacial period will not wipe out life for good,

we need a safety margin well above current level of co2

 

recycle or bring down life on earth, the only life we know of exist in universe,

its not really an option on the face of it

 

 

 

 

May I ask what are your academic credentials? For almost all of us, it is a question of deciding who is worth believing.

 

To some extent, though, we can see what is happening out of the window and draw our own conclusions. I do so and only see devastating deviations from the natural state - and if there is one thing I am certain of it is that anything unnatural will ultimately have dire consequences.

 

Perhaps the real point is this: that one simple error in your reasoning, one simple unforeseen consequence of this whole CO2 debate could put the earth's delicate system in jeopardy. Far more reasonable, no, to consider there is a risk, and act prudently?

 

[brokenbone]

58 minutes ago, charlie farnsbarns said:

May I ask what are your academic credentials? For almost all of us, it is a question of deciding who is worth believing.

 

To some extent, though, we can see what is happening out of the window and draw our own conclusions. I do so and only see devastating deviations from the natural state - and if there is one thing I am certain of it is that anything unnatural will ultimately have dire consequences.

 

Perhaps the real point is this: that one simple error in your reasoning, one simple unforeseen consequence of this whole CO2 debate could put the earth's delicate system in jeopardy. Far more reasonable, no, to consider there is a risk, and act prudently?

 

im engineer by education and read history for a hobby.

 

the radiation transmission diagram tells me co2 should have a small positive impact on temperature, positive because it has a couple of narrow bands where it can block,

and very small because those bands are nearly fully covered already by water vapor.

 

the geologic data diagram tells me that there is another factor that dictate temperature,

because i see an inverse correlation between temperature and co2 concentration going on for millions of years, so to whatever degree theory says co2 can have an effect as seen

in the transmission diagram, its nullified by historical data that tells me

some other force dictate temperature, all data and logic points to sun being that force

 

as for experiencing any change at all, i dont, i think that is imaginary fantasy / paranoia.

for me deciding who to believe has next to nothing to do with it,

except for where i get the data from, these two diagrams seem legit tho.

 

oh yes, as for delicate and jeopardy, climate was stable enough

to support evolution of complex life at over 2500 ppm co2 in atmosphere,

not only am i confident it will work again, i think that high co2 was a vital

condition for life to evolve in the first instance,

not least the various sea life forms that uses co2 as a building block for their shells, i am convinced corals etc would not have evolved to what they are

with as low co2 level as today

Edited January 26, 2020 by brokenbone

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, charlie farnsbarns said:

if there is one thing I am certain of it is that anything unnatural will ultimately have dire consequences.

i missed this one: can you specify what is unnatural and do you have any data

and indeed logic to back up why you are 'certain' of it ?

or is it just some unspecified 'feeling' uncertainty and doubt ?

the reason im asking is because i see an awful lot of

reasoning not based on observations, but rather an epidemic fearmongering

that contradict observations.

 

case in point the president of maldives decided to

make a meeting submerged in fear of drowning,

the leading expert on sea levels had just concluded a study

that sea levels at maldives are stable, and sent a letter

to maldive president to get some sense back in him,

but the president of maldives was so psychotic he didnt want to

listen to reason, he went as far as banning publishing the letter

in newspapers in maldives, cant have facts interfering with politics

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/maldives_letter.pdf

 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by brokenbone

[charlie farnsbarns]

44 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

i missed this one: can you specify what is unnatural and do you have any data

and indeed logic to back up why you are 'certain' of it ?

or is it just some unspecified 'feeling' uncertainty and doubt ?

the reason im asking is because i see an awful lot of

reasoning not based on observations, but rather an epidemic fearmongering

that contradict observations.

 

case in point the president of maldives decided to

make a meeting submerged in fear of drowning,

the leading expert on sea levels had just concluded a study

that sea levels at maldives are stable, and sent a letter

to maldive president to get some sense back in him,

but the president of maldives was so psychotic he didnt want to

listen to reason, he went as far as banning publishing the letter

in newspapers in maldives, cant have facts interfering with politics

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/maldives_letter.pdf

 

The definition of 'unnatural' is pretty much 'anything that was not part of evolution', which for practical purposes is pretty much 'anything which is produced by technology'.

It's not just a 'feeling' - the evidence is all around.

For example,  the invention of the gun, that suddenly gave humans an unnatural competitive advantage, allowing the killing of anything from a cowardly distance. The rapid obliteration of bison was a real and disastrous consequence. Nobody ever foresees the consequences of technology - they are on such a high with it that they are deliberately not looking, they deliberately don't want to know until it is too late to worry about it.

 

I call myself a naturalist - I've spent a large part of my life out there, knee deep in nature. I've seen the changes and much of the human activity that has caused those changes is perfectly visible. I extrapolate from that evidence. It's harder when we're talking about molecules in the air - both fear-mongering and apathy-mongering exist - there's a lot of noise to make sense of but one tries to make a rational objective judgement. You keep showing us that chart, but the future of the planet cannot hinge on one chart derived from who-knows-what methodology. I choose rather to believe the many scientists that have made a career-long study of the matter.

[brokenbone]

14 minutes ago, charlie farnsbarns said:

The definition of 'unnatural' is pretty much 'anything that was not part of evolution', which for practical purposes is pretty much 'anything which is produced by technology'.

It's not just a 'feeling' - the evidence is all around.

For example,  the invention of the gun, that suddenly gave humans an unnatural competitive advantage, allowing the killing of anything from a cowardly distance. The rapid obliteration of bison was a real and disastrous consequence. Nobody ever foresees the consequences of technology - they are on such a high with it that they are deliberately not looking, they deliberately don't want to know until it is too late to worry about it.

 

I call myself a naturalist - I've spent a large part of my life out there, knee deep in nature. I've seen the changes and much of the human activity that has caused those changes is perfectly visible. I extrapolate from that evidence. It's harder when we're talking about molecules in the air - both fear-mongering and apathy-mongering exist - there's a lot of noise to make sense of but one tries to make a rational objective judgement. You keep showing us that chart, but the future of the planet cannot hinge on one chart derived from who-knows-what methodology. I choose rather to believe the many scientists that have made a career-long study of the matter.

the fossil fuel were very much part of evolution, its dead trees

that at the time could not be broken down as there was no specie

at that time that could decompose lignin#, see video

and here is where i get my primary source why co2 simply cant be

the primary driver of climate, it doesnt make a significant impact at all,

or there would not be an inverse correlation to temperature going on for millions of years

http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html

 

on observing changes in present with only our memory and eyes,

i maintain it cant be seen, and the timescale is too small

anyway. the one thing that made a difference in my life

was when i fled the ice covered cursed cold land of the vikings

to the fussy warm gentle climate of thailand,

and yes, adjusting to climate shift of 50 degree celsius over a period of 12 hours was not just doable, it was downright a pleasure

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by brokenbone

[Tulak]

44 minutes ago, charlie farnsbarns said:

The definition of 'unnatural' is pretty much 'anything that was not part of evolution', which for practical purposes is pretty much 'anything which is produced by technology'.

It's not just a 'feeling' - the evidence is all around.

For example,  the invention of the gun, that suddenly gave humans an unnatural competitive advantage, allowing the killing of anything from a cowardly distance. The rapid obliteration of bison was a real and disastrous consequence. Nobody ever foresees the consequences of technology - they are on such a high with it that they are deliberately not looking, they deliberately don't want to know until it is too late to worry about it.

 

I call myself a naturalist - I've spent a large part of my life out there, knee deep in nature. I've seen the changes and much of the human activity that has caused those changes is perfectly visible. I extrapolate from that evidence. It's harder when we're talking about molecules in the air - both fear-mongering and apathy-mongering exist - there's a lot of noise to make sense of but one tries to make a rational objective judgement. You keep showing us that chart, but the future of the planet cannot hinge on one chart derived from who-knows-what methodology. I choose rather to believe the many scientists that have made a career-long study of the matter.

when natural supper-volcano pops and blankets the sunlight for many years resulting in massive crop failure and starvation, is this natural incident more acceptable?

[bristolboy]

7 hours ago, brokenbone said:

 

 

6] the status quo of plant starvation is an option, but not a sensible option,

specially as we know both that co2 concentration in atmosphere plummet

during glacial periods, and we know that plants go extinct if it drops to 150 ppm,

and with them all other complex life.

on a 2nd thought i agree with you, status quo is not an option,

we simply have to take responsibility and raise co2 levels sufficient

that a drop in upcoming glacial period will not wipe out life for good,

we need a safety margin well above current level of co2

 

It's funny. Those who warn of the imminent and current dangers of rising CO2 levels and global warming consistently get accused by denialists of being alarmists. Yet here you are being an alarmist and advocating a "safety margin" for an eventuality that won't happen, if it does at all, for thousands of years.  You need to calm way way down.

[bristolboy]

7 hours ago, brokenbone said:

where you lost me was

1] too much CO2 produces global warming

when i look at history, i see inverse correlation over millions of years, see graph,

an inverse correlation going on for million of years prove there is definitely no positive feedback

Your perception is a consequence of simplistic thinking. Climatologists don't claim that CO2 levels are the only factor that can cause global warming. It's obvious that Malenkovitch cycles play a much greater role but very slowly over long periods of time. What we are witnessing now is a very rapid increase over a very short period of time. 9 of the 10 hottest years on record occurred during the just concluded decade. What is there that makes you so unable to comprehend the importance of rate?

[Lacessit]

On 1/25/2020 at 5:09 AM, Chazar said:

so  why arent they at thos e levels  now  then

It's coming.

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, brokenbone said:

im engineer by education and read history for a hobby.

 

the radiation transmission diagram tells me co2 should have a small positive impact on temperature, positive because it has a couple of narrow bands where it can block,

and very small because those bands are nearly fully covered already by water vapor.

 

 

More nonsense. Repeated satellite observations show that the levels of infrared radiation leaving earth have been reduced precisely in those bands associated with CO2 and Methane.

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane (CH₄) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

And what you don't seem to understand is the crucial difference between water vapor and CO2. Water vapor is involved in a feedback effect. When the atmosphere becomes saturated with it, it precipitates. So it's levels rapidly fluctuate. Whereas the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is a forcing effect. As more CO2 accumulates, more infrared radiation is trapped. When the day comes that it starts raining dry ice you'll have a point. Until then, not so much.

[Lacessit]

10 hours ago, emptypockets said:

The Greenies would go nuts even at the suggestion of such a thing. Australia has always had bushfires and always will. it is a land of extremes. The present fires are nothing out of the ordinary - merely being blown out of proportion by the current quasi religious climate change apostles. Blame anything and everything on climate change.

I think it's fairly unprecedented Melbourne had a PM 2.5 reading of 500 about a week ago, before the rain came. Also burnt about 12 million hectares, compared to the 2 million hectares in the Amazon that everyone was hopping up and down about.

Nothing religious about 95% of the world's scientists agreeing climate change is a result of anthropomorphic heat and carbon dioxide emissions. Perhaps you are not aware the majority of scientists are either atheists or agnostics.

Against stupidity, the gods themselves strive in vain.

[Lacessit]

On 1/25/2020 at 2:00 PM, brokenbone said:

i think australia should harvest or cut down for no profit the bush in bands

wide enough that fire cant jump between, in a 80 year cycle or so,

and in between burn much smaller areas, to keep the fire localized

Bands wide enough? Do you realize an ember attack can be 40 km in front of the fire front?

[rhodie]

More scaremongering. When will it stop. In the last 100 years, Australia has had 5 major bush fires that have been worse that the current lot. There are scores of bush fires burning in Australia all year around. 

 

1926 60 dead 1000 buildings destroyed

1939 71 dead 5000 buildings destroyed

1967 62 dead 1300 buildings destroyed

1983 75 dead 3000 buildings destroyed

2009 180 dead 3500 buildings destroyed

 

It is worth noting that in 1926 the population of Australia was a quarter of what it is now. It is also worth noting that there is a lot of bush in and around all cities and thousands of homes are built inside the bush in these cities. Nothing can stop the fires. It is nature. Happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future. It is extremely difficult to get a permit to clear any bush around your home. You need a permit to cut any tree more than 4 inches in diameter. All this contributes to major fires with the right conditions as there were 100 years ago. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story. ????

[Lacessit]

6 hours ago, brokenbone said:

im engineer by education and read history for a hobby.

 

 

That explains a lot. When I was studying chemistry, there was this joke about chemical engineers - too clever to be an engineer, not smart enough to be a chemist.

Given the number of cockups and messes I had to deal with in my working career that were caused by engineers, I would not be putting that forward as a credential of expertise.