Membership Update

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
At the risk of pissing people off, I will keep this brief. There are many sources that debunk the widely quoted 95% (its actually 97%) number. Its based on a sample of scientists, many of whom were not climate experts, and many of whom didn't actually believe any warming was human induced. But its a figure widely quoted by politicians to push their cause. Everyone gets on the bandwagon because there is billions/trillions to be made in climate change zealotry. Google "Global temperatures last 2000 years and you will find any number of charts showing temperatures today are much lower than the Medieval warm period. The Earth has undergone periods of change over billions of years, including vast amounts of time when there was no ice at the poles. Polar ice is actually a relatively recent development. Global warming is NWO socialist agenda masquerading as environmentalism - driving massive worldwide wealth redistribution away from Western democracies (via environmental taxation) to developing countries like India and China, who continue to build thousands of coal fired power stations every year with barely a peep from the climate scientists. It has been proven that Australia could literally shut down completely, and it would not make one iota of difference to the Earths climate. Venezula is a Socialist country and is a basket case. Trump doesn't practice "pure capitalism" - there are vast amounts of regulatory controls that underpin the US system. There are many schools of thought on what caused the Great Depression - the monetarist view is that policy mistakes by regulators were the major causal factor, not unbridled/unregulated capitalism. The Roosevelt "New Deal" may have helped limit the pain of the Depression, but it was WW2 that actually ended it through massive government war programs. As for the GFC - one of the root causes was the Clinton (typically leftist) intervention in the housing market, loosening controls such that loans were extended to sectors of the economy that should never have been offered a loan. Those loans were bundled as CLO's and CDO's and sold as prime investments, when they were anything but.
Here’s are some facts, which very clearly debunk this strange conspiracy-theorist stuff...

China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. In 2013 the country had a total capacity of 378 GW of renewable power, mainly from hydroelectric and wind power. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity.

But you know..”thousands of new coal-fired power stations every year ” and stuff...
 
Here’s are some facts, which very clearly debunk this strange conspiracy-theorist stuff...

China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. In 2013 the country had a total capacity of 378 GW of renewable power, mainly from hydroelectric and wind power. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity.

But you know..”thousands of new coal-fired power stations every year ” and stuff...

So we can more clearly see how this info debunks anything could you also tell us the following for China, US and Australia?

- capacity of renewable energy
- capacity of fossil fuels energy
- capacity of nuclear energy

Thank you
 
The argument is simple. Best way to describe it is to say 'Carbon Dioxide'. It only comes from respiration of animals or volcanos.

The last major volcanic eruptions of any consequences happened in 1815 (Tambora) and 1883 (Krakatoa). There have been no comparable eruptions since then. So where is the CO2 coming from if it is now 60% higher than 100 years ago?

All molecules affect radiant energy in some way. O2 and N2 in our atmosphere refract incoming light turning our sun yellow and our sky blue. Ozone absorbs and refracts high energy UV radiation. CFCs were banned because the Chlorine reacted with the O3 forming simple molecular oxygen and Chlorine Monoxide, which then broke down leaving the Chlorine to react with O3 again and again. Complex molecules such as H2O, CO2 and CH4 absorb back radiation (infrared) longer than simpler molecules. They actually vibrate with the extra energy. They release it eventually but increased amounts of the molecules increased the energy in the atmosphere. And its important to think not so much of heat retention, but energy retention. The more energy (think of the volatility of a beaker of water being heated), the more volatile the system, which then increases the force of El Nino and La Nina cycles, cyclonic depression, droughts, rainfall, winds etc.

As for ice ages, the next one was due to start within the next 2000 years. Interglacials, such as the Holocene period we are now in, last between 10,000-15,000 years while ice age conditions last 85-90,000 years on average. Our present interglacial is 11,700 years old.

And you get most of this info in books and science journals, rather than the internet.
 
Population growth (1.6 billion to 7.6 billion) + deforestation (13 million less hectares per year at current rate) = more exhaled carbon dioxide, less carbon sequestration. Solution = have less kids, plant a tree. From books.

Yes Terry population growth is a factor as is deforestation (why we're concerned with the new leader in Brazil and Indonesia's deforestation of Borneo and Sumatra). But don't forget that that increased population is at the expense of many other species of animal, extinct or en route.

Big difference regarding respiration of CO2 by humans is that that is part of a natural cycle and adds nothing to the overall balance of CO2, because we're merely breathing what plants expire. Its about 7% of CO2 in the atmosphere. The difference is that CO2 from coal and oil is additional to the atmospheric cycle because its from carbon locked up in the Earths crust. Like volcanos, it is releasing carbon dioxide from the store of carbon which is over 95% held in the crust. The oceans absorb a quarter of CO2, which becomes part of minute creatures in the sea such as plankton and whether eaten by whales or not it all falls to the ocean floor and becomes locked. If all that carbon was released Earth would be like Venus approaching 500 degrees Celsius at the surface. Most CO2 comes from Industry, transport and electricity generation (almost 80%). Human respiration even for 7 billion is negligable in comparison
 
When CO2 goes into the ocean it changes the p.H. Down, this will make it very hard for coral, fish and marine plants to survive. This will be a massive problem especially if the sea temps continue to rise.
 
When CO2 goes into the ocean it changes the p.H. Down, this will make it very hard for coral, fish and marine plants to survive. This will be a massive problem especially if the sea temps continue to rise.


CO2 and O2 naturally are absorbed by the ocean. Mind you cold water absorbs better than warm water. This is part of the carbon cycle that stops Earth turning into Venus. The CO2 is taken in by micro organisms that are then eaten all the way up to whales. But unlike on land, when creatures die the bodies fall to the bottom of the sea and under 5 kilometres of water form a constantly deepening layer which over time is pressurised into oil, gas coal and shale. Weathering of the soil to the sea also leaches out carbon. Most carbon is therefore held deep in the Earth and only released in volcanism as CO2. That's where the balance lies.

Animal respiration at the same time is balanced by plant growth and use and also is in balance. If more CO2 enters the atmosphere, plant life grows to accommodate. If less, plant and animal life reduce such as during the Ice ages. But too much CO2 and the seas and plant life are saturated and cant cope with washing it out. Humans are adding carbon, through burning fossil fuels that would ordinarily not be released. We don't create as much as a volcano, but volcanos have a short eruption period. Our actions are constant and therefore far more telling. Consider it like what happens to sea levels when ice melts. If the ice is on the sea, melting it makes no difference to the sea level, If it is added from the continents however, it increases the amount of water in the sea and raises sea levels. Same with CO2. What's already in the system such as animal respiration, is already there. But when it is released from underground it adds to the total amount in the atmosphere and adds to the CO2 level. That's why its now 410 parts per million rather than 280 parts per million, as it was in pre-Industrial times.

My point is not to disparage the use of carbon based fuels. Without it we would not have established the lifestyle and civilisation we have. But there's a big cost, which we now must pay, and that includes substituting over the next few decades reusable energy sources for carbon based fuels, or we risk making Earth unliveable for us. Life will continue but humans will find it increasing hard to survive.
 
Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[2] Seawater is slightly basic(meaning pH > 7), and ocean acidification involves a shift towards pH-neutral conditions rather than a transition to acidic conditions (pH < 7).[3] An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide from human activity released into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[4][5] To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of the resulting carbonic acid molecules dissociate into a bicarbonate ion and a hydrogen ion, thus increasing ocean acidity (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1996, surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[6]representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ion concentration in the world's oceans.[7][8]Earth System Models project that, within the last decade, ocean acidity exceeded historical analogues[9] and, in combination with other ocean biogeochemical changes, could undermine the functioning of marine ecosystems and disrupt the provision of many goods and services associated with the ocean beginning as early as 2100.[10]

Increasing acidity is thought to have a range of potentially harmful consequences for marine organisms, such as depressing metabolic rates and immune responses in some organisms, and causing coral bleaching.[11] By increasing the presence of free hydrogen ions, the additional carbonic acid that forms in the oceans ultimately results in the conversion of carbonate ions into bicarbonate ions. Ocean alkalinity(roughly equal to [HCO3−] + 2[CO32−]) is not changed by the process, or may increase over long time periods due to carbonatedissolution.[12] This net decrease in the amount of carbonate ions available may make it more difficult for marine calcifying organisms, such as coral and some plankton, to form biogenic calcium carbonate, and such structures become vulnerable to dissolution.[13] Ongoing acidification of the oceans may threaten future food chainslinked with the oceans.[14][15] As members of the InterAcademy Panel, 105 science academies have issued a statement on ocean acidification recommending that by 2050, global CO2 emissions be reduced by at least 50% compared to the 1990 level.

Ocean acidification has been compared to anthropogenic climate change and called the "evil twin of global warming" and "the other CO2 problem". Freshwater bodies also appear to be acidifying, although this is a more complex and less obvious phenomenon.
 
Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[2] Seawater is slightly basic(meaning pH > 7), and ocean acidification involves a shift towards pH-neutral conditions rather than a transition to acidic conditions (pH < 7).[3] An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide from human activity released into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[4][5] To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of the resulting carbonic acid molecules dissociate into a bicarbonate ion and a hydrogen ion, thus increasing ocean acidity (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1996, surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[6]representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ion concentration in the world's oceans.[7][8]Earth System Models project that, within the last decade, ocean acidity exceeded historical analogues[9] and, in combination with other ocean biogeochemical changes, could undermine the functioning of marine ecosystems and disrupt the provision of many goods and services associated with the ocean beginning as early as 2100.[10]

Increasing acidity is thought to have a range of potentially harmful consequences for marine organisms, such as depressing metabolic rates and immune responses in some organisms, and causing coral bleaching.[11] By increasing the presence of free hydrogen ions, the additional carbonic acid that forms in the oceans ultimately results in the conversion of carbonate ions into bicarbonate ions. Ocean alkalinity(roughly equal to [HCO3−] + 2[CO32−]) is not changed by the process, or may increase over long time periods due to carbonatedissolution.[12] This net decrease in the amount of carbonate ions available may make it more difficult for marine calcifying organisms, such as coral and some plankton, to form biogenic calcium carbonate, and such structures become vulnerable to dissolution.[13] Ongoing acidification of the oceans may threaten future food chainslinked with the oceans.[14][15] As members of the InterAcademy Panel, 105 science academies have issued a statement on ocean acidification recommending that by 2050, global CO2 emissions be reduced by at least 50% compared to the 1990 level.

Ocean acidification has been compared to anthropogenic climate change and called the "evil twin of global warming" and "the other CO2 problem". Freshwater bodies also appear to be acidifying, although this is a more complex and less obvious phenomenon.


Thanks MF76. Good stuff. But I've been told off by the admin for getting 'political' which I gather includes science it seems, so I am gagged from continuing on this subject. I know its off football issues but I was enjoying the debate and thank you and TerryRandall for some interesting discussion. Not sure after being chastised if I want to continue on the forum in general. I'm thinking about it. But again thanks for the info you supplied. Good stuff.
 
Thanks MF76. Good stuff. But I've been told off by the admin for getting 'political' which I gather includes science it seems, so I am gagged from continuing on this subject. I know its off football issues but I was enjoying the debate and thank you and TerryRandall for some interesting discussion. Not sure after being chastised if I want to continue on the forum in general. I'm thinking about it. But again thanks for the info you supplied. Good stuff.
They just have their noses out of joint now the liberal party is in its last death throes.....
 
Thanks MF76. Good stuff. But I've been told off by the admin for getting 'political' which I gather includes science it seems, so I am gagged from continuing on this subject. I know its off football issues but I was enjoying the debate and thank you and TerryRandall for some interesting discussion. Not sure after being chastised if I want to continue on the forum in general. I'm thinking about it. But again thanks for the info you supplied. Good stuff.
Don’t leave! You are a knowledgeable dude on a range of topics, most relevantly, MWSE.
 
One more point I should add is that if water temp rises, more methane is released and that is a much worse greenhouse gas.

Some predictions I've read suggest the increase in methane and co2 will accelerate the increase in methane!
 
Global warming is NWO socialist agenda masquerading as environmentalism
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-20/bom-csiro-biennial-state-of-the-climate/10631122
The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and CSIRO's joint biennial State of the Climate report has just been released and it is not the kind of report card you would want to take home to your parents just before Christmas.
An extra two years has firmed-up the data to demonstrate that climate change is happening now.
"Dr Helen Cleugh, the director of the climate science centre at CSIRO, said the last time the planet saw levels of CO2 this high was at least 800,000 years ago.
She said atmospheric CO2 is up 46 per cent since before the industrial era began in the 1750s.
"We know from our analysis that the cause of the increases in CO2 concentration is human activities, through burning of fossil fuels and through land use change," Dr Cleugh said


giphy.gif
 
One more point I should add is that if water temp rises, more methane is released and that is a much worse greenhouse gas.

Some predictions I've read suggest the increase in methane and co2 will accelerate the increase in methane!


Fortunately Methane (CH4) does not survive for a long period because it reacts with Oxygen. It breaks down into H2O and wait for it ..CO2, which increases CO2 levels. CO2 is a stable molecule in our atmosphere and can stay there almost indefinitely until taken in by plants, the ocean or washed out through combining with water vapour in clouds and rain then carries it to the soil. But CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for up to centuries
 

Members online

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
7 6 1 54 14
6 5 1 59 12
6 4 2 53 10
6 4 2 30 10
7 4 2 25 9
8 4 4 73 8
7 4 3 40 8
7 4 3 24 8
7 3 4 17 8
7 4 3 -8 8
8 4 4 -60 8
8 3 4 17 7
6 2 4 -31 6
7 3 4 -41 6
7 2 5 -29 4
7 1 6 -87 4
7 1 6 -136 4
Back
Top Bottom