No doubt man contributes to it, but Solar activity and earth history going back millions of years indicates this is a normal pattern shift.
The temperature seems to be defying its historical link to solar activity. Based on solar activity we should have been seen fairly severe cooling over the last few decades: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
convinced Canada's former Minister of National Defense (Paul Hellyer) to go public about American involvement with alien technology and beings.
Paul Hellyer also believes that we could end our reliance on fossil fuels by harnessing the power cosmic, if only it weren't for those pesky bankers!
The world could end its dependence on fossil fuels by harnessing "the energy that exists in everything within the cosmos."
People could replace their car engines and furnaces with a little box that harnesses the "exotic energy" of the universe except the world's banking "cabal" prevents people from accessing the technology, Hellyer says. - http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/...
True enough. Which makes this scheme even more ridiculous. Not only do you need to pay for the 6,000,000,000 trees (proposed in TFA) each year, plus land to plant them on plus laborers to plant them, you also need to subsidize the poor who have been priced out of food. It seems like a crazy alternative to investing in and implementing existing low carbon energy technologies that are getting cheaper and more effective with each passing year.
We are not talking about deforestation here - we are talking about planting 6 billion trees/year to defer the carbon increase for that year. As you point out this would mean reducing farm land. That impacts the livelihood of the farmers and also the cost of food. It is also insanely expensive even with the lowest imaginable cost for land and per tree. It also doesn't address the root problem. You would have to keep it up every year until you've run out of land. I agree that we don't have do do either/or - but this reforestation policy is really so expensive with such negative impact on the poor and with so little gain as to not be worth considering.
What, if anything, would you do for the poor and hungry if this came to pass? In what way would that be better than adopting and investing in available technologies?
Increasing the price of food doesn't sound like a good alternative to adapting low carbon energy technologies that are already available - especially since reforestation doesn't really address the root cause - at best is just defers the problem.
Your response is thoughtful and informative - I'm just skeptical that this is any more than a feel good effort with no real world benefit. The good news is that the world is reforesting without our intervention. About 25% of the carbon that we release is sequestered by biomass. Some of that may be algae, but some of that is also a greening arctic: http://earthobservatory.nasa.g...
What happens to the price of beef when grazing land is reforested? This sounds like a call for farm intensification - which is an energy hungry process - which is typically supplied by oil and gas...
We used to have an automated litter box. We called it "The Scatapult". Every so often it would launch the shit into the air rather than into the bag. Not recommended,
Well, you have ignored 95% of the evidence. For example, even the optimistic projections of Lewis&Curry 2004 are twice your chosen range. And ironically you are suggesting I am the one with "true faith"!
It may not be an issue. It depends on how quickly we react and how high climate sensitivity is. Obviously. You seem to have dismissed all but the most optimistic projections?
From the statement: "As Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we are concerned that the words “skeptic” and “denier” have been conflated by the popular media. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration."
Right. Exactly what the skeptics are pointing out is that being skeptical is good! Denying radioactive physics however is not skepticism. "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics."
Slashdot Mirror
I'd love to see references or articles how temperature is measured to this degree of accuracy then how they are aggregated to a single number
Happy to oblige:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monit...
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/...
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/...
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/...
There is little solace that temperatures were higher in a period that did not sustain humanity.
No doubt man contributes to it, but Solar activity and earth history going back millions of years indicates this is a normal pattern shift.
The temperature seems to be defying its historical link to solar activity. Based on solar activity we should have been seen fairly severe cooling over the last few decades: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
convinced Canada's former Minister of National Defense (Paul Hellyer) to go public about American involvement with alien technology and beings.
Paul Hellyer also believes that we could end our reliance on fossil fuels by harnessing the power cosmic, if only it weren't for those pesky bankers!
The world could end its dependence on fossil fuels by harnessing "the energy that exists in everything within the cosmos."
People could replace their car engines and furnaces with a little box that harnesses the "exotic energy" of the universe except the world's banking "cabal" prevents people from accessing the technology, Hellyer says. - http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/...
True enough. Which makes this scheme even more ridiculous. Not only do you need to pay for the 6,000,000,000 trees (proposed in TFA) each year, plus land to plant them on plus laborers to plant them, you also need to subsidize the poor who have been priced out of food. It seems like a crazy alternative to investing in and implementing existing low carbon energy technologies that are getting cheaper and more effective with each passing year.
For comparison: (300 cubits) * (50 cubits) * (30 cubits) = 4.30 × 10-5 km^3 ;)
We are not talking about deforestation here - we are talking about planting 6 billion trees/year to defer the carbon increase for that year. As you point out this would mean reducing farm land. That impacts the livelihood of the farmers and also the cost of food. It is also insanely expensive even with the lowest imaginable cost for land and per tree. It also doesn't address the root problem. You would have to keep it up every year until you've run out of land. I agree that we don't have do do either/or - but this reforestation policy is really so expensive with such negative impact on the poor and with so little gain as to not be worth considering.
What, if anything, would you do for the poor and hungry if this came to pass? In what way would that be better than adopting and investing in available technologies?
Increasing the price of food doesn't sound like a good alternative to adapting low carbon energy technologies that are already available - especially since reforestation doesn't really address the root cause - at best is just defers the problem.
Your response is thoughtful and informative - I'm just skeptical that this is any more than a feel good effort with no real world benefit. The good news is that the world is reforesting without our intervention. About 25% of the carbon that we release is sequestered by biomass. Some of that may be algae, but some of that is also a greening arctic: http://earthobservatory.nasa.g...
What happens to the price of beef when grazing land is reforested? This sounds like a call for farm intensification - which is an energy hungry process - which is typically supplied by oil and gas...
What happens to the CO2 when the tree dies?
We used to have an automated litter box. We called it "The Scatapult". Every so often it would launch the shit into the air rather than into the bag. Not recommended,
Phantom: predictions that matter are the ones that are published. And in those, he is pathetically wrong...
Layzej: Here's one that is bang on.
Phantom: Never mind about the models.
Nelson: Ha ha!
You are ignoring the observations. Did you even read Curry and Lewis 2014?
Who said anything about models?
Right. You ignore any evidence contrary to your presuppositions. I get it.
Well, you have ignored 95% of the evidence. For example, even the optimistic projections of Lewis&Curry 2004 are twice your chosen range. And ironically you are suggesting I am the one with "true faith"!
Now would be a good time to say "Gee, thanks Layzej for correcting my preconceptions!": http://news.slashdot.org/story...
Wow! You've even opted to ignore most of the more optimistic projections! Good job! Perhaps you were projecting when you talked of "true faith"?
So do you reject all but the most optimistic projections? Time to find out who is the real "True Believer".
So you're saying that repeating fallacies is the act of a skeptic? Seems like a skeptic would try to learn from her mistakes.
It may not be an issue. It depends on how quickly we react and how high climate sensitivity is. Obviously. You seem to have dismissed all but the most optimistic projections?
From the statement: "As Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we are concerned that the words “skeptic” and “denier” have been conflated by the popular media. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration."
Right. Exactly what the skeptics are pointing out is that being skeptical is good! Denying radioactive physics however is not skepticism. "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics."