You have a long way to go before say such inconsistencies. Find out before when and how things started, just from there would you be authorized to exchange such strict opinions ......
Don't bother answering, you've entered my ignore list.
Man's Worldly Goods - The Story of The Wealth of Nations: Leo Huberman: 9781443736725: Amazon.com: Books
Can you briefly elaborate on why chaos theory is prevalent here over «self-stabilizing» therory, if that is what you imply?
I have already a pile of book in queue impatiently waiting to be read 😛
If that is the case that each single molecule of CO2 will deeply change the living life, should be nuke potential volcanos and «plug our rear end» as preventive measures 😀 ?
Last edited:
Another interesting read...
Blessings
http://www.livescience.com/amazon-fires-are-not-depleting-earth-oxygen.html
Blessings
http://www.livescience.com/amazon-fires-are-not-depleting-earth-oxygen.html
Very big problem with climate change subject is that there is simply too many conflicting views. The range is something like this:
From complete denial:
The great failure of the climate models
To absolute certainty:
Guy McPherson claims that die-off is imminent and that the reduction in CO2 levels would only make things worse because with burning fossils we release much aerosols that reflect considerable amount of solar radiation.
I suggest that you also consider Gorshkov and Makarieva state of the art new Biotic pump theory. It seems that forests have extremely important role in taking excess heat to higher layers of atmosphere and protect us (to a certain level) of CO2 increase influence on climate. Loosing forests means not only destructive climate change but fresh water problem too. For instance here:
Cassandra's Legacy: How We Keep Destroying the Things that Make us Live: The Biotic Pump and the Raw Power of Science
From complete denial:
The great failure of the climate models
To absolute certainty:
Guy McPherson claims that die-off is imminent and that the reduction in CO2 levels would only make things worse because with burning fossils we release much aerosols that reflect considerable amount of solar radiation.
I suggest that you also consider Gorshkov and Makarieva state of the art new Biotic pump theory. It seems that forests have extremely important role in taking excess heat to higher layers of atmosphere and protect us (to a certain level) of CO2 increase influence on climate. Loosing forests means not only destructive climate change but fresh water problem too. For instance here:
Cassandra's Legacy: How We Keep Destroying the Things that Make us Live: The Biotic Pump and the Raw Power of Science
I will answer this one time since I have no reason to ignore you and your own inconsistencies and insecurities expressed by your posts.
Go ahead , fight for your change and enlightenment and I will resist in my dull way. I'm sure you are ready to put your life on the line for your ideas and I respect that. Some changes and catastrophes simply cannot be avoided. But I am absolutely sure that I and mine will survive whatever comes even if the Green fraction will have it their way and we will have to eat grass.
In my own corner of woods Green couples come and have a fun for a few years with world shattering ideas. Than, the children are born and a diverse environment suddenly begins to stink so they drop it like an old rag and move on.
All the best to you and yours
It is absolutely fine that there are contradicting ideas and people have to constantly push to reach some sort of admittedly compromised agreement.
I have no problem whatsoever with either fraction as long as either of them usurp position of Almighty and impose one "correct" solution.
Trees are good, but more trees are not necessarily better. I don't know anything about the Amazon eco system. But forest fires are not necessarily a bad thing.
Fire Restoration in Arkansas
"Over thousands of years, our wildlife adapted to coexisting with human disturbances, mostly fire and ax, that kept our forests and woodlands more open. Unfortunately, these activities were curtailed during the last century, and, as a result, our forests look quite different nowadays.”
Blaney points out that according to historical data, there were about 38 to 76 trees per acre in the Ozarks’ Boston Mountains. “Today there are about 150 trees per acre on average, plus another 300 to 1,000 young stems,” he says. “That’s pretty dense for these thin soils and limited moisture in the hills. No wonder we experienced a huge oak die-off in the late 1990s.”
The oak forests, woodlands and savannas of the Ouachita and Ozark mountains, which together are known as the Interior Highlands, are the largest intact remnant of a habitat that once stretched from Oklahoma to the middle Appalachians and Eastern Seaboard. ..."
Fire Restoration in Arkansas
"Over thousands of years, our wildlife adapted to coexisting with human disturbances, mostly fire and ax, that kept our forests and woodlands more open. Unfortunately, these activities were curtailed during the last century, and, as a result, our forests look quite different nowadays.”
Blaney points out that according to historical data, there were about 38 to 76 trees per acre in the Ozarks’ Boston Mountains. “Today there are about 150 trees per acre on average, plus another 300 to 1,000 young stems,” he says. “That’s pretty dense for these thin soils and limited moisture in the hills. No wonder we experienced a huge oak die-off in the late 1990s.”
The oak forests, woodlands and savannas of the Ouachita and Ozark mountains, which together are known as the Interior Highlands, are the largest intact remnant of a habitat that once stretched from Oklahoma to the middle Appalachians and Eastern Seaboard. ..."
I was the first to point that out, and I think (naively, I admit) that it could be done but if macartism and disqualification were not practiced, things have to be seen from an impartial point of view, without preconceptions or passions.
Otherwise we will see in this man, instead of a Nobel Prize in Economics, a sinister KGB agent ....
Todos los libros del autor Stiglitz Joseph E
@ Scott Wurcer
Keyhole method is very interesting 🙂
I am sharing this regenerative organic gardening knowledge with my friends
who do permaculture work in my town area and Corsica island. Thanks and best regards
Following up on my earlier post, had a second watch on the below interesting documentary.
Youtube - Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery
Henrik Svensmark - Wikipedia
What is the effect of watervapour and cloud formation on climate, not on weather but climate?
Please post links to peer reviewed papers published by renowned scientific institutions.
Please post links to peer reviewed papers published by renowned scientific institutions.
Already 7 years ago the article (link below) mentioned that a single tree can evaporate ~ 1,000 liters (1 m^3) of water / day, the vapor flowing in what's called "atmospheric (flying) rivers". So in terms of specific heat X amount of water X amount of trees, this is huge indeed. The article also mentions a threshold (35...40%) of forest destruction, when such "atmospheric rivers" no longer can form.
One of the results could be drought with the occasional flash flood sweeping the top soil away, turning the region into an infertile desert.
Amazon's flying water vapor rivers bring rain to Brazil
Trying to simplify the workings of the global climate cannot make it simpler. People are trying to use the method of variable elimination, like in simple cases, but the climate, is a complex dynamical system. Chaos Theory deals with such systems, and the general impression is, the current hypotheses, are still in there infancy.
An incontrollable global climate badly affecting human life, is a doomsday scenario nobody wants to experience. This can impact the global economy, as is in fact doing. From several years ago, the European Union, formerly the Common (European) Market, is actively discussing what can be done to mitigate the effects of Global Warming.
Readers should realise the European Union is primarily an economy oriented political structure. The EU is not viewing Global Warming as an interference with trade and business, but an opportunity to avert natural disasters with huge impacts on economies.
In today's global market it makes far more sense to forcast the financial losses, and their probabilies happening, both if Global Warming is accepted, partly accepted or completely rejected. This is much like how an insurance company works if it insures a client against a damaging event with a certain probability of happening.
The current situation shows politicians are starting to realise it is important to listen to what scientists and collaborating economists have to say. This should be good news to everyone.
An incontrollable global climate badly affecting human life, is a doomsday scenario nobody wants to experience. This can impact the global economy, as is in fact doing. From several years ago, the European Union, formerly the Common (European) Market, is actively discussing what can be done to mitigate the effects of Global Warming.
Readers should realise the European Union is primarily an economy oriented political structure. The EU is not viewing Global Warming as an interference with trade and business, but an opportunity to avert natural disasters with huge impacts on economies.
In today's global market it makes far more sense to forcast the financial losses, and their probabilies happening, both if Global Warming is accepted, partly accepted or completely rejected. This is much like how an insurance company works if it insures a client against a damaging event with a certain probability of happening.
The current situation shows politicians are starting to realise it is important to listen to what scientists and collaborating economists have to say. This should be good news to everyone.
Last edited:
Insofar as GHG contribute to GW, 70% is from water vapor 20% to 25% is from CO2 (also depends on the reference - some Give slightly different numbers) and the remaining 5% from other gases. CO2 is 100 times as potent more potent than water vapor as a GHG.
If you go through the literature, you will also see that CO2 acts as a ‘multiplier’ to water vapour. As the Earth heats up, more water vapour is drawn into the atmosphere and it becomes self reinforcing. But water vapour effects are very short lived (hours) whereas CO2 is much longer. It takes about 100 years to pull 80% of the CO2 out of the atmosphere, but the left over 20% will take 250 to 450k years to be removed through weathering.
Despite all that people are being told by most responsible scientists about pumping huge excessive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, it still amazes me that a group like the CO2 Coalition can emerge to lobby for industries that pump this stuff out with websites showing glorious green fields filled with happy humans and wildlife.
Makes a stark contrast with what is happening in the Amazon right now and everywhere else where the environment is being treated as like trash in the ns e of profits.
If you go through the literature, you will also see that CO2 acts as a ‘multiplier’ to water vapour. As the Earth heats up, more water vapour is drawn into the atmosphere and it becomes self reinforcing. But water vapour effects are very short lived (hours) whereas CO2 is much longer. It takes about 100 years to pull 80% of the CO2 out of the atmosphere, but the left over 20% will take 250 to 450k years to be removed through weathering.
Despite all that people are being told by most responsible scientists about pumping huge excessive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, it still amazes me that a group like the CO2 Coalition can emerge to lobby for industries that pump this stuff out with websites showing glorious green fields filled with happy humans and wildlife.
Makes a stark contrast with what is happening in the Amazon right now and everywhere else where the environment is being treated as like trash in the ns e of profits.
As to the story of elevated CO2 levels boosting plant growth, see this
Will rising carbon dioxide levels really boost plant growth?
One of the reasons CO2 is pumped into greenhouses to promote growth is that the CO2 becomes depleted because the plants suck it out during photosynthesis - it’s like putting a human in a plastic bag and sealing it. It has been shown that levels in greenhouses up to 1500 ppm can be beneficial. But, as the article I linked to above shows, it depends whether the plant is of the C3 or C4 variety.
So, the increased CO2 = improved growth paradigm is not so simple and carries with it some clear issues (see soil nutrient uptake etc).
Will rising carbon dioxide levels really boost plant growth?
One of the reasons CO2 is pumped into greenhouses to promote growth is that the CO2 becomes depleted because the plants suck it out during photosynthesis - it’s like putting a human in a plastic bag and sealing it. It has been shown that levels in greenhouses up to 1500 ppm can be beneficial. But, as the article I linked to above shows, it depends whether the plant is of the C3 or C4 variety.
So, the increased CO2 = improved growth paradigm is not so simple and carries with it some clear issues (see soil nutrient uptake etc).
Last edited:
The IPCC publication is a good introduction to the processes:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL-1.pdf
New publication about the mutual effects between clouds and climate:
Possible climate transitions from breakup of stratocumulus decks under greenhouse warming | Nature Geoscience
or from 2012:
More carbon dioxide leads to less clouds | Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
But these alleged restriction would neither prevent you from posting peer-reviewed evidence that corrobates the assertion that the said 'change' did happen, nor from posting other temperature graphs from such sources that show 'something' did not happen after 2006, right?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.