The Arctic has become warmer by 5 degrees. Australia has snowed.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not legal here, the city will issue a ticket, and charge you for the city to mow it.

I've managed to avoid (or should I say would avoid) living in such places. 20 or so years ago a man IIRC in Ohio provided evidence that an endangered bird had nested in his unkempt yard and had the federal authorities overrule the local covenants.
 
Last edited:
All individual efforts are very valuable. (I do them too)
But it is insignificant next to the stumbling blocks of the energumnos perched on power with the support of the world's leading predatory power.

Norway and Germany have already suspended their contributions to the Amazon Fund in repudiation of the environmental protection of the Brazilian government.

Desde la Amazonia critican a Bolsonaro | Los gobern... | Pagina12

The Interstate Consortium of Sustainable Development of the Legal Amazon, made up of nine of the 27 Brazilian states, informed through a note that aims to "dialogue directly" with the countries that fund the Amazon Fund, which provides resources for prevention, surveillance and the conservation of the region. "The Amazon bloc regrets that the positions of the Brazilian government have caused the suspension of resources" of the Fund, said the text, which increases the controversy over Bolsonaro's plans to authorize economic activities, including mining, in indigenous reserves and in areas of environmental Protection.

"We are totally against any illegal practice of economic activities in the region," added the group, which also proposed that the Banco da Amazônia be the "financial manager" of the Fund, instead of the BNDES development bank (National Bank of Economic and Social Development).

Norway announced last Thursday the blockade of 30 million euros (33 million dollars) for Fund programs, for which the Scandinavian country contributed 93.5 percent of the total budget that this structure received between 2008 and 2018. Germany contributed 5.7 percent, and Brazil's state-owned company Petrobras, the remaining 0.5.

The German government had already blocked on August 10 about 35 million euros (about 39 million dollars) from different programs, until deforestation figures were encouraging again, or at least stabilized. "They can use that money as they see fit. Brazil doesn't need it." Jair Bolsonaro had referred in this way to the decision taken by Germany.

Both countries expressed on more than one occasion their thanks to the government of Lula da Silva, responsible for the start of the Fund project. Today, they are strongly critical of a government that does not maintain the tripartite steering committee between the Federal Government, state governments and civil society, recently eliminated by the controversial Minister of the Environment, Ricardo Salles.

"Having a diverse and balanced representation of authorities and civil society on the committee also contributes to increasing the transparency of information and responsibility in decision-making," said European countries through a letter addressed to the minister.

According to official data (always questioned by the government), deforestation in the Amazon region remained until April at the levels of recent years, but three months ago it shot up: 738.4 km² in May (they meant an increase of 34 percent ), 931.7 km² in June (up 90.7 percent) until reaching the terrible figure of 2,254.8 km² in July (an increase of 278 percent). A week before the publication of the INPE report, its director, Ricardo Galvão, was fired.

Bolsonaro responded in his own way to the measures announced by the two European countries, ensuring that they would not affect Brazil at all. "Norway is not that country that kills whales up there in the North Pole? That also exploits oil there? It is not at all an example for us. Save your money and help Angela Merkel reforest Germany," he said.


Desde la Amazonia critican a Bolsonaro | Los gobern... | Pagina12
 
Raise all your children (hopefully 2 or less) to become scientist, or at least to live by the scientific method. Their mind's won't even pick up on true vision and thought without it. Bring them up to know truth and their powers. Knowing that trying times are delicate yet needing strength and elements of perseverance towards themselves and others and their environment. These days are perhaps the most challenging in all our evolutions. Be your best, nothing else will keep you alive in this future. Peel away all the insanity, it's literally permeating everything, yet respect the life labors.

All the best
 
I prefer to discuss it here and now.

Have you read up on the greenhouse effect and do you understand it in basic layman’s terms (the way I do)?

Have you read up on thermal inertia and do you understand it?

Do you understand how much and how huge 2.5 trillion tons of CO2 is?

Do you understand that although the CO2 in the atmosphere is only in concentrations of 409 ppm (2019) , it accounts for nearly 30% of the earths greenhouse effect and increasing it from 280 ppm to 409 ppm in 150 years has serious consequences?
My question on reconvening isn't about postponing the debating. It was just a question on whether you are going to acknowledge the in/accuracy of your statements on the global climate then. I will accept the climate observations then and acknowledge my statements being close or way off. What about you?

Would you say that the quote below is not the complete list of what affects global climate?
I've tried to explain this whole thermal inertia thing to you about 4 times. There's no point in discussing it unless you go away and read up on it a bit and get a feel for the stuff that's going on.

And no, it has absolutely nothing to do with 'belief' and that's the nub of the issue here - too much of the belief stuff and not enough of the rational fact based stuff. Here are facts I have put on the table

~5 x 10^15 tons of ecosphere - a huge mass of material that takes decades to respond to thermal inputs i.e. greenhouse effects brought on by increased CO2. This is where the thermal inertia thing comes in - it takes time to heat up that much stuff so if CO2 goes up, you will not see an instant increase in temperature. think about boiling your kettle - same principle.
~2.5 trillion tons of excess CO2 (a potent GHG) injected into the atmosphere in the geological blink of an eye i.e. over the last 150 years
~0.2% global temperature forcing (vs 0.1% max from the Sun's 11 year luminosity cycle) due to excess CO2. If we go above 500ppm CO2, it will go higher.
~250~400 thousand years to sequestrate the excess CO2 we have pumped out in the last 150 years (the 'CO2 shock') back into the mantle through weathering
~ record temperature increases over the last 50 years and a strong upward trend (despite your protestations claiming it has declined - it has not. Only the rate of change has moderated for some of the reasons mentioned: PDO, ADO, Solar cycle, and aerosol/particulates from coal, diesel and other pollutants
~CO2 levels currently at > 400 ppm that were not last seen since 650k years ago
~CO2 levels headed in some estimates to ultimately above 500 ppm - levels not seen for circa 35 million years.
~ Volcanism was raised as a potential reason for increased CO2 - it has been shown that it accounts for only 10% of all CO2 produced annually and is entirely natural

Let me try one last time: its not the CO2 that's heating up and directly changing the earth's temperature. The CO2 simply acts as a thermal blanket so solar radiation that gets to the surface of the planet is not re-radiated out again to the same extent. CO2 traps that radiation and reduces the amount of heat that re-radiates back out to space (the green house effect). The additional CO2 we have injected into the atmosphere has caused thermal forcing above pre-industrial CO2 levels that is about 0.2% - so double that of the solar cycle forcing (which in itself is a short term 11 year cycle and which the planet has evolved to deal with). The anthropogenic CO2 forcing amounts to about 2 Watts per square meter or 2 Megawatts per square kilometre. As explained earlier, this forcing will be around now for thousands of years.

I don't see 'belief' in any of this.

See here for a more complete description of the greenhouse effect Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia
 
www.hifisonix.com
Joined 2003
Paid Member
i Am not a climate scientist, but then neither are you. The above list is not anywhere near complete but constitutes some of the forcing mechanisms which you should be aware of and their magnitudes, and the scale of the issue at hand.

But, I take the time out to study these things a little bit and have an informed opinion. I’m not a an alarmist, but recognize a position that says ‘everything is quite normal and ok - just carry on’ is not tenable.

What amazes me is you don’t understand high school science concepts and yet you’ll come into a subject like this and troll away, as you are doing above.
 
Last edited:
............the terrible figure of 2,254.8 km² in July (an increase of 278 percent).........

It is not necessary to be a scientist to understand the damage to the planet that this means! Just the scientists are the ones who alert us, but it seems that the denial, the lack of awareness of the magnitude of the problem is much stronger .... maybe if they read this book they could soften their brains ......
 

Attachments

  • 506262.jpg
    506262.jpg
    42.9 KB · Views: 110
Here is another way where data can misrepresent the actual situation.

Station data is from Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the 3rd is from NASA Goddard Institute. GISS data shows southern Australia as warmer by 1°C from an average yet the actual temperature between 1865 and 2018 shows a decrease.

When I did my training in measurement science my professor made a statement that has stayed with me.

"If you put one foot in a bucket of dry ice and the other in a bucket of boiling water your average temperature is 22°C"

To put this simply all of the data shows anomaly temperatures referenced to some average. The anomaly data has no notation as to how much correction has been applied.

I'm not saying we should continue to pillage the planet but some of the information posted here is pure hypothesis, with little or no knowledge of measurement.
 

Attachments

  • 1865.jpg
    1865.jpg
    329.2 KB · Views: 91
  • 2018.jpg
    2018.jpg
    326 KB · Views: 98
  • nasa.jpg
    nasa.jpg
    237.2 KB · Views: 101
www.hifisonix.com
Joined 2003
Paid Member
Establishing a base line and then monitoring changes from that is a perfectly legitimate approach technically in my book to ascertain with the subsequent trend is up or down. Take CO2 for example. We know from ice core data and the fossil record that it has declined from where it was 35 million years ago, and over the last c. 1 million years it’s oscillated between 180 ppm and just under 300 ppm. We know it is now sitting at 409 ppm and rising very quickly. Similarly, we see the same thing with temperature. There is a claim out there that temperatures declined for 25 odd years between 1985 and 210. If you zoom out a few centuries, what you see is that it is climbing very quickly and what happened in the above period is that the rate of increase slowed to almost a standstill. It did not decline. It is now accelerating again.

So, yes, data can be misrepresented and the famous aphorism ‘there’s lies, damn lies and then there’s statistics’ holds as much in this issue as it does in anything else.

The nub of the issue IMV is that we are fundamentally taking the planet in a different direction with GHG emissions (and species die-off due to all sorts of issues) without a clear idea of what the final settling point is. To ignore this and say GW has nothing to do with us and carry on as normal seems irresponsible. Of course it’s happening because people in power and the wealthy will take a hit. Politicians will get it at the ballot box because they may force the electorate to curb their energy usage, and industrialists don’t want anything to impede their ability to make money. Example: Black Rock invested $90 billion is fossil fuel projects over the last 10 years. (They claim to have lost the investments and have written down a large portion - dunno the exact details but that’s what was in the news).

So, we are between a rock and a hard place. Clive Best whose website I linked to earlier and who I’d describe as a ‘Luke warmer’ on climate change and anthropogenic causes (but backs his viewpoint up with some serious discussions and data) made the statement ‘Gaia will find a way!’ which is not to say things will all be ok. Nature will find a new control point and it will probably be totally unpleasant for us. But that’s her way of saying ‘you aren’t going to trash me without paying dearly for it’
 
Last edited:
Saving the planet is unfortunately something I think humans will be too engrossed in their own reality to take part in.

On the increase in CO2 and temperature. The measurement methodology is different between them so there can not be a correlation made.

CO2 is an absolute measurement where the temperature rise is an anomaly measurement based on an average determined by the data set. If the temperature measurement was an absolute value then you could draw conclusions between the rise in CO2 and temperature.

Australian BOM has absolute measurement data which if you use ONLY the rural stations that have not been surrounded by concrete do not support the massive temperature rises reported by NASA GISS and NOAA anomaly data.

Example data from BOM Horsham in Victoria 300km inland

1958 annual average 21.5°C
2010 annual average 21.5°C
 
www.hifisonix.com
Joined 2003
Paid Member
Here the kind of stuff that angers me
'The final judgement is coming': Worst rainforest fires in history sees Brazilian city fall dark at 3pm because sun cannot breach thick smoke clouds | The Independent

Wanton destruction and to hell with the cost. And it’s not just Brazil - it’s everywhere - EU, USA, China, Australia etc.

“I used to be called Captain Chainsaw,” he said. “Now I am Nero, setting the Amazon aflame.”

Saving the planet is unfortunately something I think humans will be too engrossed in their own reality to take part in.

On the increase in CO2 and temperature. The measurement methodology is different between them so there can not be a correlation made.

CO2 is an absolute measurement where the temperature rise is an anomaly measurement based on an average determined by the data set. If the temperature measurement was an absolute value then you could draw conclusions between the rise in CO2 and temperature.

Australian BOM has absolute measurement data which if you use ONLY the rural stations that have not been surrounded by concrete do not support the massive temperature rises reported by NASA GISS and NOAA anomaly data.

Example data from BOM Horsham in Victoria 300km inland

1958 annual average 21.5°C
2010 annual average 21.5°C

Are you saying CO2 is not a GHG and cannot cause temperatures to rise?

As for different methodologies (anomaly vs absolute) I fail to see how you cannot correlate the two. We have a baseline on the one and there is a strong trend upwards from the baseline. And we know we’ve pumped 2.5 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1870. Go figure.

I’d like to see the complete data set for Oz, not selected countryside stations. If NASA and other agencies are telling me temperatures are going up and have satellite data that shows that, I’d be more inclined to believe it. I do expect temperatures in the northern hemisphere to be higher (more land mass) but then again how do you explain the loss of Antarctic sea ice?

“On the increase in CO2 and temperature. The measurement methodology is different between them so there can not be a correlation made.”

With the greatest of respect, this is absolute nonsense. There are plenty of measurements in science and engineering where you can infer data, or use a proxy.
 
yes, you need to be philosophical about the whole thing.

The human species as we know it has not really been around for long and maybe we won't be forever either. Maybe another species is destined to replace us and this species will thrive in the environment that humans have created even if it was their own self destruction. Time marches on. If you believe in evolution then it will take care of itself and alarmism won't help anyone nor really change the course to any significant amount. Try navigating the titanic with a paddle. Even if every passenger was given a paddle, the outcome would have been the same in the end.

For us, our economies and how we live has already set the course. The alarmists don't tell the whole story of what it would take to stop GW because they 1. cannot. 2. The extent of the effort needed would scare people to no end. Meanwhile they profit from selling canoe paddles to passengers on the Titanic while they dine well.

For example, consumers think thy are saving the planet by turning off their lights for one hour per year! and having LED lights in their home.....but they still use central air conditioning. What a joke! really. Or using EVs without thinking where the E is coming from or how we would provide it.
 
Last edited:
Raise all your children (hopefully 2 or less) to become scientist, or at least to live by the scientific method. Their mind's won't even pick up on true vision and thought without it. Bring them up to know truth and their powers. Knowing that trying times are delicate yet needing strength and elements of perseverance towards themselves and others and their environment. These days are perhaps the most challenging in all our evolutions. Be your best, nothing else will keep you alive in this future. Peel away all the insanity, it's literally permeating everything, yet respect the life labors.

All the best
:up: :up: :up:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.