<![CDATA[100 Practical Ways to Reverse Climate Change]]>
100 Practical Ways to Reverse Climate Change
“You know some of them—use renewable energy, eat less meat—but others will surprise you…”
#future = #REALnews #clean #green #sustainability #energy #tech #innovation #progress #science #design #engineering #revolution #environment #solar #climatechange #ClimateAction #renewableenergy #renewables #economy
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/climate-change-global-warming-drawdown-hawken/
No it won’t… Delusional to think such stuff can keep the climate that has changed for 4.6 Billion years from doing so…..
]]>Paul Mays sure. bit it’s just as delusional to think that 8 billion people trapping carbon gases within our atmosphere would have no effect…
]]>Wasim Muklashy Several issues… First the vast majority of saturation of IR by CO2 and CH4 is met at about 200ppm for CO2 and about 1ppm for CH4 as it’s a logarithmic function of the gasses.. Simply put the gasses absorb and release less and less IR energy as atmospheric concentrations increase … at 400ppm of CO2 it would take a quadruple increase of CO2 to equal the same amount of absorption..
You can research studies explaining CO2 and Ch4 absorption curves but as a last resort i can get you a links to a peer reviewed study…
Second… If tomorrow you ended all use of all forms of fossil fuels completely, (using the IPCC reports worse case claims as true, Which I don’t think are even close to being) which would drop civilization back to a pre-industrial age, the global temp would drop by about a half of a degree in 100 years …
At the moment there is a better argument that since the sun has just entered the weakest solar minimum that has been recorded since the Mulder Minimum and several papers state that we are in for a global temp drop back to about what it was in the early 1800’s …
And trust me on this.. You would much rather have a 10 degree global temp increase than a global 2 degree cooling…
Also as a side note ..the increase in CO2 (From what ever reason) has increased the greening of the planet by 15% in the last 100 years…
]]>Paul Mays wow really smart but why so much writing
]]>Anders Medlicott-Sloane Maybe Inquiring minds might want to know the other side of reality…
]]>Anders Medlicott-Sloane Don’t fall for it just because it sounds smart. You are of course free to believe as you please, but I recommend you do your own research. I am the curator of this collection and the posts I choose to share are meant as starting points for those interested to look into things themselves and come to their own conclusions.
As far as Paul’s comments, these are the same arguments climate change deniers and skeptics have been using, all of which have been debunked. Feel free to engage with the argument, God knows I have several times before, but do be prepared to put a lot of energy into it. And remember, 97% of actual climate scientists have made it their lives work to actually do the science, all of whom also disagree with this fancy sounding armchair assessment.
They count on our laziness to build their argument. Be careful of falling into the trap.
If I had a health issue, I can listen to what the doctors tell me, or I can listen to my neighbor tells me…I’m going to listen to the doctors. When I have to take my car somewhere for repair, I take it to a mechanic, not someone that reads about mechanics.
So please take everything with a grain of salt and seek the information yourself.
It is also worth noting that the scientists at the very oil companies themselves are the ones that first realized the effects of burning carbon. Mobil as well as Shell both put out videos about climate change in the 80s and 90s (here’s one of them: https://www.wired.com/2017/02/watch-shells-1991-video-warning-catastrophic-climate-change/ ) at which point they realized it would be bad for business, and the heavy corporate lobby began on their behalf – not so ironically, right around the time that the propaganda videos about how it’s actually making the earth greener started to come out.
As a matter of fact one of the main videos that deniers and skeptics refer to, called “The Greening Of Planet Earth Continues”, was produced by an organization called the Greening Earth Society, a no longer existing PR firm and lobby group for the Western Fuels Association, paid for by a $400 million group of coal companies (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greening_Earth_Society).
Please just spend a few minutes and do the research. After all, inquiring minds…
]]>Anders Medlicott-Sloane I also say do your own research but keep in the back of your mind that None of want I stated has been debunked and when you hear someone toss around terms like “denialists” and “skeptics” you should consider those folk to have a religious point of view on the subject and not scientific… First Science is based on Skepticism … When a hypothesis is put forth or a theory stated science starts and stays Skeptical … Real scientists (Note Climate Science is not A Science in the first place just as Creation Science is not a science) .. I will be glad to answer any questions with date to back them up at any point but Real Scientists are today trying to disprove the laws of Gravity , They have build massive colliders and send crafts to the out planets to prove long held Theory’s and hypothesis false…. That is because every Claim of science is met with Skepticism… If a Million noted scientists say that Ulcers are caused by Stress it takes but one Skeptic to prove them wrong… If a Scientist has a Theory that he Knows is correct he seeks out skeptics to rip it to shreds … That is what real science is all about… Anytime anyone says any scientific debate is over , tries to silence skeptics then you should take a step back and ask of it’s about the search for Truth or the Protection of a Dogmatic Religion….
As for calling someone a “Denier” The simple question is what am I Denying? Does the climate change .. Yep.. has for 4.6 Billion years… Might the small amount of CO2 produced by humans have some impact on climate… Yep… … So what am I denying? Here’s what I’m think I’m denying… That the amount of CO2 produced by humans has more than a tiny impact on global climate… I see no indication that CO2 have more than a almost immeasurable impact of climate.. I consider most of the scare tactics to nothing more than a lot of people (the 98% thing is BS and has been Proven to be BS for years) keep getting paid if you are not afraid…
Here are what a couple of Real Scientist have to say on the matter…
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”
-Nobel Prize Winner For Physics, Ivar Giaever
“Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren’t worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It’s that simple.
-Nobel Prize Winner For Chemistry, Kary Mullis
“The suppression of scientific evidence that contradicts the causal link between human-generated CO2 and climate has been of great concern to ethical scientists both here in Australia and around the world….The eco-hysteria that leads the Greens, as well as the left-leaning media, to attack any person who attempts to publish science that contradicts their beliefs is a gross example of the dangerous doctrine that the end justifies the means.”
-Art Raiche, former chief research scientist, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
Now as for some movie about the planet greening I never saw such but will have to check it out .. What I rely a paper by 32 research scientists and a publication by NASA …
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/
phys.org – CO2 fertilization greening the Earth
]]>Paul Mays You’ve never seen the movie but you decide to promote it on your page? Twice? Perhaps it’s time to update your own research methods.
https://plus.google.com/photos/…
]]>Never seen it
]]>Wasim Muklashy Now that you mention it I remember adding a link to it … I post a lot of links and many I don’t watch … My research is just fine… Note where I base my position on versus where you attempt attack… But Never mind that what about the Video can you point too that is Incorrect? I’ll watch it now and see if it’s based on good data… You watch it and tell me where it makes what you think is a factual error…
]]>Paul Mays It’s on YOUR Google+ page. That’s a screenshot from YOUR stream. YOU posted it TWICE just two weeks ago. Is it a habit of yours to blindly promote stuff you’re not familiar with?
So yes, Anders Medlicott-Sloane, please take all the information (and preferably become familiar with it) and do your own research and make up your own mind. It’s actually quite a satisfying process.
“Whether you think you can or think you can’t, you’re right.”
https://plus.google.com/photos/…
]]>Paul Mays That film was produced by a group of coal lobbyists called The Greening Earth Society (now defunct) in cooperation with the Cato Institute, a conservative group funded by the fossil fuel industry. I would hardly venture to classify that as hard unbiased science.
]]>Yes I now remember watching it before .. and It’s a very good video… Care to dispute anything in it? They are correct… Anyone that has ever done an indoor grow will verify exactly what is stated in the video… Plants evolved on a planet that averaged over 2000ppm for 90% of the planets history and really started their evolution during the pre-cambrium when CO2 levels were 7000ppm… Today indoor growers pump CO2 into the green houses to get CO2 levels in the 800ppm to 1500ppm range as it can double and triple the growth rates… Seed crops top out at max growth at about 800ppm but Green Leafy plants prefer 1500ppm to 2000ppm … But as we see in the Paper I linked Nasa and researchers have confirmed the videos was correct back in 98… So is you method of debate to attack the person and film makers and avoid addressing the Facts in the video and paper?
]]>Paul Mays
Oh, and then there’s this from the very NASA article you posted:
“While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
]]>Yep… Over time plants will slow their growth rates in high CO2 concentrations… But since we are at levels that are closer to the starvation point for planes that point would be a few millennium away… At 120ppm to 150ppm plants wither and die… The are stunted in the 150 to 200ppm range and grow and what we percieve a normal rate in the 200 to 350ppm range… Above 350 and the grow better and faster and as i said.. Seed Crops have been grown in green houses ar 800ppm for decades and green leafy plants have been grown in greenhouses at 2000ppm for at least 100 years… And it is still a method to increase yield today…
Heck the Average CO2 level in the Rain Forests is about 2000ppm and is one of the driving reasons for the massive growth in them… The average home is about 1500ppm and the average office is 5000ppm…
As for Climate Change the Basis of the Claim is not the CO2… Read the IPCC papers… The Claim that CO2 is a major cause of global heating is Forcing.. The claim states the when we increase CO2 the planet heats a tiny bit… This causes water to evaporate increasing the effect because Water Vapor is the major driver of the effect because it makes up 90% of all so called green house gasses… But that is not the case.. Forcing does not happen because if it did the we would run into a runaway green house effect… In the planets past the Average CO2 level is about 2000ppm with no runaway.. and for Millions of years the planet was 7000ppm.. No runaway… .. All models used state that it is the Forcing that adds 2/3rd of the warming and one of the prediction of the forcing models is a Hot Spot over the Equator… It does not exist… Sat Temps prove it don’t exist…
So far none of the claims of the past using the models have been correct..
But B’Levers Believe..Praise Ghia! B’Levers Believe… And the High Priests pass the plate and drive home in their Rolls and private jets ….
]]>