Is the earth really dying?

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by freefeet

Humans are also responsible for the destruction of nearly all the world's forest cover that has disappeared over the last few thousand years. That in itself prevents a lot of the natural CO2 and human produced CO2 from being removed from the atmosphere once it's there.

Thousands of years ago if the natural CO2 levels went up Nature could adjust with more trees and stuff, now we prevent any forest growth and even reduce the stock of what we do have.

Then we farm cows that produce incredible amounts of methane, just to add environmental insult to environmental injury.

Brilliant! Re-forestation and Methane sequestration. Both of these are very good examples of how we can help. I have about 30 acres of land with about 10 acres in hardwood forest. I was thinking about planting pine trees on the remainder.

[freefeet]

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

Wow!!!
I see this consistently with the Global Warming talking heads. Apparently, your eagerness to amplify the premise of man’s destructive nature has limited you to same unrealistic ‘what-if’ scenarios seen in the IPCC models. I have come to understand that conduct such as this, be it from ideology or ignorance, is prerequisite for a position of status on the WAB Team.
First I want to thank you for not disregarding the calculated measurements of approx. 4% contribution of CO2 by humans. The sticky part is when the IPCC talks about CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, they are sure to understand that CO2 does not just pay-out in big separate chunks like a slot machine. CO2 gradually enters the system over time from all of its sources. To put it simply, CO2 will continue to out-gas from the oceans as long as its temperature remains at higher levels. It will continue to do so as temperatures rise in the ocean regardless of man’s CO2 output. What you are implying is that 96% of the CO2 has no effect on the warming but our 4% has done it all. In light of the possibility the a few pictures of Polar Bears have made you forget about mathematical proportion, I will put it like this. Let’s say the rise in temperature over the last few centuries was 1.2deg. Over the last century man has been contributing CO2 at an accelerating rate. Temperatures during that time have warmed in the 30’s, cooled in the 70’s, warmed in the late 90’s and are now cooling since 2003. Even if all of that contrary evidence to the theory of man’s 4% total liability is ignored, we still would have contributed only enough CO2 to exact a .048deg to the total rise up to now. For man to double the CO2 content on his own, he would need to increase his output by a factor of 25. I do not know how long it would take to build these refineries and production platforms, but let’s say your argument is hogwash and not even guess.
The final question in our minds is if man’s influence on the global picture has caused the steady incremental rise in global temperatures since the start of the interglacial period. I certainly hope this is not the case. If it is, that would mean we all would have to lower our populations and living conditions to something less than 10,000 years ago. All I can say is that the people, who believe in this theology, can be the first to live according to its mandates.
By the way, temperature drives CO2, not visa-versa. See Vostok Ice Core Data. (Maybe some future discussion?)
P.S. Don't quit your day job.

Ted, there really is no need to be so nasty towards people.

As to your .048deg supposed increase due to 4% human added CO2, you are totally off up the wrong path.

The standard temp was maintained with the normal CO2 levels, by your own figures humans added 4% on top of that. That 4% extra, plus deforestation and modern intensive cattle farming, is what people are saying caused the 1.2deg increase.

If we hadn't added the 4% and torn down all the forests and started intensive farming of cattle then the normal natural background levels of CO2 would only have served to maintain the stable global temperature. The Earth needs that natural CO2 in it's atmosphere to keep heat in, reduce it too far and the heat gets lost to space, increase it, even by 4% and you get an increase in global temperatures.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

Wow!!!
I see this consistently with the Global Warming talking heads. Apparently, your eagerness to amplify the premise of man’s destructive nature has limited you to same unrealistic ‘what-if’ scenarios seen in the IPCC models. I have come to understand that conduct such as this, be it from ideology or ignorance, is prerequisite for a position of status on the WAB Team.
First I want to thank you for not disregarding the calculated measurements of approx. 4% contribution of CO2 by humans. The sticky part is when the IPCC talks about CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, they are sure to understand that CO2 does not just pay-out in big separate chunks like a slot machine. CO2 gradually enters the system over time from all of its sources. To put it simply, CO2 will continue to out-gas from the oceans as long as its temperature remains at higher levels. It will continue to do so as temperatures rise in the ocean regardless of man’s CO2 output. What you are implying is that 96% of the CO2 has no effect on the warming but our 4% has done it all. In light of the possibility the a few pictures of Polar Bears have made you forget about mathematical proportion, I will put it like this. Let’s say the rise in temperature over the last few centuries was 1.2deg. Over the last century man has been contributing CO2 at an accelerating rate. Temperatures during that time have warmed in the 30’s, cooled in the 70’s, warmed in the late 90’s and are now cooling since 2003. Even if all of that contrary evidence to the theory of man’s 4% total liability is ignored, we still would have contributed only enough CO2 to exact a .048deg to the total rise up to now. For man to double the CO2 content on his own, he would need to increase his output by a factor of 25. I do not know how long it would take to build these refineries and production platforms, but let’s say your argument is hogwash and not even guess.
The final question in our minds is if man’s influence on the global picture has caused the steady incremental rise in global temperatures since the start of the interglacial period. I certainly hope this is not the case. If it is, that would mean we all would have to lower our populations and living conditions to something less than 10,000 years ago. All I can say is that the people, who believe in this theology, can be the first to live according to its mandates.
By the way, temperature drives CO2, not visa-versa. See Vostok Ice Core Data. (Maybe some future discussion?)
P.S. Don't quit your day job.

I'm not even going to respond to this. It's downright rude and there are so many mistakes, misunderstandings and flawed reasoning in this one post I genuinely wouldn't know where to start.

You need to learn how to debate in a civil manner. Your views are extreme, your reasoning blunt and often flawed yet I don't see anyone being rude to you. You may or may not have noticed that WAB is a very friendly, polite site and we don't tolerate personal attack of this nature. You'll no doubt convince yourself that all WAB moderators are part of the global conspiracy that is climate change (even though I'm the only moderator ever to have posted on this topic so I've no idea what you're talking about in the post above) but that won't stop us taking action to remove such behaviour if it arises again.

Matt

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

P.S. Don't quit your day job.

actually IIRC the study of climate change is matts day job -therefore its just possible that he might know considerably more about it than most of the other contributors to this debate and thus deserve considerably more respect than you are giving him.

of course you will no doubt then accuse him of being part of the mythical conspiracy to get rich from the study of climate change - because after all research scientists are well known for their vast wealth

[Dinasaw]

Feeling a little depressed by all this stuff I don't understand. However, just returned from a break in the Cotswolds, beeeaooootiful colours in all the countryside, and a sight of some real Roman mosaic pavement at Chedworth....and lots of keen and happy children taking it all in. We must all try to be kind and responsible and take care of each other and our surroundings, preserve what we can for their future.

And why be photographed in yer vest, T.P.?

[freefeet]

Originally Posted by Dinasaw

We must all try to be kind and responsible and take care of each other and our surroundings, preserve what we can for their future.

As a grandparent of 5, i couldn't agree more.

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

I'm not even going to respond to this. It's downright rude..Matt

Matt and all,
You are right. My manners have been deplorable and I have offended people on this site directly and indirectly with my derogatory and sarcastic statements. This was not my conscious intent when I entered this site, but it seems a flaw in my nature has led me to it.
I sincerely apologize to everyone here for my actions and I will make my best effort to be respectful and civil.
It also has come to my attention that my avatar may be distasteful. Yes-No?

Thank you,
Ted

[matt_xyz]

apology accepted Ted.

I'm not offended by your avatar, I think it was just a humorous comment by dinasaw above.

Matt

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

apology accepted Ted.

I'm not offended by your avatar, I think it was just a humorous comment by dinasaw above.

Matt

Many thanks,

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by Dinasaw

And why be photographed in yer vest, T.P.?

I think my daughter was so happy to catch me without a cigarette in my mouth or a drink in my hand, she just had to snap a picture.