Global warming milestone about to be passed and there's no going back.

a reply to: Harte

No, that's simply not "true," as is easily confirmed online.

Over a period of 5.000 year, yes, 80% of the worlds forest have been cut down or destroyed, the left over is 10% old growth( untouched forest) and 10 % regrowth.
SOURCE

The statistics paint a grim picture. According to the World Resources Institute, more than 80 percent of the Earth’s natural forests already have been destroyed. Up to 90 percent of West Africa’s coastal rain forests have disappeared since 1900. Brazil and Indonesia, which contain the world’s two largest surviving regions of rain forest, are being stripped at an alarming rate by logging, fires, and land-clearing for agriculture and cattle-grazing.

80-of-earths-forests-have-been -destroyed-who-is-clear-cutting-the-most

I come from a country that once was covered with forest from coast to coast, now the biggest forest we have takes less than an hour to traverse.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: Sremmos80

It's not, LOL!!
We are putting SOME in, but more comes from natural processes and also, like mentioned, deforestation.

Deforestation is man caused though. So admitting that deforestation is effecting the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is pretty much admitting that you believe in man made climate change.

We have to get rid of the word climate change, it's like saying two times the same thing, just climate will do (we know climate is ALWAYS changing).

There is no proof man made deforestation will cause major catastrophes to the earth, at least it's nothing the earth can't handle.

Yes there is. I've already posted some evidence of how we've uncovered previous accounts of man made climate change, and that was on a smaller scale than what we are witnessing today.

When the last ice age occurred for example, how many millions off acres forest were destroyed by growing glaciers? Or when the ice melted, how much was destroyed by flooding? This happened very recent and look how nature is thriving in those areas.

I'm not arguing that life will die out do to the changing climate. I don't think anyone is. Life has come back from the Permian–Triassic extinction event which killed something like 96% of all species on the planet. So it will come back no matter how much we # up the planet. That is unless we completely sterilize the whole orb, but we'd have to do that on purpose.

What we are worried about with the changing climate is how it will effect us. Humans. Human society. Things that HAVEN'T been tested by large changing climates in our past. It's great that life will go on, but do you really not care if our species gets wiped out by our own hubris? Especially if it were preventable with just a bit of foresight and planning?

Don't get me wrong I do not support man made deforestation, on the contrary, I have a food forest garden and i get totally disgusted when i see acres upon acres of monoculture and the abuse of land.

So why be selective about your environmental destruction outrage? Deforestation is just a small tip of the iceberg of what we are doing to this planet. CO2 output is probably the largest chunk of that iceberg at the moment. Followed closely by freshwater destruction and then ocean destruction. Deforestation comes in behind those ones. At least in my opinion. They are all very severe though.

a reply to: cuckooold

Everybody picks side left or right, same goes for your links. No one is in the middle or have independent opinions.
Counts for every scientist so that's proof all the global warming scare is just politics playing games and eventually hoping for one world government.

I didn't choose that article because of the journalist but because of the statements Hoegh-Guldberg made about the reefs that were not correct.
No right or left wing intention here, i try to choose the side of rationalism and proper investigation but that seems to be a impossible task in the world of today as i stated before.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's great that life will go on, but do you really not care if our species gets wiped out by our own hubris? Especially if it were preventable with just a bit of foresight and planning?

If I have to be honest, No I don't care. If you make mistakes you have to face the consequences, you must have learned that in school when you failed some sort of test. Try again next year or in another life.

The reason to be 'selective' is I simply do not believe that current co2 levels or even the double will do any major harm to the planet and even species. Nature will eventually find a balance as is has done in the past.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's great that life will go on, but do you really not care if our species gets wiped out by our own hubris? Especially if it were preventable with just a bit of foresight and planning?

If I have to be honest, No I don't care. If you make mistakes you have to face the consequences, you must have learned that in school when you failed some sort of test. Try again next year or in another life.

So that's it? We can easily stop this if we try, but # it. You can't be arsed to care so let us all die?

The reason to be 'selective' is I simply do not believe that current co2 levels or even the double will do any major harm to the planet and even species. Nature will eventually find a balance as is has done in the past.

Well your head is so far into the sand it might be coming out of your asscrack. Scientists are currently tracking large scale changes and effects to not only our species and society but many other species and their habits are being destroyed by our CO2 output. The coral bleaching mentioned in the OP is just one of these.

I mean you make it sound inevitable. Nature is inevitable. The laws of physics are inevitable. Human action can be changed. You just don't WANT to believe this is true because it would destroy your complacency.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

As i posted before, there is currently not enough research done on coral bleaching, calcification, to proof it has a devastating effects on the reefs and more little is known the human impacts are a primal causation.

Easily stop what? Natural disasters, like earthquakes, floods, fires, temperature change,...it's climate and nature will do whatever it likes.
It's been a while but remember reading an article that said if we stop all human co2 emissions today the earth might cool down to 0.1 degrees by the end of the century. Off course this was based on models so the real observations might differ.
Is this worth paying a carbontax?

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Krazysh0t

As i posted before, there is currently not enough research done on coral bleaching, calcification, to proof it has a devastating effects on the reefs and more little is known the human impacts are a primal causation.

Not enough research? Or you haven't actually looked into the research?

Easily stop what? Natural disasters, like earthquakes, floods, fires, temperature change,...
It's been a while but remember reading an article that said if we stop all human co2 emissions today the earth might cool down to 0.1 degrees by the end of the century. Off course this was based on models so the real observations might differ.
Is this worth paying a carbontax?

Oh we may not reverse the affects in OUR lifetime, but that isn't a reason to not do anything and help make things better for our descendants.

PS: There are more ways to fix CO2 output than JUST a carbon tax. One of the problems with the solutions aspect is y'all are so tied up with the carbon credits solution that you just tie it into dismissing the whole theory. But if you'd just pull your heads out of the sand and accept the theory, MAYBE you could bring some better solutions to the table.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

yes i've looked into it

www.nature.com...

www.nature.com...

link.springer.com...

www.nature.com...

link.springer.com...

My life is worth a lot less than that of my family, so yes I do want the best for them.

I love how everyone who denies climate change is just like yeah it couldn't be us! Nope, not the species that alters the landscape across the entire globe. Not us, we can't do it even though we dump insane amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere it clearly can't have any effect. Nature will take care of it. Yeeeaaah. I'm sorry some of you need to be more objective in your research and first I recommend learning what science actually is about. Isn't it kind of embarrassing to be this ill informed?

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Fine. That is but one aspect of the damages that MM Climate Change is causing (or may be causing in your case). There are far more. Then you have the social aspects as things like available land disappear and force large groups of people to relocate inland (which makes the people living there upset). This causes conflicts. If it means crossing borders, it may even mean war.

We are already seeing increased hurricane and huge storm activity. Just look at that huge snow storm that blanketed the eastern part of the US this past February. It broke records for snowfall in pretty much every state that it hit. Then a week later it was warm out and the snow was gone. Normally a blizzard like that leaves snow on the ground for quite some time. Of course that is just one weather event, but it's not like we there aren't more bizarre storm fronts we've encountered within the last few decades or anything.

I mean if you claim you love your family, then the safe bet would be to side with believing in climate change. After all, the popular saying is, "What if after improving the environment and cleaning up the air, it all turns out to be a hoax?" Oh well. Now we are breathing cleaner air again. Not a complete loss in my book.

a reply to: cuckooold

grow more hemp! more hemp products! Hempcrete has a negative carbon footprint - more of THIS, less plastics and petroleum-based products

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: Phage

Do you have a source for that or are you just going to ask that I accept it because you said it?

Here you go.
berkeleyearth.org...
www-users.york.ac.uk...

Wow, how very hypocritical; you ask people to defend their position and observe T&Cs when I post offsite content in a revealing manner but forget the link and your response to back up your argument is two links. (BTW, did you check out the Funding sources for your first link? Kinda kills your argument a bit)

This thread, with you, just got boring to me. Congratulations on stifling my enjoyment of what could have been a decent debate.

"Kirk out"

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: cuckooold

So we be Baaaaaad Humans and we burn stuff (sorta like what happens in nature) but we are responsible for global calamity in the short timeframe of 100+- years against a 4.5 billion year old planet....

Pfffft.

What an unbelievably ignorant statement. So if "humans" were to start a nuclear war and let off all their nukes the earth would be oky doky because it does not compare with 4.5billion year old earth?

The speed of the destruction has nothing whatsoever to do with the consequences of the destruction. It's the amount of destruction that matters. We can set off two nukes in one week (earth oK) or we could set off thousands in hours....no more earth as we know it. We have been burning fossil fuels for over a hundred years although the volume in the past couple of decades is considerably higher. It is the amount of CO2 from that burning that matters.

Oh by the way "sorta like what happens in nature" is CO2 that goes round in circles. Now here is the ironic thing : the earth has been locking up carbon for billions of years and we have been releasing it in decades.

I will not debate your statement about whether your opinion of my statement is ignorant as it is not relevant to the thread (intended slight duly noted though).

You argument regarding thermonuclear war being somehow okay is a completely invalid argument as it is not relevant to anything (it does not even get to being a red herring argument).

What I am saying about the 'global warming' scare campaign is that it si not based upon completely reliable data. It is human's hubris to think that we have this affect on a biosphere that has been here much longer than we have and likely will continue on longer than we will. If you took the time to read some of my other posts, you would realize that I am very environmentally minded and actually operate systems to reduce waste, produce activated carbon to help clean the planet, produce no waste products or gasses in the process. What are you doing?

a reply to: FamCore

There is no space for growing hemp in the required amount for it to make a difference, farmland is sitting hard on the space there is.

a reply to: notmyrealname

What is there to debate?

Observations and data are not debatable, given the instruments are reliable.

Clearly we are observing a sharp spike of CO2 levels. We are also observing an increasing temperature trend. This reality is not up for debate.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: notmyrealname

What is there to debate?

Observations and data are not debatable, given the instruments are reliable.

Clearly we are observing a sharp spike of CO2 levels. We are also observing an increasing temperature trend. This reality is not up for debate.

It's the why they are spiking that is the debate

a reply to: Mianeye

I'm not sure about other crops, but hemp could be more effective than trees at absorbing C02 and it grows fast as hell!

breathing in 4x the carbon dioxide (CO2) of trees during it's quick 12-14 week growing cycle. Trees take 20 years to mature vs 4 months for Industrial Hemp! Our forests are being cut down 3x faster than they can grow! One acre of hemp produces as much cellulose fiber pulp as 4.1 acres of trees (Dewey & Merrill. Bulletin #404. U.S. Dept. of Age. 1916)

a reply to: notmyrealname

It's the why they are spiking that is the debate

Ok.
How, if the ratio between 14C and 12C is changing, can it be attributed to anything but the burning of fossil fuels?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

(BTW, did you check out the Funding sources for your first link? Kinda kills your argument a bit)

Yeah. They started out as AGW skeptics (funding from Koch, actually), and were surprised to find that the skeptics claims about the adjustments were bogus. Koch stopped funding them after that.

Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics.

berkeleyearth.org...

a reply to: FamCore

Is that hemp harvested for commercial use, if so it doesn't help much.

You would need hemp that is planted and die, to trap the Co2 in the dirt, or else it would just be released back in the air.

a reply to: notmyrealname

No it is not. When we burn fossil fuels, we release CO2, this accounts for the excess CO2 we are observing.

It is a pretty simple and obvious connection.