Dr StrangeHarpper or: How I Learned to Stopped Worrying (About Global Warming) and Love CO2

[gowlerk 1,928]

Quote

I personally just try to do my part without sweating the details. I was going to burn about a 1/2 acre bluff of trees but am going to chip the trees instead.

Nice thought, but go ahead and burn them if you want. The wood chips would decompose anyway and release their stored carbon. The real danger comes from releasing the long term stored carbon in coal, gas, and other non renewables. Trees are considered a renewable resource.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Phil1111 915]

gowlerk

Quote

I personally just try to do my part without sweating the details. I was going to burn about a 1/2 acre bluff of trees but am going to chip the trees instead.

Nice thought, but go ahead and burn them if you want. The wood chips would decompose anyway and release their stored carbon. The real danger comes from releasing the long term stored carbon in coal, gas, and other non renewables. Trees are considered a renewable resource.

Thats true. But there are a bunch of other variables. Slightly saline clay soil, low organic content already, alkaline, etc.

Drawback is need to add nitrogen in order to keep soil in reasonable balance. I think its about 200lb /ac Plus the hassle and expense of shredding. Diesel and a match is certainly the tried and true method.

[billvon 2,435]

>I personally just try to do my part without sweating the details. I was going to burn
>about a 1/2 acre bluff of trees but am going to chip the trees instead.

Give them to a lumber or paper mill; they'd probably come by and take them off your hands for free. That way you sequester the carbon in a house or a book for 50-100 years.

[DJL 232]

They'll likely just do the trunk for free and you're left with the stump and branches. Not much margin in a small lumber removal.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,435]

Quote

They'll likely just do the trunk for free and you're left with the stump and branches.

90% of the removal for free doesn't sound like such a bad deal.

[wmw999 2,149]

Quote

I personally try to do my part without sweating the details

This. No one is perfect, and everyone can improve. Kind of like how no one action or combination of actions will absolutely prevent one from developing type 2 diabetes, but if you maintain a good body weight, exercise with some regularity, and eat mostly healthy foods, your chances go way down.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DJL 232]

billvon

Quote

They'll likely just do the trunk for free and you're left with the stump and branches.

90% of the removal for free doesn't sound like such a bad deal.

Yeah, I don't know if I'd call stumps and brush 10% of the work. Anyway, tree crews price based upon their equipment so you can probably shop around for the right fit.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,435]

>Yeah, I don't know if I'd call stumps and brush 10% of the work.

Not of the work, just the removal. Taking the trunks is going to take 90% of the tree away. There will surely be some work remaining chipping the branches and removing stumps (if they need to be removed.)

[timski 80]

NOT one of you has thought/factored in the one big thing that no one has any control over: The planet itself. Volcano's. Yeah, about that.

[billvon 2,435]

>NOT one of you has thought/factored in the one big thing that no one has any
>control over: The planet itself. Volcano's. Yeah, about that.

What about that? Volcanic emissions are factored in to CO2 emissions. Volcanoes emit between about 50 and 300 million tons of CO2 a year; mankind emits 30 billion (that's 30,000 million) tons a year.

They also generate high altitude aerosols which tend to cool the planet by blocking sunlight. When Pinatubo blew in 1991 it resulted in cooler-than-expected temperatures for about two years.

[gowlerk 1,928]

timski

NOT one of you has thought/factored in the one big thing that no one has any control over: The planet itself. Volcano's. Yeah, about that.

It's hard to respond. Your meaning is unclear. But do please factor them in and let me know the effect.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[evh 22]

timski

NOT one of you has thought/factored in the one big thing that no one has any control over: The planet itself. Volcano's. Yeah, about that.

Sorry to disappoint you, but... I HAVE thought about it, because it was one of the very few points that climate change deniers made, that actually made sense to me.

Turns out, their impact is close to nothing.

"There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity. "

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-volcanoes-affect-w/

Try again.

[timski 80]

evh

***NOT one of you has thought/factored in the one big thing that no one has any control over: The planet itself. Volcano's. Yeah, about that.

Sorry to disappoint you, but... I HAVE thought about it, because it was one of the very few points that climate change deniers made, that actually made sense to me.

Turns out, their impact is close to nothing.

"There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity. "

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-volcanoes-affect-w/

Try again.

As with all debates I take it all with a grain of salt. How long have "we" been keeping reliable/tangible/quantifiable scientific data? Yea yea yea, you can compare ice core samples and compare that to current trends and actual samples from today but in the end its all based on what? What "we" believe is proof based on numbers gathered and crunched from other humans. It's said that "numbers don't lie", but humans, well we are driven by different influences and the number one is, drum roll=The all mighty dollar.

So I guess what I'm saying is, go google all the "fact's" and believe what you want to believe!

[kallend 1,648]

rushmc

***


Meanwhile 97% of actual climate scientists disagree with him, along with the consensus of the National Academy of Sciences.

And the Bull Shit lie surfaces again

Fortunately the published reports of the National Academies of Science and Engineering outweigh your uninformed opinion by a very great deal.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 200]

kallend

******


Meanwhile 97% of actual climate scientists disagree with him, along with the consensus of the National Academy of Sciences.

And the Bull Shit lie surfaces again

Fortunately the published reports of the National Academies of Science and Engineering outweigh your uninformed opinion by a very great deal.

I think it's funny that science wants me to believe they can predict what's going to happen in the next 500 years but they can't tell me with any certainty if it will rain on the weekend.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[gowlerk 1,928]

Quote

I think it's funny that science wants me to believe they can predict what's going to happen in the next 500 years but they can't tell me with any certainty if it will rain on the weekend.

Science only tells us what could happen, not what will happen. The same goes for your local forecast. It is not guaranteed and it never has been. But I bet you check it anyway, don't you?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[kallend 1,648]

airdvr

*********


Meanwhile 97% of actual climate scientists disagree with him, along with the consensus of the National Academy of Sciences.

And the Bull Shit lie surfaces again

Fortunately the published reports of the National Academies of Science and Engineering outweigh your uninformed opinion by a very great deal.

I think it's funny that science wants me to believe they can predict what's going to happen in the next 500 years but they can't tell me with any certainty if it will rain on the weekend.

Before making silly comments, maybe you should read some chaos theory, and find out what is meant by an "attractor".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t_-NnCBdQbA

Congressional testimony from a scientist!

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t_-NnCBdQbA

Congressional testimony from a scientist!

This guy freely admits that 40% of his funding comes from the fossil fuel industry. He is paid to publish skepticism.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t_-NnCBdQbA

Congressional testimony from a scientist!

And since I know you like to track whether scientist get it right or wrong, he has plenty of wrong predictions under his belt.

https://thinkprogress.org/patrick-michaels-catos-climate-expert-has-history-of-getting-it-wrong-f20e9196160e#.fmlorg72a

Say what you will of the source Think Progress, the accurately quote and reference this material.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 388]

There is a big difference between a prediction and an observation. His testimony was about what is actually happening whereas AGW alarmists make guesses about what might happen.

Since you mentioned failed predictions, here are a few.

http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

There is a big difference between a prediction and an observation. His testimony was about what is actually happening whereas AGW alarmists make guesses about what might happen.

Since you mentioned failed predictions, here are a few.

http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

I'll fully admit that I'm not even going to read through that. Sorry for departing from this dialogue, I can't take that website seriously. Let's get back to talking about how to cook meat.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 388]

DJL

***There is a big difference between a prediction and an observation. His testimony was about what is actually happening whereas AGW alarmists make guesses about what might happen.

Since you mentioned failed predictions, here are a few.

http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

I'll fully admit that I'm not even going to read through that. Sorry for departing from this dialogue, I can't take that website seriously.

"Say what you will of the source Think Progress, they accurately quote and reference this material."

Come on man!

[billvon 2,435]

>This guy freely admits that 40% of his funding comes from the fossil fuel
>industry. He is paid to publish skepticism.

A good summary of this (one that neatly captures type 1, 2 and 3 deniers) -
==============================
Deniers persist, despite climate change facts

By Bob Doppelt
For The Register-Guard

Feb. 23, 2017

If they were not so destructive, the ever-changing storylines employed to deny climate science would almost be comical. The denial sometimes has been bipartisan, but Republicans have been most vocal.

. . .

The deniers’ original position was that the Earth’s climate was not warming. Some even claimed it was cooling.

When straightforward measurements proved otherwise, deniers started saying that the climate might be changing, but it is natural, not caused by humans.

This was invalidated by research showing that the additional energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds almost exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by carbon dioxide, and that the increased atmospheric carbon was generated by burning fossil fuels and other human activities.

This led deniers to shift their tale to saying that the additional heat won’t amount to much, while some even claimed it will be beneficial. I remember hearing a former Eugene assistant city manager openly say that. This was disproved when more frequent extreme weather events caused worsening amounts of damage to people, property and ecosystems.

When no dramatic spikes in global temperatures occurred for a few years, the story became “the warming has stopped.” This was refuted by National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration researchers who showed that, to the contrary, surface temperature had climbed 0.2 of a degree Fahrenheit each decade since 1950, without interruption.

When destructive storms, droughts and heat waves became increasingly alarming, many deniers shifted to arguments such as “we should not cut our emissions until China reduces theirs.” This failed to acknowledge that the United States has contributed almost 30 percent of historic emissions that are disrupting the climate, that we remain the second largest source of global emissions, that our per-capita emissions are three times higher than China’s, and that a big chunk of China’s emissions are generated to produce goods for us.

Intermixed with these narratives have been numerous fake news stories. Just before the 2009 Copenhagen U.N. Climate Summit, unknown deniers released emails pilfered from scientists at the University of East Anglia and claimed they proved those scientists fabricated evidence of human-induced global warming. This was debunked. Another fake news story recently claimed that NOAA scientists had manipulated climate data. It, too, has been proven false.

A number of industries also have tried to turn black into white by proclaiming that, rather than harming the climate, their products and practices are beneficial. The coal industry, for instance, began to promote “clean coal.” Coal has by far the highest carbon content of all fossil fuels. No technology exists to capture the emissions from coal, and those in development are extremely expensive and likely will require huge public subsidies. Clean coal is an oxymoron of epic proportions.

Members of the timber industry in the Northwest claimed that clearcutting forests would benefit the climate because young trees sequester more carbon than older forests, which are stagnant and decaying. This was refuted by research showing that older forests continue to grow and absorb carbon throughout their lives, and store almost twice as much carbon as forests managed on a 100-year rotation. When cut, their carbon is lost for a century or more until new trees grow to equal size, which is becoming increasingly difficult due to warming-driven droughts, wildfires and diseases. Clearcutting also disturbs soils, where more carbon is stored than in trees themselves.

[brenthutch 388]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YW5JHF_CJCU


More math