Doomsday Approaches And People Fiddle

“CO2 levels were around 280 ppm in 1880, when the Industrial Revolution was getting started. Today, they are nearly 50% higher. “But wait!” the climate skeptics will cry. “CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the world is still here.” That’s true. During the mid-Pliocene warm period about 3 million years ago, carbon dioxide levels were 400 parts per million or above. But here’s the kicker. Ocean levels back then were more than 60 feet higher then than they are today. Think about that for a moment.”
 
See 410 PPM & Rising — CO2 Levels Reach Dangerous Levels

“HOV lanes in California has been a powerful non-financial incentive that helps drivers make the switch to a plug-in electric vehicle (PEV). Nevertheless, California amended its HOV lane policy so that decals are now only eligible to remain on the PEVs for three years, after which the PEV is no longer eligible for the HOV lane.”
 
See Boooh! California Bows To Industry Pressure, Reduces HOV Lane Access For EVs. Fight Back!
If your house is afire you don’t fiddle around. You get out safely and fight the fire if it’s possible to do that. What’s with the stupid reactions to global warming? Continue dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at greater rates? Invest in coal, oil and natural gas? Go slow on EVs? Gee! Is there intelligent life on Earth? Get with the programme. Fight the fires feeding CO2 production in your cars, trucks, trains and homes. Use solar, wind, wave, tidal and hydroelectric power instead of burning stuff.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in politics, technology and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Doomsday Approaches And People Fiddle

  1. DrLoser says:

    “Shrub-like forests“ indeed.

    What a pathetic ignorant little farmyard animal.

  2. DrLoser says:

    Most people incorrectly think sheet erosion only happens where there is no plant cover. There are trees that don’t put fine roots in the top 4 inches of soil yet depend on the top 4inches of soil to be leached.

    Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with “sheet erosion” as it can be compared to (a) grasslands and (b) forest canopies, does it, oiaohm?

    Nothing. Nothing at all. This theory of yours, which appeared to involve:

    …now you get shorter more shrub like forests and some of these can be harmful to the ground with sheet erosion and the like if the creatures do not prune them heavily so reversing the carbon collection…

    Creatures?Stop your inane drivelling and go back to earning a few pennies under the lamp-post, oiaohm. Remember, red leather miniskirts! Your clients aren’t as discriminating as we are.

  3. oiaohm says:

    “Sheet erosion” as an argument pro grasslands and anti forests. That’s a good one, Fifi. Most amusing.

    Also profoundly ignorant.

    I see DrLoser addressing someone who not here. Go and read up on forestry in Australia. Particular trees growing in shallow soil as a forest do trigger Sheet erosion there is even a guide for the USA on the same problem.

    Sorry DrLoser you are profoundly ignorant. You will find that a lot of the problem forests natives were controlling them by using their timber in tools and the like. Some of the in forest die back can be caused by this problem. Why area lost its top soil due to the trees root patterns then the tree has lost its source of nutrients and drops over dead. Then a few years latter you get a regrowth and same thing happens again. Only one problem the soil depth is progressively dropping until you get to rock.

    Managing forests is not always straight forwards. Some areas is better to deploy grass as grass will bind the soil in some areas way better than trees can. DrLoser is a basic thing if you only have 2 metres of foundation and you are standing a 20 metre tree on it the thing is not going to be stable in a massive storm.

    Most people incorrectly think sheet erosion only happens where there is no plant cover. There are trees that don’t put fine roots in the top 4 inches of soil yet depend on the top 4inches of soil to be leached. This is why its the type of forest is important. Not all forests are better than grassland. The world has shades of grey.

  4. DrLoser says:

    So now you get shorter more shrub like forests and some of these can be harmful to the ground with sheet erosion and the like if the creatures do not prune them heavily so reversing the carbon collection.

    “Sheet erosion” as an argument pro grasslands and anti forests. That’s a good one, Fifi. Most amusing.

    Also profoundly ignorant.

  5. DrLoser says:

    Solo is a great design of simplicity, efficiency and effectiveness and its only problem, production, will be solved imminently.

    The Chinese have this terrible habit of only building things that they can sell to people, Robert. No demand, no production.

    Look, if this terrible wretched idea is as great as you say it is, you could build it practically anywhere. The Chinese don’t have a monopoly on production engineering, you know — far from it.

    Mexico, Brasil, Vietnam, Turkey, you name it — anywhere. Even in Vancouver, where it is allegedly being built right now.

  6. oiaohm says:

    I doubt there is any forest that’s not a better sink than any grassland simply because of the huge mass of forests. Where I live, the usual forest is ~10m deep plus roots and there is a heavy tree every metre or so. Grassland is lucky to come anywhere close, perhaps bamboo…

    Your deep rooted grass are 1.9 to 2.6 m the interesting catch here is the average depth global to bed rock is about the same. Areas with deep soils yes forests are normally the better carbon sink. When you get into shallow soils things get a lot more complex. Shallow soils are way more common than deep soils. In the shallow soils things get way harder. Lack of trace elements comes into play on shallow soils attempting to produce large bits of timber does not happen. So now you get shorter more shrub like forests and some of these can be harmful to the ground with sheet erosion and the like if the creatures do not prune them heavily so reversing the carbon collection.

    Shallow soil forests lot of times to be a worse carbon sink than grass land. Why each year the grass land normally dies back the trace elements from the dead grass get used again and the carbon gets left in the soil to increase it depth. Good grass land slowly thickens the soil due to the carbon storage method they are using.

    There are a large number of types of forests only some can be good carbon sinks and those forest that can be good carbon sinks has a min soil depth to be a good carbon sink.

    Grasses can be a fairly good carbon sink in under 40 cm of soil. So it could take a few hundred years growing grasses in particularly areas to get the soil to a depth suitable for using forests for carbon storage.

    So its like all things the correct placement of forests and grasslands is kind of important if you wish to use them to soak up the excess carbon.

    Nature is not simple.

  7. joepeatf prattled on “Jerry’s tricycle is fail. You never get his tricycle”.

    Idiot. Solo is a great design of simplicity, efficiency and effectiveness and its only problem, production, will be solved imminently. The Chinese have the resources and they don’t fool around about production.

  8. oiaohm wrote, “Some forests are higher carbon sinks than grass land.”

    I doubt there is any forest that’s not a better sink than any grassland simply because of the huge mass of forests. Where I live, the usual forest is ~10m deep plus roots and there is a heavy tree every metre or so. Grassland is lucky to come anywhere close, perhaps bamboo…

  9. oiaohm says:

    It’s not even as damaging as slash-and-burn agriculture, which has been around for the last 50,000 years or so. That too is natural, and quite damaging.
    DrLoser this shows you are a idiot on the topic. If slash and burn agriculture is damaging or not depend on where you are. Sections of Australia has been slash and burn for over 50000 years. You also find areas in the amazon and other places around the world that have been doing slash and burn for very long times as well.

    The surprising thing here is where slash and burn is naturally functional its a method that can be used to create a coal seam. Why is this the fire in slash and burn is not burning 100 percent clean and its leaving like charcoal as a high carbon source to help with coal seam formation.

    Other then you find in areas that are natural slash and burn are plants that require the by products of burnt plants so seeds germinate. Please note natural slash and burn by what coal deposits exist started before human even got to particular areas. Herds of animals would do the slash yearly or bi-yearly as they migrated and lighting would light the fires.

    The problem here is humans saw a natural system saw that worked well in nature then copied and applied to areas where natural slash and burn does not happen. Those areas did not have plants with fire resistant seeds or plants triggered to grow by fire to hold on to the soil result massive damage. Applying slash and burn to areas where it did not happen naturally is a method to create a desert in under 100 years. Also the horrible part about this is areas where natural slash and burn is meant to happen if you prevent fires absolutely you will also create a desert. The natural areas of slash and burn intentionally doing correctly space slash and burn keeps the area more healthy as well as being a fairly good carbon sink.

    DrLoser burning oil and coal is in fact reversing the carbon storage process. Areas where slash and burn is natural is doing carbon storage. Areas where slash and burn is not natural that is harmful from CO2 point of view because you loss plants to take up the CO2. Burning fossil fuels is minor better than that using slash and burn where its not natural but absolutely worse than where slash and burn is part of the natural process.

    Please note in a lot of the natural areas of slash and burn we humans have to replace the herds with the slash process because we ate the herds. Also we humans took a lot of surface metals these of course use to be like very poor lightning rods starting fires. This means us as humans broke the system. There are quite a few natural systems humans have broken that are meant to be carbon sinks then we go and burn fossil fuel on top.

    Rough list of natural carbon sinks we damaged
    1) slash and burn where it should not be so reducing plant life.
    2) draining swaps and the like to build cities again another case of reduce plant life.
    3) destruction of particular classes of forests. Some forests are higher carbon sinks than grass land.
    4) Bad farming practices leading to top soil erosion and chemical issues destroying sea areas for sea-grass and the like.

    The scary part is human activity has affected over 50% of the worlds natural carbon sinks. Fossil fuel burning would not be anywhere near the same problem if we had not damaged the natural carbon sinks.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-sapiens-in-the-world-of-high-co2-concentration.html
    Do take a close note of the PH chart.

    https://www.livestrong.com/article/284939-diseases-caused-by-alkaline-or-acid-ph-in-the-body/

    At 400ppm CO2 in the air. Over 90 percent of the population is no longer going to have healthy blood PH. We really want to be living in 300-380 ppm CO2 to suit out biology when you add in building raising CO2 we need a general air CO2 of about 280ppm. Really there is a big question will the natural effects of global warming get us before the effects of long term high CO2 on human biology get us. Maybe this is why the rich are trying to set up base on Mars and the like to get to artificially controlled air inside human body like ranges.

    DrLoser something you forgot if we are natural and nature does have built in systems to get rid of us. So we abuse nature we will die off the planet like many other creatures and something else will take our place.

    Unlike most creatures we do have the ability to work out what the heck we are doing and change what we are doing and possibly save our own asses.

  10. joepeatf says:

    Robert Pogson Jerry’s tricycle is fail. You never get his tricycle..Jerry sell tricycle in 2050 however 2050 Robert Pogson is dead

  11. DrLoser wrote, “have you done so, Robert? No.”

    I’ve known about and supported Manitoba Hydro since the 1950s, twit. I bought a house with solar, geothermal and hydro heating. I bought a diesel roto-tiller to use less petroleum. It’s working for me and will work better in the future when I’m driving my Solo fuelled promptly by Sun.

  12. DrLoser wrote, “It’s not even as damaging as slash-and-burn agriculture”.

    Wood is renewable energy. Petroleum is not unless you wait around millions of years on a desolate planet.

  13. DrLoser says:

    This burning of fossil fuel for transportation is a newish thing and quite unnatural.

    Well, it sort of presupposes having an engine in the first place. (See Watt, etc.) But there’s nothing “unnatural” about it. Build engine, find fuel, done. Very natural.

    It’s not even as damaging as slash-and-burn agriculture, which has been around for the last 50,000 years or so. That too is natural, and quite damaging.

    I imagine if you were in a hut on the tundra, a scant couple of thousand years ago, you’d be bleating something along the lines of:

    “This slash-and-burn is unnatural! I’ve got a CA$250 deposit on a Solo! Let’s wait another two thousand years until the Rapture occurs!”

    Then again, knowing you, you’d give up all your “natural” principles in favour of “unnaturally” staying alive.

  14. DrLoser says:

    Invest in wind/solar/hydro power and be done with it and the damage it causes.

    And have you done so, Robert? No. You’ve plonked down CA$250 on a tricycle you will never see. Your various pseudo-farm appliances run on diesel, as far as I can see. You’re still on the Canadian Grid, which might be blessed by abundant hydro but is still dependent upon fossil fuel. Your wife drives an SUV.

    You’re not really making much of a contribution at all, are you? And if the cost of that contribution is more than CA$1000, you’d probably drop dead of shock.

    So, these investments of yours. Stocks and shares, I presume. Tell us of them.

  15. DrLoser says:

    DrLoser I make mistake. I believe climate change is real however it is natural..Humans stop climate change is not natural.

    Apology accepted, Fifi Mk II.

    Regrettably, your fall back position is equally as stupid. In what way is it “unnatural” for humans to make a choice about CO2 emissions? Or soil erosion? Or, say, going vegan en masse, should the mood seize us?

    Pretty much by definition, if humans do it, it’s natural.

  16. joepeatf wrote, “Long distense car exhale less CO2”.

    Absolute nonsense. An automobile spews out CO as well as CO2 and a car might burn 60L of fuel to travel 400 miles or so. That’s ~48 kg of petroleum. A human can do that using just 15kg of food and that’s renewable. ICEs are extremely inefficient in terms of mass/energy. They are wonderful for power-density. That’s why they are popular, not because of efficiency. Most of the energy they consume is converted to wasteful heat. In winter that heat is useful but not the rest of the time. The Solo EV puts 80-90% of the energy it uses to good use, rolling the vehicle and pushing air out of the way, not heating stuff up.

  17. joepeatf says:

    Is that the best response you can make to a self-evident contradiction by an imbecile, Robert? “It’s not real, it’s natural.” Oh, yeah, I see the distinction there.
    DrLoser I make mistake. I believe climate change is real however it is natural..Humans stop climate change is not natural.

  18. joepeatf says:

    My grandfather never owned a tractor nor an automobile. He walked or used horses or public transportation to get where he wanted to go. He did have access to coal to heat his house though. This burning of fossil fuel for transportation is a newish thing and quite unnatural.
    He walked or used horses is a lot of polution hence car transportion is more efficient. horses have a lot of feces it polute a lot. Walk is not efficient also..Animal need a lot of food also exhale CO2 hence Walk is a lot of polute. Long distense car exhale less CO2..It is specialise mover technology..SUV move 6 humans.

  19. DrLoser wrote, ” It’s just humans doing what humans do.”

    There may have been times during the industrial revolution that burning fossil fuel was necessary but for the vast majority of us today, it’s not. Invest in wind/solar/hydro power and be done with it and the damage it causes.

    My grandfather never owned a tractor nor an automobile. He walked or used horses or public transportation to get where he wanted to go. He did have access to coal to heat his house though. This burning of fossil fuel for transportation is a newish thing and quite unnatural.

  20. DrLoser says:

    Burning tens of millions of years of petroleum in a century is unnatural.

    Is that the best response you can make to a self-evident contradiction by an imbecile, Robert? “It’s not real, it’s natural.” Oh, yeah, I see the distinction there.

    Now, I am not a climate-change denying loonie. Nor would I advocate burning tens of millions of years of petroleum every century for the next however long you feel like picking.

    But I’m afraid you’re wrong, Robert. Of course it’s “natural.” Are there any “supernatural” forces involved? No. It’s just humans doing what humans do. Is it advisable to continue doing so forever? No, it isn’t. But it is natural to use the nearest convenient source of energy. Stupid in excess? Yes. But natural.

  21. joepeatf wrote, “climate change is not real it is natural”.

    Burning tens of millions of years of petroleum in a century is unnatural.

  22. joepeatf says:

    Robert Pogson climate change is not real it is natural..climate change is fake news by leftist corporate media. Robert Pogson please get reality check..

  23. DrLoser says:

    In the interests of accuracy, I fat-fingered: -33.78 plays -34.1.

  24. DrLoser says:

    Not that you seem to have the faintest idea how “climate change” is supposed to work, Robert, but your argument in this case is essentially self-contradictory.

    That looks about the same, eh?

    Well, yes. Yes it does. -33.78 plays -33.41. Very nice of you to furnish these figures, but they don’t seem to be relevant.

    Consider the average, what really kills trees and drives up heating costs…

    … and you go on to cherry pick a couple of years, in one of which the average was -17 and in the other of which the average was -14.

    I conclude, from the data that you present, that you are in favour of killing trees and driving up heating costs.

    Have I missed something here?

  25. Grece says:

    You can’t argue….You just can’t argue.

    That, is the crux, of the entire agenda, with the faux global warming narrative.

  26. Grece wrote, “Al Gore was wrong in everything he preached about, and you are doing the same thing.”

    Well, relative sea level is about the difference/sum of vertical movement of the land and vertical movement of the sea. Also, we know the volume of ice up in Greenland fairly well and we know how much that volume of water will raise sea level if current warming trends continue… It’s already happening in FL that flooding has dramatically increased in my lifetime. The CO2 levels are also measured scientifically. You can’t argue that rising levels are not happening. You can’t argue that adding a thicker blanket of CO2 to Earth won’t increase the temperature. You just can’t argue. The rate of rise of sea level is increasing dramatically. I live far inland. Sea level does not concern me much. Rainfall and temperature do. I’ve seen a lot of change in my lifetime and we don’t need to push any limits further. Winnipeg’s temperature is rising 0.8C per century in summer and 1.5C in Winter. Already I can grow more fragile trees in my yard today than I could have when I was a child. It’s been years since Winnipeg International Airport has seen a temperature -40C or below.
    2010 -34C
    2011 -35C
    2012 -30C
    2013 -34C
    2014 -37C
    2015 -34C
    2016 -32C
    2017 -32C
    2018 -30C

    When I was a boy, we used to go outside and play in this:

    1957 -34C
    1958 -32C
    1959 -35C
    1960 -31C
    1961 -34C
    1962 -36C
    1963 -34C
    1964 -34C
    1965 -34C
    1966 -37C

    That looks about the same, eh? Consider the average, what really kills trees and drives up heating costs:
    2017/2018 winter from Nov 1 to May 2, the average temperature was -14C. In 1996/1997, when I went North to teach it was -17C. Oh, yes. Last year I only had to clean the whole driveway once all winter. Another time there was a skiff of snow and I cleared the drifts and a tiny layer on the rest. When I bought that snowblower we were running it weekly to deal with huge depths of snow. Meanwhile, folks elsewhere are getting floods and storms from Hell.

  27. Grece says:

    If your house is afire you don’t fiddle around.

    Well Robert, no you don’t, you purchase homeowners insurance. So are you an advocate for climate change insurance and/or taxes?

    CO2 levels were around 280 ppm in 1880, when the Industrial Revolution was getting started. Today, they are nearly 50% higher.

    Not sure where you got that information, but here is some factual information for you to digest.

    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750

    The relative sea level trend is 2.84 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.09 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1856 to 2017 which is equivalent to a change of 0.93 feet in 100 years.

    Al Gore was wrong in everything he preached about, and you are doing the same thing.

Leave a Reply