Well, I've seen no citation where either of them actually said that in those exact words. Cows produce methane which is non-toxic to humans, carbon dioxide is toxic - so the "garage' experiment is not a valid test. Pollution and poisonous fumes are not the same things. Closer to what they (and others) have said is that methane released worldwide by cows is estimated to be comparable to the amount of pollution released by cars and trucks, and that methane is more potent when it comes to warming the planet.
The CO2 in the oceans has quite insignificant conversion back to oxygen in the atmosphere. So RD's statement is sort of right. But if you regrew all the forests you could sequester about as much carbon from the atmosphere that was lost through deforestation. The trouble is that won't do much for all the CO2 from burning fossil fuels. It could help in the short term until fossil fuels are replaced but it's a one-off gain.
I'm glad to hear you are concerned about the carbon absorbed by the oceans though . As your article points out, the decrease in ocean pH is very serious. Reversing the effect is a very slow process. And it merely slows the rate of carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere, it doesn't prevent it.
I saw this earlier. Yes, I have posted several years ago about my concerns with the pH levels while discussing the Pacific Gyre Garbage Patch.
Its all interrelated and this is the kind of pollution we should be focusing on more than CO2. Its effects will be quicker and more devastating than the effects of CO2. We will upset the thermal circulation of the oceans and the food chains which also have an effect on the ocean's circulation system with this kind of pollution faster and more permanently than CO2.
obtw, iffen we're so concerned about releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, why do we still allow carbonated beverages ?
I used to know these things by heart, but since I had no one to talk to about them, they have been forgotten. Known that the Gulf Stream has been weakening for at least 20 years or so, but only because these things interest me.
A couple of remembered factoids just because ...
It take 25,000 years for Lake Michigan to completely flush itself while Lake Erie take only 5 years. The exchange rate of Lake Erie makes me think of it as more like a river than a lake, fwiw.
Please remember, I do not say that there is no change in climate happening. I just disagree with the reasons why and what we can and should do about it. My approach is to find ways to deal with it and adapt to it, rather than seek ways to reverse it, which by my understanding, is simply impossible and a waste of time and money.
Humanity has been systematically deforesting (and in the process burning a lot of that wood) the planet for oh, 10,000 years, give or take. Trees are a - if not the - primary means by which carbon is re-absorbed and converted into something breathable and stable in the atmosphere - not to mention that in so doing go a long way toward moderating global temperatures.. Also, we've been burning fossil fuels at an ever-increasingly astounding rate for the past 300 years or so, dumping even more carbon into the atmosphere. All the scientific evidence we have tells us that the temperature of the planet is rising at an ever-increasing rate. I am by no means a rocket scientist, but I can do grade-school math.
Either pretty much every climate scientist on the planet is in on some vast, left-wing conspiracy and all those oil company execs are telling the god's-honest truth, or we'd better wake. The. Fuck. Up.
Sorry buddy ... Yes, trees and the lack of have had profound effects on certain civilizations and their collapse (because they burned the trees for fuel and cut them all down and ran out of fuel) , but the CO2 part that you allude to regarding the impact of trees on the CO2 in the atmosphere is not true. I can find plenty more, but this is good for openers. It is all about the oceans.
John Pickrell for National Geographic News July 15, 2004
The CO2 in the oceans has quite insignificant conversion back to oxygen in the atmosphere. So RD's statement is sort of right. But if you regrew all the forests you could sequester about as much carbon from the atmosphere that was lost through deforestation. The trouble is that won't do much for all the CO2 from burning fossil fuels. It could help in the short term until fossil fuels are replaced but it's a one-off gain.
I'm glad to hear you are concerned about the carbon absorbed by the oceans though . As your article points out, the decrease in ocean pH is very serious. Reversing the effect is a very slow process. And it merely slows the rate of carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere, it doesn't prevent it.
Humanity has been systematically deforesting (and in the process burning a lot of that wood) the planet for oh, 10,000 years, give or take. Trees are a - if not the - primary means by which carbon is re-absorbed and converted into something breathable and stable in the atmosphere - not to mention that in so doing go a long way toward moderating global temperatures.. Also, we've been burning fossil fuels at an ever-increasingly astounding rate for the past 300 years or so, dumping even more carbon into the atmosphere. All the scientific evidence we have tells us that the temperature of the planet is rising at an ever-increasing rate. I am by no means a rocket scientist, but I can do grade-school math.
Either pretty much every climate scientist on the planet is in on some vast, left-wing conspiracy and all those oil company execs are telling the god's-honest truth, or we'd better wake. The. Fuck. Up.
Sorry buddy ... Yes, trees and the lack of have had profound effects on certain civilizations and their collapse (because they burned the trees for fuel and cut them all down and ran out of fuel) , but the CO2 part that you allude to regarding the impact of trees on the CO2 in the atmosphere is not true. I can find plenty more, but this is good for openers. It is all about the oceans.
Humanity has been systematically deforesting (and in the process burning a lot of that wood) the planet for oh, 10,000 years, give or take. Trees are a - if not the - primary means by which carbon is re-absorbed and converted into something breathable and stable in the atmosphere - not to mention that in so doing go a long way toward moderating global temperatures.. Also, we've been burning fossil fuels at an ever-increasingly astounding rate for the past 300 years or so, dumping even more carbon into the atmosphere. All the scientific evidence we have tells us that the temperature of the planet is rising at an ever-increasing rate. I am by no means a rocket scientist, but I can do grade-school math.
Either pretty much every climate scientist on the planet is in on some vast, left-wing conspiracy and all those oil company execs are telling the god's-honest truth, or we'd better wake. The. Fuck. Up.
Add to this that we understand the mechanism where CO2 increases the heat absorbed/trapped by the atmosphere. It is basic physics and conservation of energy stuff. Someone could argue that the global climate models are imperfect representations of reality but there is no mechanism known to explain why the climate wouldn't be heating up. Even if you invoke some undocumented changes in solar radiation, the CO2 will still change the temperature relative to what it would be without massive greenhouse gas emissions.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were some coding or input errors in a climate model. I would be surprised if it made significant differences to the output since the model is calibrated and verified against subsequent measurements. And don't forget the descriptions of climate change are based on a suite of independent models.
Humanity has been systematically deforesting (and in the process burning a lot of that wood) the planet for oh, 10,000 years, give or take. Trees are a - if not the - primary means by which carbon is re-absorbed and converted into something breathable and stable in the atmosphere - not to mention that in so doing go a long way toward moderating global temperatures.. Also, we've been burning fossil fuels at an ever-increasingly astounding rate for the past 300 years or so, dumping even more carbon into the atmosphere. All the scientific evidence we have tells us that the temperature of the planet is rising at an ever-increasing rate. I am by no means a rocket scientist, but I can do grade-school math.
Either pretty much every climate scientist on the planet is in on some vast, left-wing conspiracy and all those oil company execs are telling the god's-honest truth, or we'd better wake. The. Fuck. Up.
If this goes the way these normally go, then nothing will actually happen. You notice there is nothing of substance in the article other then he discovered some devastating math error in the climate model, then what happens is people spread this around as though this is some kind of proof. Odds are nothing was submitted to anyone for peer review. But hey, we shall see. Till then, there is nothing to talk about. The climate models, if anything have low balled the effects of climate change, but they are getting better as they accumulate more data and knowledge.
Regarding your statement ", just as the 18 year 'pause' of warming is being denied" , Do read Erik X excellent post on the matter , The current massive El Nino going on now, will likely shatter Global surface temperatures records this year.
In the article:
When it is completed his work will be published as two scientific papers. Both papers are undergoing peer review. “It’s a new paradigm,” he says. “It has several new ideas for people to get used to.”
You heard it here first!
So yes, there will be a peer reviewing of his work.
I did read it. Wish he linked his titles, but no worries.
I thoroughly understand the oceans and their impact. I fell in love with the ocean when I got my first surfboard at age 12 and it has only grown since. Just so you know as far as where I am coming from, I did attend Fla Inst of Tech in Melbourne, Fla majoring in Oceanography / Marine Geology / waves and erosion, yada ... So its not a passing interest. Been aware of the boy and the girl for nearly 50 years. They have a huge impact on my local weather up here by Lake Erie. El Nino = very mild winter here. La Nina = brutal cold and snowy. Then this area has unique weather found in only 5 areas on earth, Lake Effect Snow. In California, El Nino brings the Pineapple Express, massive torrential rainstorms and gully washers in the winters. This one could be the drought buster they have been needing. Problem there is Calif has piss poor water storage issues. But moving on.
In 7th grade science, I was educated that the 20th Century was a huge weather anomaly in earth's climate with record breaking calm and uneventful weather. A lot of it could be explained by long term solar cycles. Come the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st, we would see a return to highly volatile weather and climate extremes. Ok, so what I'm seeing is this come true, as I was educated and came to know based upon my studies and involvement with the ocean.
The ocean is the key to life as we know it. It is a living organism. It is the greatest force of nature, period, end of story. By the time I was 16, having made the daily 10 minute walk to the beach in the OC, I realized how puny and insignificant man is in the big picture. I have read both sides of the argument. However, the opinions I express are my own based upon 50 years of study and observation, not some one else's that I have read somewhere with. I'm more concerned about polluting the ocean than with the air and especially if the air pollution in question is something that I create and exhale on a regular basis. The first thing listed on my interests here is the ocean.
I'd love to keep going and explain why I find the difference between the atmospheric temps and the surface temps in this discussion less significant than the article Ex posted, but only if anyone wants to listen. I boor people enough here as it is. I doubt that anyone wants to go as deep as I can take it. I have a life long passion on the subject. This is not something that I recently became aware of only because some politician is telling me to be scared to death.
If this goes the way these normally go, then nothing will actually happen. You notice there is nothing of substance in the article other then he discovered some devastating math error in the climate model, then what happens is people spread this around as though this is some kind of proof. Odds are nothing was submitted to anyone for peer review. But hey, we shall see. Till then, there is nothing to talk about. The climate models, if anything have low balled the effects of climate change, but they are getting better as they accumulate more data and knowledge.
Regarding your statement ", just as the 18 year 'pause' of warming is being denied" , Do read Erik X excellent post on the matter , The current massive El Nino going on now, will likely shatter Global surface temperatures records this year.
As the resident mathematician I feel I should take issue with this characterization of the article. Though he may be using his math degrees as credentials nobody is alleging that the computers have been doing their multiplication wrong. There are several mathematical climate models. Most make similar assumptions and reach similar results. What he is talking about is making an assumption that few if any others have and getting different results. It was kind of a local interest fluff piece that really didn't say much of anything, but telling was that there was no mention of this model being a better fit with observed data.
Interesting choice of words. Denier and its forms in usage with the topic of climate change is both pejorative and indicates that the one using it has concluded that it is settled science with no further debate to be allowed. But you then indicate that there might be something to consider should his results pass peer review.
There will be nothing to talk about even if his results stand up and pass a peer review. A) it won't be reported and B) it would never be allowed to be considered as there are too many people who have invested too much time and money into the notion that it is settled science. It would be publicly humiliating. Nope, it would be denied and ignored, just as the 18 year 'pause' of warming is being denied.
If this goes the way these normally go, then nothing will actually happen. You notice there is nothing of substance in the article other then he discovered some devastating math error in the climate model, then what happens is people spread this around as though this is some kind of proof. Odds are nothing was submitted to anyone for peer review. But hey, we shall see. Till then, there is nothing to talk about. The climate models, if anything have low balled the effects of climate change, but they are getting better as they accumulate more data and knowledge.
Regarding your statement ", just as the 18 year 'pause' of warming is being denied" , Do read Erik X excellent post on the matter , The current massive El Nino going on now, will likely shatter Global surface temperatures records this year.
Interesting choice of words. Denier and its forms in usage with the topic of climate change is both pejorative and indicates that the one using it has concluded that it is settled science with no further debate to be allowed. But you then indicate that there might be something to consider should his results pass peer review.
There will be nothing to talk about even if his results stand up and pass a peer review. A) it won't be reported and B) it would never be allowed to be considered as there are too many people who have invested too much time and money into the notion that it is settled science. It would be publicly humiliating. Nope, it would be denied and ignored, just as the 18 year 'pause' of warming is being denied.
lol! U deniers are still using that? Might as well say its safe to smoke cigs again.
Debunking the Top 10 Climate Change Myths
“Warming has paused!” This is one of the most commonly repeated lines. Rather than accepting the steady increase in globally averaged annual temperature across recent decades, the “pause” argument uses the exceptionally warmEl Niño year of 1998 as a starting point and draws a trend line to the present, claiming warming has stopped. It ignores how natural cycles like El Niño and La Niña events impact surface temperatures; it purposefully distracts from long-term trends; and it ignores the important role of the ocean, which acts as a heat sink.
There are a number of ways to disprove the “warming has paused” myth. First, there is the simple fact that 2014 was the hottest year on record (and without an added temperature boost from El Niño, like in 1998). Moreover, nine out of the ten hottest years on record have occurred in the 21st century, with the tenth being 1998. To get an even better sense of how globally averaged annual temperature has increased since records began in 1880, see this greatanimation.
In addition to cherry picked years, the “warming has paused” claim is also based on cherry picked temperature measurements taken only from the atmosphere, as opposed to both the ocean and atmosphere. Many people don’t realize theocean absorbs 90% of the Earth’s excess heat energy, and that it is crucial to includeoceanwarming in global temperature analyses. For more information, Skeptical Science has a helpfulrebuttaldemonstrating the dangers of drawing trend lines based on cherry picked data points, summed up by this graphic:
It appears David Evans is a well known climate denialist. But hey, after he get's peer reviewed and actually publishes something, maybe there will be something to talk about.
Interesting choice of words. Denier and its forms in usage with the topic of climate change is both pejorative and indicates that the one using it has concluded that it is settled science with no further debate to be allowed. But you then indicate that there might be something to consider should his results pass peer review.
There will be nothing to talk about even if his results stand up and pass a peer review. A) it won't be reported and B) it would never be allowed to be considered as there are too many people who have invested too much time and money into the notion that it is settled science. It would be publicly humiliating. Nope, it would be denied and ignored, just as the 18 year 'pause' of warming is being denied.
It appears David Evans is a well known climate denialist. But hey, after he get's peer reviewed and actually publishes something, maybe there will be something to talk about.
. As your article points out, the decrease in ocean pH is very serious. Reversing the effect is a very slow process. And it merely slows the rate of carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere, it doesn't prevent it. 
On climate change, "the temperature readings have been fabricated, and it's all blowing up in their (scientists') faces."