https://www.livescience.com/61526-doomsday-clock-update-2018.html?utm_source=notification

Today (Jan. 25), the clock has crept even closer to the zero hour. This morning, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) — an organization of science and policy experts who assess human scientific advancement and risk — revealed the clock's new "time," with the hands now standing at 2 minutes to midnight.


Quote:

...it reflects the breakdown of global efforts to reduce reliance on and risk of nuclear weapons; increased posturing and threats regarding the use of nuclear weapons; and an insufficient response worldwide to curb the impacts of climate change. [Apocalypse Now: The Gear You Need to Survive Doomsday] It is not any one of those factors, but a combination of all of them — and the weakening of public faith in knowledgeable expert voices — that prompted the change to the clock, Lawrence Krauss, chair of the BAS Board of Sponsors and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, told reporters.

This says it all. Too many armchair experts who prefer a simple explanation. You don't have to look far to find them.

1. Something drastic needs to happen in North Korea, and by drastic, I don't mean the "my button is bigger than yours" approach. A Chinese invasion may be the best option. (maybe the Chinese would have an issue with that)

2. Something drastic needs to happen in the US.  The current anti-science stance is destructive to both the US economy and the environment.

Hi John,
Guy McPherson - a scientist, says we have only 10 years left before
humans are extinct due to global warming -
and that was in 2016.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqIt93dDG1M

Guy McPherson - Human Extinction within 10 years


Niels van der Wolk
Published on Nov 25, 2016
Guy McPherson: "I can't imagine there will be a human on the planet in 10 years"

Humans are heading for mass extinction. Mankind has less then 10 years left according to climate change scientist Guy McPherson on World Newshub.

There's no point trying to fight climate change - we'll all be dead in the next decade and there's nothing we can do to stop it, a visiting scientist claims.

Guy McPherson, a biology professor at the University of Arizona, says the human destruction of our own habitat is leading towards the world's sixth mass extinction.

Instead of fighting, he says we should just embrace it and live life while we can.

"It's locked down, it's been locked in for a long time - we're in the midst of our sixth mass extinction," he told Paul Henry on Thursday.

But Professor James Renwick, a climate scientist at Victoria University, says people should not use his words more as an excuse to give up.

Govt appoints experts to tackle NZ's climate change problems
While he agrees that climate change is possibly the "biggest issue humanity has ever faced", he says "giving up is not really helpful".

Instead, Prof Renwick says he hopes Prof McPherson's 10-year claim will encourage people to take action.

"This is a really big issue and the consequences could be catastrophic," Prof Renwick says. "Though certainly [humans won't all die off] in 10 years or even 1000 years."

The effects of climate change were first noticed 30 years ago and Prof Renwick says the sooner we get onto working against it, the less there will be to do.

"I'd love to see [people] take it on board as it is a very serious issue."

Prof McPherson's comments come just days after Climate Change Issues Minister Paula Bennett appointed a 10-strong team to advise the Government on how New Zealand can adapt to climate change.

National Geographic exhibition displays global climate change
But if the visiting professor is right, it could all be a waste of time.

"I can't imagine there will be a human on the planet in 10 years," he says.

"We don't have 10 years. The problem is when I give a number like that, people think it's going to be business as usual until nine years [and] 364 days."

He says part of the reason he's given up while other scientists fight on is because they're looking at individual parts, such as methane emissions and the melting ice in the Arctic, instead of the entire picture.

"We're heading for a temperature within that span that is at or near the highest temperature experienced on Earth in the last 2 billion years."

Instead of trying to fix the climate, Prof McPherson says we should focus on living while we can.

"I think hope is a horrible idea. Hope is wishful thinking. Hope is a bad idea - let's abandon that and get on with reality instead. Let's get on with living instead of wishing for the future that never comes.

NZ takes home 'Fossil of the Day' awards at Marrakech climate conference
"I encourage people to pursue excellence, to pursue love, to pursue what they love to do. I don't think these are crazy ideas, actually - and I also encourage people to remain calm because nothing is under control, certainly not under our control anyway."

New Zealand has been criticised by the international community for not doing enough to fight climate change - this month being awarded two Fossil of the Day awards at the UN Climate Change Conference in Marrakech.

The awards are for the country's failure to live up to climate promises and the continued use of "dodgy" carbon credits.

He's a denialist of a different kind. The "Let's just give up" approach justifies the status quo.

His prediction was not science based, and I doubt if too many people take him seriously anyway. Most of the world is making progress.  I just got back from Europe, and it was refreshing to see so much renewable energy generation. One impressive sight was offshore windmills, barely visible from the shore, but obviously enormous, and enough to power a large city. Even the UK reached 50% renewable energy generation last year.

Even given the worst possible scenario - If some of us can live in climate controlled environments and even grow crops in climate controlled environments, then humanity (at least some of us) will survive. We're even talking about a settlement on Mars by 2035.

For example, I'm more than self sufficient in vegetables at the moment, and most of these  are grown in controlled environments while the temperature outdoors rockets.

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 26^th, 2018 at 8:24am:

He's a denialist of a different kind. The "Let's just give up" approach justifies the status quo. His prediction was not science based, and I doubt if too many people take him seriously anyway. Most of the world is making progress.  I just got back from Europe, and it was refreshing to see so much renewable energy generation. One impressive sight was offshore windmills, barely visible from the shore, but enough to power a large city.

If AGW is correct then the Indians building a new coal fire power station every week
will more than offset any wind farms in Europe.

India is doing better than Australia:


Quote:

Renewable energy accounted for 18.37% of the total installed power capacity in India in 2017. India set a target of producing 40% of its total energy needs through renewable sources by 2030, as stated in its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions statement in the Paris Agreement.

www.ireda.gov.in/

I added to my first post while you were replying.

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 26^th, 2018 at 8:37am:

India is doing better than Australia: Quote: Renewable energy accounted for 18.37% of the total installed power capacity in India in 2017. India set a target of producing 40% of its total energy needs through renewable sources by 2030, as stated in its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions statement in the Paris Agreement. www.ireda.gov.in/ I added to my first post while you were replying.

It looks like India has changed their policy:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/india-solar-power-electricity-cancels-coal-fired-power-stations-record-low-a7751916.html

Quote:

India has cancelled plans to build nearly 14 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations – about the same as the total amount in the UK – with the price for solar electricity “free falling” to levels once considered impossible.

Then again:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/03/forget-paris-1600-new-coal-power-plants-built-around-the-world/


Quote:

Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent. The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Personally I have posted much evidence that we have already entered a cooling period of perhaps 10 years -
but it worries me as to what will happen after that cooling period.

have they cleaned up the Ganges bobby?
http://plenglish.com/images/2017/julio/13/india-ganges.jpg


just wondering... :(

cods wrote on Jan 26^th, 2018 at 8:55am:

have they cleaned up the Ganges bobby? http://plenglish.com/images/2017/julio/13/india-ganges.jpg just wondering... :(

Yuck - pollution is a terrible problem.

in INDIA very much so!

cods wrote on Jan 26^th, 2018 at 8:55am:

have they cleaned up the Ganges bobby? http://plenglish.com/images/2017/julio/13/india-ganges.jpg just wondering... :(

Wonderful country. Pity about the people. 

Global Pollution trumps regional pollution which trumps local pollution. Your example is local pollution. 


Quote:

A number of initiatives have been undertaken to clean the river but failed to deliver desired results.[8] After getting elected, India's Prime minister Narendra Modi affirmed to work in cleaning the river and controlling pollution.[9] Subsequently, the Namami Ganga project was announced by the government in the July 2014 budget.[10] An estimated Rs 2,958 Crores (US$460 million) have been spent till July 2016 in various efforts in cleaning up of the river.[11]

- A bit like my swimming pool after the annual downpour of the deadly eucalyptus pollen -  but on a much bigger scale.

And here I was think this Topic was John Taverner's admission that the 'End was Nigh' for his role as Mod of Environment.

Like a Nazgul, I was coming in to ...feast on your flesh.
:D

---

"Coal will maintain its dominant share of India’s electricity production for decades to come, according to a major report from the government’s planning institute.

The Three Year Action Agenda, released on Thursday by the National Institution for Transforming India (Niti Aayong), laid out a nine-point plan for boosting coal production in India in order to feed increasing demand from India’s coal power sector."

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/08/28/coal-power-india-decades-come-says-government-planning-body/

Of course they could always force the subsistence farmers off their land for large scale solar.

Jasin wrote on Jan 26^th, 2018 at 11:18am:

And here I was think this Topic was John Taverner's admission that the 'End was Nigh' for his role as Mod of Environment. Like a Nazgul, I was coming in to ...feast on your flesh. :D

I don't know who you are, but I just don't have much free time to spare  for this forum any more. I have been away for over a year as I have other interests.

Happy to help if asked.

The Doomsday Clock. The stuff of myth and legend. ;)

lee wrote on Jan 26^th, 2018 at 1:16pm:

The Doomsday Clock. The stuff of myth and legend. ;)

I know right..  ;D

made from the stuff of no rains to fill the dams by 2008

all the ice melted buy 2010, 2013, 2017 errrrrrr  :D :D :D :D

what else..

oh.. all of the Polar Bears will be extinct..  ;D

now theres more than ever of the pesky bastards...  :D

and the new one...

the reason that the seas haven't risen is because the bottom of the sea sank due to the weight of the extra water....  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Get out in the real world. When the insurance industry understands the real risk of climate change, most people sit up and listen.

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/au/news/breaking-news/apra-warns-on-climate-risk-60557.aspx

The old fossils who deny that it's a real risk will die out soon.

An old uncle of mine, who is in his 90s said - you know, I reckon it's all these aircraft in the sky that are causing Climate Change.  I replied that the days of reckoning and guessing are gone. Aviation accounts for 2.5% (+/- .1) of the warming .

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 27^th, 2018 at 11:01am:

I replied that the days of reckoning and guessing are gone.

Except in the climate models. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jan 27^th, 2018 at 11:51am:

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 27th, 2018 at 11:01am: I replied that the days of reckoning and guessing are gone. Except in the climate models. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Not climate models - simple bean counting. (Accounting). Every last bit of carbon emitted is accounted for in the real world outside the domain of your comforable armchair. 

Aviation accounts for 2.5%  (2017 figures)

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 27^th, 2018 at 4:39pm:

Every last bit of carbon emitted is accounted for in the real world outside the domain of your comforable armchair.

Really? Even the increase in planetary greening?

Is China still gaming the system?
How big are the error bars?

lee wrote on Jan 27^th, 2018 at 5:13pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 27th, 2018 at 4:39pm: Every last bit of carbon emitted is accounted for in the real world outside the domain of your comforable armchair. Really? Even the increase in planetary greening? Is China still gaming the system? How big are the error bars?

When you demonstrate some comprehension of the basics, I may start to have some meaningful discourse with you.  While you rely on sites like Watts Up Me and Joanna Supernova for your information, you will never understand the basics.

Does all planetary greening have a beneficial effect?

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 28^th, 2018 at 1:04pm:

While you rely on sites like Watts Up Me and Joanna Supernova for your information, you will never understand the basics.

My, My. Now NOAA is allied with Watts and Supernova? ;)


John_Taverner wrote on Jan 28^th, 2018 at 1:04pm:

Does all planetary greening have a beneficial effect?

Who knows. But it does add CO2. So is that added CO2 catered for? How about global warming causing more ocean outgassing of CO2? Has that been factored into your equation?

Does NOAA understand the basics? Was 1997's 62.45ºF warmer or cooler than 2016's 58.69ºF?

lee wrote on Jan 28^th, 2018 at 1:13pm:

Was 1997's 62.45ºF warmer or cooler than 2016's 58.69ºF?

Only denizen lee's sweat-soaked mattress from 1997 can answer that question.

lee wrote on Jan 28^th, 2018 at 1:13pm:

But it does add CO2. So is that added CO2 catered for?

Doesn't increased greening reduce CO2?

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 28^th, 2018 at 3:45pm:

lee wrote on Jan 28th, 2018 at 1:13pm: But it does add CO2. So is that added CO2 catered for? Doesn't increased greening reduce CO2?

you tell me.

"Natural CO2 sources account for the majority of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Oceans provide the greatest annual amount of CO2 of any natural or anthropogenic source. Other sources of natural CO2 include animal and plant respiration, decomposition of organic matter, forest fires, and emissions from volcanic eruptions. There are also naturally occurring CO2 deposits found in rock layers within the Earth’s crust that could serve as CO2 sources."

https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon-storage-faqs/what-are-the-primary-sources-of-co2

BTW- What happened to your natural variation argument, about 2017 being hottest non El Nino year?

edit: ""The implications of this study are enormous," Ming emphasized. "The fact that plant respiration is likely 30 percent higher than previous estimates should warn all global modelers that an updated inspection is warranted regarding how we model carbon flows in and out of terrestrial ecosystems globally." "

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-11/uom-ceb111717.php

lee wrote on Jan 28^th, 2018 at 4:02pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 28th, 2018 at 3:45pm: lee wrote on Jan 28th, 2018 at 1:13pm: But it does add CO2. So is that added CO2 catered for? Doesn't increased greening reduce CO2? you tell me. "Natural CO2 sources account for the majority of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Oceans provide the greatest annual amount of CO2 of any natural or anthropogenic source. Other sources of natural CO2 include animal and plant respiration, decomposition of organic matter, forest fires, and emissions from volcanic eruptions. There are also naturally occurring CO2 deposits found in rock layers within the Earth’s crust that could serve as CO2 sources." https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon-storage-faqs/what-are-the-primary-sources-of-co2 BTW- What happened to your natural variation argument, about 2017 being hottest non El Nino year? edit: ""The implications of this study are enormous," Ming emphasized. "The fact that plant respiration is likely 30 percent higher than previous estimates should warn all global modelers that an updated inspection is warranted regarding how we model carbon flows in and out of terrestrial ecosystems globally." " https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-11/uom-ceb111717.php

Isn't the figure only 3% per annum of all carbon emissions come from human sources?

Bobby. wrote on Jan 28^th, 2018 at 6:14pm:

Isn't the figure only 3% per annum of all carbon emissions come from human sources?

About that. yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qbRHY1l0vc

[quote author=bobbythebat1 link=1516918272/24#24 date=1517127248


Isn't the figure only 3% per annum of all carbon emissions come from human sources?
[/quote]

Bobby you need to do some reading of the Carbon cycle
Human emissions are ADDITIONAL emissions which accumulate in the atmosphere

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 26^th, 2018 at 8:11am:

https://www.livescience.com/61526-doomsday-clock-update-2018.html?utm_source=notification Today (Jan. 25), the clock has crept even closer to the zero hour. This morning, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) — an organization of science and policy experts who assess human scientific advancement and risk — revealed the clock's new "time," with the hands now standing at 2 minutes to midnight. Quote: ...it reflects the breakdown of global efforts to reduce reliance on and risk of nuclear weapons; increased posturing and threats regarding the use of nuclear weapons; and an insufficient response worldwide to curb the impacts of climate change. [Apocalypse Now: The Gear You Need to Survive Doomsday] It is not any one of those factors, but a combination of all of them — and the weakening of public faith in knowledgeable expert voices — that prompted the change to the clock, Lawrence Krauss, chair of the BAS Board of Sponsors and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, told reporters. This says it all. Too many armchair experts who prefer a simple explanation. You don't have to look far to find them. 1. Something drastic needs to happen in North Korea, and by drastic, I don't mean the "my button is bigger than yours" approach. A Chinese invasion may be the best option. (maybe the Chinese would have an issue with that) 2. Something drastic needs to happen in the US.  The current anti-science stance is destructive to both the US economy and the environment.

So now your equating AGW to the doomsday clock and nuclear war.

A world with you lot at the helm would be a very SAD and confusing one.

If you want to do something worthwhile for the environment I suggest focusing your attention on things like

1.  A plastic ocean
2. Deforestation
3. Pollution in all its forms

That would be a good start and stop this bullshit of selling carbon credits on wall street will save the world from AGW.

BTW welcome back................ :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUo8x2M2qBc

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 29^th, 2018 at 8:14am:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 2018 at 6:14pm: Isn't the figure only 3% per annum of all carbon emissions come from human sources? Bobby you need to do some reading of the Carbon cycle Human emissions are ADDITIONAL emissions which accumulate in the atmosphere

Why are they additional........????

Are we importing CO2 from mars or Jupiter....????

NO...!

We're not we are using CO2 made produced and trapped here on Earth, its all a natural cycle with no additions from other worlds.

Ajax wrote on Jan 29^th, 2018 at 8:56am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 29th, 2018 at 8:14am: Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 2018 at 6:14pm: Isn't the figure only 3% per annum of all carbon emissions come from human sources? Bobby you need to do some reading of the Carbon cycle Human emissions are ADDITIONAL emissions which accumulate in the atmosphere Why are they additional........???? Are we importing CO2 from mars or Jupiter....???? NO...! We're not we are using CO2 made produced and trapped here on Earth, its all a natural cycle with no additions from other worlds.

Our releasing of the CO2 is not part of the Carbon cycle. The fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture is only happening because of human civilisation

lee wrote on Jan 28^th, 2018 at 4:02pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 28th, 2018 at 3:45pm: lee wrote on Jan 28th, 2018 at 1:13pm: But it does add CO2. So is that added CO2 catered for? Doesn't increased greening reduce CO2? you tell me. "Natural CO2 sources account for the majority of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Oceans provide the greatest annual amount of CO2 of any natural or anthropogenic source. Other sources of natural CO2 include animal and plant respiration, decomposition of organic matter, forest fires, and emissions from volcanic eruptions. There are also naturally occurring CO2 deposits found in rock layers within the Earth’s crust that could serve as CO2 sources." https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon-storage-faqs/what-are-the-primary-sources-of-co2 BTW- What happened to your natural variation argument, about 2017 being hottest non El Nino year? edit: ""The implications of this study are enormous," Ming emphasized. "The fact that plant respiration is likely 30 percent higher than previous estimates should warn all global modelers that an updated inspection is warranted regarding how we model carbon flows in and out of terrestrial ecosystems globally." " https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-11/uom-ceb111717.php

Just for kids (and brain dead geriatrics)

Read, then answer the questions afterwards.

http://www.ducksters.com/science/ecosystems/oxygen_cycle.php

Question 1
House plants

A. Help to absorb carbon dioxide thus freshening the air in the house.

(Plants produce oxygen as a waste product of making sugar using sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water. )
or

B. They increase the CO2 in Lee's house, resulting in severe brain damage, which leads him to post  mind numbingly  ignorant posts on this forum.   

Question 2. Increased plant life
A. Increases CO2, or
B. Normally absorbs CO2.

Question 3
Fill in the gaps:

The process by which plants absorb carbon dioxide, water and light to produce oxygen and biomass is called ph_t_s_nth_sis. 

Now for a bonus question:

Dark Coniferous Forests

A. Absorb heat, resulting in a net contribution to global warming
B. Absorb CO2, resulting in a net decrease in Global warming.                

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 29^th, 2018 at 9:46am:

Just for kids (and brain dead geriatrics)

So you disbelieve the science? You denier you.

That paper referred to by Eurekalert is available at -

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01774-z

So in which category do you fit?

But perhaps you are a Social Scientist. ;)

BTW - You still haven't got back to me about 2 "measurements" at different times, both claiming to be the warmest ever, shows natural variability. Especially when the latter one is cooler than the former.

Edit: Another non Watts, Supernova website. ;D ;D ;D

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 29^th, 2018 at 9:02am:

Our releasing of the CO2 is not part of the Carbon cycle. The fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture is only happening because of human civilisation

You mean like exhalation? ;)

Lee - What do plants release during daylight? Oxygen or carbon dioxide?

What do plants release at night? oxygen or carbon dioxide?

Given that plants GROW,  is there a net emission of oxygen or CO2 averaged over day and night?

I'm just fishing for vestiges of native intelligence here.

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 29^th, 2018 at 12:23pm:

Lee - What do plants release during daylight? Oxygen or carbon dioxide? What do plants release at night? oxygen or carbon dioxide? Given that plants GROW,  is there a net emission of oxygen or CO2 averaged over day and night? I'm just fishing for vestiges of native intelligence here.

Perhaps you should try your own pond. ;)

So tell us what you think of the Nature paper.

All this brought to you from the bloke who quotes Hotwhopper. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Given that you can grow trees as a carbon offset it says that trees or plants take CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 29^th, 2018 at 3:27pm:

Given that you can grow trees as a carbon offset it says that trees or plants take CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Correct. Lee doesn't understand the basics.  He's obsessed with a paper about fluxes without actually appreciating the nature of fluxes.

Lee - this is for you:
http://www.ducksters.com/science/ecosystems/oxygen_cycle3.jpg


I wish this wind would die down.

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 29^th, 2018 at 6:01pm:

I wish this wind would die down.

It's them beans. ;)

Now to the nitty-gritty.

Yes. Plants sequester CO2.

That new paper postulates that the previously accepted sequestration is not as efficient as first thought. If a plant isn't as efficient at keeping its food down, are its emissions now not natural?

Now John, when are you going to tell us how the 2017 warmest year without El Nino, isn't warmer than 1997, also a year without El Nino, due to natural variation?

You keep ducking the question.

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 29^th, 2018 at 12:23pm:

Lee - What do plants release during daylight? Oxygen or carbon dioxide? What do plants release at night? oxygen or carbon dioxide? Given that plants GROW,  is there a net emission of oxygen or CO2 averaged over day and night? I'm just fishing for vestiges of native intelligence here.

I know you haven't been around much. perhaps you missed this -

Re: We need a carbon tax. GW is real and now
Reply #84

or there is this -

"Date:
    August 12, 2013
Source:
    National Science Foundation
Summary:
    Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rise and fall each year as plants, through photosynthesis and respiration, take up the gas in spring and summer, and release it in fall and winter. Now the range of that cycle is expanding as more carbon dioxide is emitted from burning fossil fuels and other human activities. "

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130812170338.htm

So much for simplistic pretty pictures.

As the planet heats up, the annual carbon fluctuation cycles increase in amplitude. Yes. This has been known for years. Do you know why there is an annual fluctuation in the first place? (After all, we have a North and South hemisphere.)

The sad part is that as the planet heats up due to fossil fuel combustion, what were previously carbon sinks are now becoming net emitters. That is the message from that paper. It's getting harder and harder as time goes on to reverse the effects of fossil fuel burning. (I wrote quite a bit about feedbacks early on in the piece.) So we need to act quickly.

By the way, dark temperate conifer forests have a net warming effect due to albedo effects. At those latitudes, the albedo effect is greater than the effect of CO2 sequestration. Anyone who thinks they are doing their bit for Global Warming by planting pine trees in the temperate zone, is mistaken. 
 
Anyway. The weather has calmed down for a while.   Bye !

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 7:44am:

Do you know why there is an annual fluctuation in the first place? (After all, we have a North and South hemisphere.)

I thought I covered that.


lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2018 at 11:11am:

Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rise and fall each year as plants, through photosynthesis and respiration, take up the gas in spring and summer, and release it in fall and winter. Now the range of that cycle is expanding as more carbon dioxide is emitted from burning fossil fuels and other human activities. " https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130812170338.htm

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 7:44am:

The sad part is that as the planet heats up due to fossil fuel combustion

That's an assertion. Do you have empirical evidence? Not computer models, that CO2 is the cause. Remember warming causes CO2 to rise, via outgassing of the oceans. The greatest contributor to CO2 levels.

Also remember why CO2 is used in refrigeration - it gives up its heat quickly.

But I am glad that you agree with me that plants can emit CO2.

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 26^th, 2018 at 12:40pm:

Jasin wrote on Jan 26th, 2018 at 11:18am: And here I was think this Topic was John Taverner's admission that the 'End was Nigh' for his role as Mod of Environment. Like a Nazgul, I was coming in to ...feast on your flesh. :D I don't know who you are, but I just don't have much free time to spare  for this forum any more. I have been away for over a year as I have other interests. Happy to help if asked.

many blessings and it is good to see we have a REAL moderator ..

not some half witted hack that hasn't the time nor acumen to facilitate moderation duties ..

you were less than adequate mr taverner yet rejoice !

for you are forgiven, so be at peace

namaste

╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 3:51pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 26th, 2018 at 12:40pm: Jasin wrote on Jan 26th, 2018 at 11:18am: And here I was think this Topic was John Taverner's admission that the 'End was Nigh' for his role as Mod of Environment. Like a Nazgul, I was coming in to ...feast on your flesh. :D I don't know who you are, but I just don't have much free time to spare  for this forum any more. I have been away for over a year as I have other interests. Happy to help if asked. many blessings and it is good to see we have a REAL moderator .. not some half witted hack that hasn't the time nor acumen to facilitate moderation duties .. you were less than adequate mr taverner yet rejoice ! for you are forgiven, so be at peace namaste ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯

dear master Light,
John missed the main point as many others have also missed it.
Science is all about putting forward a theory and debating it.
Even Einstein had a theory of relativity - not a law of relativity.
People are free to debate any theory here whether it be global warming or cooling or
natural climate variation.
Any of those theories could be true and the reality is probably somewhere in between.

cheers
Bobby.