davidveale
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@WES — after reading “And I am still waiting for global warming to show up here in cold Canada!”, I must ask, did you venture outside this last winter? I take it you’re probably not into ice-fishing.
@Oroboros — I certainly can’t argue with Twain’s “lies, damned lies, and statistics”… So I’ll give you a little background. I worked at a lab devoted to climate change (in the early 90s), and also had a good friend getting his PhD in atmospheric science at the time. So while I’m not an atmospheric scientist myself, I’ve worked with people who know their stuff, had no reason to lie to me, and gave me no reason to doubt their character or motivations. These were all people that I trust.
Is it possible that they were all unknowingly part of a cult, in the same way that doctors in the past had all convinced each other that bleeding patients to get rid of sickness was a great idea? Perhaps… but I see no evidence to support it.
I’ve seen the measurements, participated in paleoecology (using things like pollen to get an idea of past species compositions), studied the carbon cycle as well as the chemistry of plant growth. I’ve taken multiple courses on soils and their chemistry, and think I have a pretty good idea of what goes on beneath our feet, with an understanding of how important it is.
I’ve also paid careful attention to what’s happening in the natural world where I’ve spent every minute I’m able to (as a professional forester, later farmer, mountaineer, hunter, skier, sailor, etc). What I’ve witnessed — already happening — terrifies me. The “statistics” I’ve seen were not “damned lies”, because many of them I’ve measured myself.
So it’s largely motivated by these concerns that I took it upon myself to make an example that I hoped others might follow — the best one I could come up with. I gave up the convenience of gas heat and industrially produced food. Taught myself to farm with horses, and also to drive one on paved roads like the amish do where I now live. Put up my own hay start -to-finish with the horses, sans fossil fuels. Set my farm up almost entirely in carbon sequestering pasture/hay, and refused the use of nitrate fertilizer.
In the first few years, I had lots of people contact me out of the blue to come and help or learn more about what I was doing. That tapered off though, and the WEF’s embrace of climate change has (understandably) poisoned the subject in people’s minds — thus achieving the industrialist’s goal of destroying political support for future actions that might have otherwise curtailed their profits. They’re brilliant psychopaths, aren’t they?
Oh — and @jb-hb. Your assumption about my disdain for ruminants (buffalo, in your example) is a false one. Yeah, I know the “greenies” are all up in arms about cow farts (cows don’t actually fart much at all — they *burp* their methane — ask me how I know….). The fact of the matter though is that these people are not using their brains, and thus are not distinguishing between actual inflow and mere circulation.
Any carbon burped up by a buffalo, cow, or breathed out by a human for that matter is *circulation*, not an input. The carbon was most likely absorbed by a plant within the 12 months before it was burped back out. Big difference between that and digging up massive carbon stores that last saw the light of day during the Paleozoic era.
In all honesty, I gave up hope for a positive outcome about 5 years ago, as the industrialist’s propaganda campaign really started to take hold. That’s probably a significant factor in the colon cancer I was diagnosed with last year. But… I do hold out some hope that I’m wrong, and that I’ve missed some critical bit of information. That’s one of the reasons I occasionally engage the smart people on TAE, which I’ve been reading since ’07 (or maybe ’08?)
“I might add, you’ve been generally saying things like “it’s happening now!” and citing 420ppm as already causing catastrophe…”
Yes, I will formally assert that 420ppm is already causing catastrophe. Collapse of plankton levels, dramatic (95%+) declines in seabird populations in the north Atlantic with similar dieoffs in the north Pacific, collapse of shellfish species on the Oregon coast…. I can keep going if you like.
If you don’t value these things, or consider them to be a catastrophe, well… you and I value very different things.
At the current rate of CO2 rise, (about 3ppm annually, but accelerating), 1000ppm is not so far off. Throw in some positive feedback loops which have already been triggered (seafloor clathrates probably being the biggest) and it’s quite conceivable that it could be reached within a century.
The change in CO2 is not
” 0.000374% change change in CO2. (a 37/10,000,000 change)”.The change is 420-280 = 140. 140/280 = .5, or a 50% increase. Gotta watch what your denominator is. The proportion of a component to the whole is rarely indicative of the the component’s effect, as is the case with things like hormones, or cyanide in the human body, or… atmospheric CO2. BTW, we’re not “headed for” 420ppm — we’re already there.
I think it’s quite likely that current CO2 levels are having an effect on human cognitive function, as evidenced by what’s happening worldwide over the last few years. However, I have not seen tests demonstrating this. At 1000ppm, the measured cognitive decline was 20% though.
I think your numbers suggesting that human generated CO2 is a mere 4% of the increase in CO2 are willfully exclusionary. Does that include the massive quantity of CO2 released through agricultural tillage (and the resulting oxidation of soil’s organic matter)? Somehow I suspect not, but I’d be interested to see your reference if you have one. I don’t imagine you scrutinized it before parading it around.
@Alexander Carpenter:
“Just note that davidveale’s continued errors…”
Are you up for a genuine and cordial discussion or would you prefer to call people names when they offend your worldview?
Please pick one of my errors and we can take it from there. If I’m in error, I’d love to know how/where, and you would be doing me a favor by correcting me.
@jb-hb — I don’t make personal attacks, or call someone a liar when they disagree with me, and would appreciate the same courtesy. I’ve clearly triggered an emotionally charged response, which was not my intent. I do, however, like to point out flaws in reasoning where I see them.
“For example, you imply that we have gone from 280 to 420ppm in our lifetimes, which would be an alarming 66% increase and you will say “I never said that” having been challenged on it.”
I did not imply that 280ppm was “within our lifetimes”. That’s the commonly accepted level at the start of the industrial era, and the level that has persisted for most of the existence of the human species until we started to industrialize. The range of CO2 which has existed during the majority of human existence is approx 180-280ppm.
We are clearly not physically adapted to higher levels, and show demonstrable cognitive decline as levels rise beyond the levels we’re accustomed to (this has been tested and is not mere speculation). I think that has far more relevance than your comparisons from hundreds of millions of years ago, when life was very different from today, and nothing at all like the species that we co-evolved with.
@Oroboros — seeing your post (“In searching for a new enemy to unite us…”).
It’s good to know that pollution is a scam and doesn’t really exist! (based upon what you’re implying with Mr King’s quote).
@jb-hb — I did not say “an end to all life” as you’re implying, but rather an end to life as we know it. Marine life is adapted to the conditions which have been relatively stable (at least in terms of pH and temperature) for millions of years. Change those conditions (such as the significant drop in pH we’re now witnessing as atmospheric CO2 goes from 280 to 420ppm), and you’ll see an end to many forms of marine life to which we’re accustomed.
Will there be new, different forms of life which are just as tasty/useful/fascinating? Sure — but the changes we’ve created will not be stabilizing for many centuries, so the only visible effect for those now living will be a dramatic dieoff. I’ve you’ve been paying attention to the marine world, you won’t be surprised by the fact that we’re witnessing exactly that (50% dieoff in plankton, massive dieoffs of seabirds in north Pacific and Atlantic, collapse of the Yukon salmon runs, collapse of oyster beds on the Oregon coast…).
The CO2 levels which were in existence 100s of millions of years ago did not support the types of life which humans have depended upon for our 150k year existence, simply put.
This isn’t some world of predictions and (inaccurate) modeling. This is happening now, at this moment.
@Oroboros — I would hope that you understand that the number of heat deaths vs cold deaths is completely irrelevant to the issue of CO2 emissions. To get some relevance out of this subject, you would have to examine the trends in heat vs. cold deaths over a long time period, and even then the data would be largely irrelevant due to complicating factors such as heating and cooling systems in homes and buildings, or the increasing availability of inexpensive clothing to ward off the cold.
Considering that the human body is 98.6 degrees and the planetary average temperature is something like 55, the fact that death by cold exceeds death from heat (and always has) should be no surprise whatsoever. As a matter of fact, hypothermia was the *leading* cause of death among those over 65 in the US until the advent of social security in the 30s.
If you’d like to challenge yourself with some statistics that point to increasing CO2 having the potential to ending life as we know it, check out what happens when CO2 dissolves in water, particularly with regards to the effects of the resulting pH on the base of the marine food chain.
@aspnaz — A tree (aside from the water it contains) is primarily carbon as you state. When you burn wood, the carbon is converted back to CO2, nitrogen and phosphorous return to the atmosphere (which is why these acid forming compounds are present in smoke that’s useful for preserving meats or tanning hides), and other significant components like potassium and calcium (both base-forming compounds which lower pH — useful for everything from making soap to raising soil pH) will remain in the ash.
It’s not entirely clear to me what you’re stating, but I do know that the carbon in soil is not really utilized by trees/plants, though high-carbon soils with lots of organic matter are certainly better for tree growth due greatly improved water and nutrient availability. The only carbon available to them is that sourced from the air as CO2. They do not “create” carbon, but they can convert the atmospheric gaseous carbon to solid forms.
“Cause and effect is a very reliable way of ruling out some causes of an event”
Yes, and there are a number of ways to determine cause by measuring the effects. In our case, we’re seeing a significant rise in night-time low temperatures relative to daytime highs. This indicates that the effects we’re experiencing are a result of increased heat retention rather than increased heat input.
Does this rule out the possibility of increased solar output being a factor? Nope, but it certainly points to heat retention — such as you would expect with increasing CO2 — being one of the biggest factors.
“Why CO2? It seems obvious to me that it was chosen because it is linked to human activity so there is a scam to be had. The high profile people driving this are all very rich – or backed by the very rich – and have skin in the game, they benefit from the huge waste of taxpayer money handed out as government grants in order to fix a problem that does not exist.”
I don’t disagree with you that the wealthy have chosen this issue as one of their weapons for bludgeoning and subduing the populace. Their proposed solutions are complete and utter BS. Few things piss me off more than these a**holes doing this, because so many people see it and assume that the underlying issue must also be a scam, and assume that I am either a scammer or a gullible idiot by association.
“The climate changed before humans ever existed, so to blame humans is a bit of a stretch”
Isn’t this like saying that “Everyone dies, so I cannot possibly be a murderer”? There is no one single cause of climate variation — there are many. That fact does not exclude our undeniably earth-changing activities from possibly being one of them.
The fact that human activities have released massive stores of long-sequestered carbon is undeniable. (as a sidenote, the plowing of soils for agriculture is one of the biggest, if not biggest overall source — one which is regularly overlooked). The fact that small amounts of CO2 can demonstrably alter heat retention is irrefutable.
That’s not to say that this effect cannot be overshadowed by natural processes, but it strikes me as irresponsible to say that it *cannot* possibly be one of them. That’s like saying “We don’t know the cause of the current spike in all-cause mortality, but we do know that it cannot possibly be a result of the vax” (because we find that possibility to be inconvenient and uncomfortable).
@DR. D
“…Science at the time had equal or higher reports that burning coal would cause COOLING”You seem to suggest that this is contradictory to the warming hypothesis, but that’s not at all the case. Cooling is absolutely a factor in the short term, while particulates released by coal burning are circulating in the atmosphere and blocking sunlight. CO2 released by the same burning, will last far beyond the 1-2 years that the effects of the particulate can be measured.
Your suggestion that the absence of human activity would eliminate the burning of carbon is simply not true. https://news.asu.edu/20200615-coal-burning-siberia-led-climate-change-250-million-years-ago
My concerns with regards to the greenhouse effect (the term “global warming” is a term coined by GOP strategist Frank Luntz to make it sound less threatening) are far more based upon observations than they are on modeling. I’ve been a forester, farmer, sailor, and mountaineer — spending the 51 years of my life in the natural world, observing. When there’s a drought, I notice. When a particular species in a forest dies out (as has happened on my farm, and on the timberlands I worked in), I notice. When a glacier that I’ve walked or skied on disappears, I notice. When an unprecedented heat wave destroys life in the the intertidal zone where I spent a good part of my life as a sailor, I notice.
Legitimate concerns about our effects on the planet are not about Gore or Greta. They’re about believing my own eyes.
The WEF and their ilk have embraced my concerns over the last few years — something which gives me no joy whatsoever. Their proposed solutions are anything but. They see it simply as a way to leverage their takeover of the rest of us peasants.
I do not live in a binary world where a particular issue is good or bad, right or wrong. It can be — and is — both.
@Alexander Carpenter:
You state:
“…That’s not reasonable; it is a fact. Your “thinking has to encompass more than you can even imagine from within your reductionist linearizing covert climate-cult pseudo-humble fake “question.”So your argument is that we cannot possibly begin to comprehend a complex system (no argument there), and thus should not try?
I would argue that measuring energy input/output is not a particularly complex operation at all. While we may not be able to quantify every single variable, I think it’s quite possible to in fact measure the major players.
@Dr D — on the subject of temperature lagging CO2…
Keep in mind that it’s easily a couple irrefutable facts here…
1) CO2 is ideally suited for trapping and retaining thermal energy from the sun, as the Y-shaped molecule (unlike N2 and O2, which make up the bulk of the atmosphere) is easily set to vibrate and thus converting infra-red rays to heat. This can be easily demonstrated in the simplest laboratory environment, and is precisely why it was hypothesized in the late 1800s that burning coal would potentially warm the earth.2) As temperature rises, organic matter decays faster, wildfire rates increase, and seafloor clathrate deposits are more likely to destabilize, escaping to the atmosphere as CH4 but soon decaying to CO2.
Thus, any temperature increase — regardless of the trigger — will move additional CO2 to the atmosphere, creating the precise “lag” effect which you’re implying proves that CO2 cannot be a cause of warming.
Is there a flaw in my reasoning? I’d like to correct it if you know of one.
@phoenixvoice — I have to say I’m continually impressed by your posts and insight, particularly this response on marxism/socialism.
I see so many regularly throw these terms around as synonyms of “evil” while demonstrating zero understanding of what Marx wrote or how these labels comport with that. The fact is that life for citizens in many “socialist” countries has been far better than that in the US. When something works, we should do what we can to copy it, regardless of the labels that are attached to it (usually by those who prefer and benefit from the corrupt status quo).
@jb-hb — Yes, that’s correct. Global warming leads to both warmer/colder, drier and wetter weather, depending upon location. Most temperate weather is determined by the location of the jet stream. North of it, the air tends to be cool and dry. South of the jet stream, it tends to be warmer and wetter.
When there’s a large temperature differential between the poles and tropics (which is largely what drives the jet stream), the flow is relatively stable. Like a river travelling down a steep gradient, it will be relatively straight and stable in it’s banks.
When you decrease that temperature gradient by warming the earth (which occurs mostly at the poles),, the jet stream starts to meander, and form large ox-bows. Places like like Mexico City — which were formerly well away from the normal jet stream flow — suddenly find themselves experiencing freezing temperatures as the meanders grow in amplitude. That’s why they had 150 year old citrus trees die in a freezing event a few years ago.
As a farmer, I find that the normal cycle during our growing season here in Michigan starts to vary wildly. Whereas we would normally be oscillating between cooler/drier and warmer/wetter weather every week or two, it’s now often every month or two as the meanders in the jet stream stall out.
The same effect is the reason that Washington’s forests are now burning at rates much greater than they historically did (the phase shift occurred around 2016 if my memory serves). I grew up there and once worked as a commercial forester there as well, so I pay attention to these things.
@aspnaz — where you state, “But, the climate change idiots claim they can predict the weather long enough to derive some indications of changes to the climate. Pure nonsense.”
I would have to argue that the opposite is in fact true. Macro trends are much easier to predict than the day to day minute variations. I can confidently predict that my location in Michigan will have many weeks of below-freezing weather in the winter months, and many weeks of hot and humid weather in the summer months, with 100% accuracy. The first part of that prediction is starting to make me nervous though; this is the first winter I can remember when the lakes did not freeze over enough to allow for ice-fishing in my part of the state. The better part of January (when highs are typically in the teens or twenties) was with highs well above freezing this year.
@Red — I’ve successfully grown fiber-flax here in (humid) Michigan, and Ireland is known for growing it, so I don’t think you need to worry too much about it being in a particularly dry location.
In my experience, growing a longer strip was better than a square block, as it can benefit from hand weeding despite the high density you’ll want to plant it at.
I also had difficulty with dew retting despite turning the retting stalks regularly. I’d recommend going with water retting if you have the option, but be sure to check it regularly, as it can easily go too far. I’m thinking about a week in our farm pond was good for us here.
Would be happy to field any questions you may have if they come up. It’s a fun pursuit!
@Kassandra — we had an offer on a house back in Washington (on Lopez island — one of my favorite places on the planet) in January of 2020 which fell through upon inspection. Once covid got going, Washington seemed less and less appealing and less reachable in terms of price. So I’m still in Michigan, where we moved in ’08 largely due to high quality farmland being a fraction of the price it is in Washington.
Good thing you were able to escape CA (I was born there and still have family there)! Some good friends of mine live near Winthrop — perhaps close to your new location? Beautiful place (I always wanted to move to the east side when I lived in WA), though very smoky as well in summer nowadays.
Correction to my previous post… I realize now that @Kassandra is the one making the argument I related to. AFKTT is often the one to express climate concerns, so I apparently transposed the two commenters. Apologies for the mixup!
@Afewknowthetruth — I completely agree with your assessment of the situation with regards to what to believe or what to do.
As for me, I spent the majority of the last 15 years trying to reduce my own carbon footprint because I believe that was imperative. Started growing my own food, farming with horses because we could power them directly from the farm, and running a small dairy in hopes of having income after an economic crash. I built an outhouse so I didn’t have to use electricity to pump water for flushing our toilet. I bought and used an Amish buggy in anticipation of getting rid of our cars. Cooked and heated exclusively with wood cut on our farm, and never installed AC in a place where *every* other house has it.
Circa 2018, I went through a major shift. At that point, the Seattle area (where I grew up) had shifted such that they were blanketed in smoke for weeks each summer, while a mass dieoff of sea life in the Gulf of Alaska commenced. The ubiquitous starfish of Puget Sound died off. The pines on my farm all died off in an unprecedented drought year. To me, the alarm bells were ringing loud and clear.
Despite all this, I had to argue with a family member to take the train instead of flying to visit me (I know — both are bad for CO2 emissions, but the train is a slight improvement, and less likely to be used due to the convenience cost). I realized that if this (educated and intelligent) family member refused to recognize the writing on the wall, that the vast majority would be the same. It also follows that if the vast majority is unable to make the necessary changes, my own efforts would not amount to any difference whatsoever.
So I gave up. Stopped working so hard (about 30 hours a week on top of a 40hr job). Decided that I should just enjoy the time we have left. Instead of putting up hay on my “vacation” time, I go canoeing in Minnesota. I drive a few hundred miles to get there. I even told my family member that they can fly (or drive individual Hummers for all I care) all they want, if they wish to visit.
With regards to the vax… I was unable to prevent everyone in my family from getting it, aside from my son. My wife is boosted. I showed her Dolores Cahill’s claim that most of the vaxxed would be dead within 10 years just before she went and did it, but to no avail. Now I just hope for time together that can be enjoyed, even if it will be limited. I try not to get too wrapped up in it. Afterall, I was wrong (on timing, at least) with peak oil and climate change, so perhaps my take on the vax is also wrong?
And then this year I was diagnosed with cancer. Perhaps there’s a correlation with releasing all my concerns, or losing what was once a powerful driving force in my life.
I’m not really sure what the takeaway is here. Perhaps it’s not to get too wrapped up in your hopes and dreams. As my father-in-law once said, “We’re all just along for the ride”.
@JohnDay — with regards to “depleted” uranium munitions…
A friend related to me the sad story of his grandson-in-law, who served as a mechanic during the first gulf war where these munitions saw their first widespread use. He was heavily involved in salvage and moving many Iraqi vehicles that had been hit with this.
My friend did not know the full details, but he explained that the man’s ears “fell off” shortly before he died. Sounds to me like radiation poisoning.
I’ve read of an account of some Dutch soldiers who also participated in that war. Looking for a place to spend the night, they came upon a group of American soldiers who were camped out in a building that had been hit with these munitions. Unlike the Americans, the Dutch soldiers happened to have a geiger counter with them. The readings on the counter encouraged them to keep looking for a safe place to spend the night.
Regarding the “nitrogen” issue… There is legitimate concern here. The problem is not elemental nitrogen (N2), but rather the various oxides (NOX) that are formed when nitrogen fertilizer oxidizes. It is a very potent greenhouse gas. Manure will offgas NOX as well (thus the focus on animal ag), but the real problem is the haber-bosch sourced fertilizer, because that’s utilized to a far greater magnitude.
As a farmer myself, I can attest that a lack of synthetic nitrogen would probably cut ag production by about 75%. Circa 2018 I came to the conclusion that we were supremely f’ed due to climate change, as the writing on the wall is patently obvious to any who have been paying attention for decades as I have. I’d be happy to fill in the details for any who doubt me.
As I remember it, RIM has also expressed concerns over climate change over the years, so it dismays me to see him and others now rejecting such concerns. The WEF’s laughable embrace of the subject is truly a poison pill.
With that said, I don’t think the WEF gives a rat’s ass about climate change, beyond their ability to use it as an excuse to implement their agenda of enslaving the world’s population.
When Extinction Rebellion and Thunberg started being placed front and center by a corporate media that had formerly been all but silent on the subject, I knew some shitfuckery was afoot. Now it’s clear why.
Farrell’s article is excellent, but I do find it highly ironic that it appears in MarketWatch, where the readers are all presumably interested in investment in public corporations. This is the very force (the exclusive expectation of shareholder returns, sans any human ethos or morality) which drives much of the destruction and also much of the media meant to mislead us on these subjects.
