- This topic has 1 reply, 4 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
If you’re young, like coffee, and reject climate change as a hoax, read on:
As long as people enjoy (or love) drinking coffee, I do not think it will ever go extinct. It is true that climate change may shift what areas coffee can successfully be grown due to present coffee growing areas becoming too hot or diseases becoming prevalent or too expensive to fight. However, 60 years is a long time. That is plenty of time for varieties of coffee to be adapted to the changing conditions and/or for coffee production to be moved to areas which may be too chilly right now. Technology is on our side to make sure this happens as long as there is a good market for coffee. Even wild coffee would have time to adapt to warmer temperatures and changing climate conditions or it will spread to areas more optimal for its growth via wildlife.
Farmers will not continue to grow crops that are not profitable. When there is no longer sufficient profit, farmers will turn to other crops such as cacao and others to concentrate their efforts. Coffee production in Costa Rica has diminished in the last 10 years or so due to cheaper competing prices in other countries. If those cheaper markets collapse due to climate conditions and disease, farmers in Costa Rica may return to growing coffee again in areas where conditions are suitable. One can not underestimate the power of nature.
Hide the decline, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrd3HYU80Dk
It’s always amusing to me how people who deny climate change based on political, religious, and social preferences will use long-debunked information to deny the reality of climate change. It reminds me of Senator Imhofe’s trick of bringing a snowball into the Senate chambers late last Spring and offered it up as proof the warming does not exist. He of course represents the oil state, Oklahoma. Oh, and he also denies fracking as a cause of Oklahoma’s earhtquake which have increased from less than 10 per year in 2008 to many hundreds per year in 2015, in lockstep with the increase of fracking. I expect Imhofe will bring an ice cube to the senate – the last bit of ice in the Arctic Ocean.
There’s a reason that over 98% of scientists who actually know the science, accept the reality. It’s knowledge and facts, not belief
.Climate Scientist Jump ship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Y9EZDdpUwWell ….
Regardless of which camp that you’re in … it’s pretty much universally recognized that one volcanic eruption pumps more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than years of human activity …
So … before I start walking my happy butt to work, lets see if we can find a way to drive some big ass corks in those things … 😆
[quote=”BillNew”]Well ….
Regardless of which camp that you’re in … it’s pretty much universally recognized that one volcanic eruption pumps more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than years of human activity …
So … before I start walking my happy butt to work, lets see if we can find a way to drive some big ass corks in those things … :lol:[/quote]
Well, not quite.
“The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.” (Sceptical Scince)In my professional experience of 50 years, and decades of teaching global ecology/biology, I know of no scientist who as produced valid data on volcanoes producing more atmospheric carbon dioxide than human activity. That includes undersea volcanoes. Period. Fact – not belief or faith.
The only exception would be an input on a day timescale when there are multiple eruptions. In that case the daily volcanic input of CO2 MIGHT approach that of human activity. More worrisome from volcanoes is sulfur dioxide.In response to rfs1975,
This video misrepresents Piers Forster, and I suspect it also misrepresents others depicted. Forster has differences of opinion with mainstream scientists on the causes of global climate change (the relative roles of oceans uptake, forest uptake, black carbon, cloudiness, radiative heating/cooling, methane release, polar melting, etc.) and not on the reality of change. In fact, this year he has written a paper on the effect of climate change on African migration.
This quote (misusing ‘descent’ for ‘dissent’) sums it up pretty well, I think:
“Climate deniers will happily mis-quote, quote out of context, lie etc any apparent voice that supports their opinion. Climate change is complicated and will have genuine voices of descent [sic] with regards to process and conclusions, it is the true scepticism of science, denialism however, will seize on anything and polarizes any minor differences and uncertainties. Because of the nature of the internet the words of Piers Forster will be around for decades as will Myles Allen and will be quoted by those who share none of the other views of the scientists and will dispute CO2 as a GHG.”
[quote=”pharg”]More worrisome from volcanoes is sulfur dioxide.[/quote]
And the resulting acid rain when hydrated …
But CO2 production isn’t just about burning hydrocarbons …
How much is produced completely unnecessarily in the production of beer and spirits …
The leavening of bread …
And the cruelest irony of all is that pretty much all the oil that we have came from about three relatively brief periods in Earth’s history when the planet’s CO2 levels were extremely elevated … far beyond anything that we have today …
With that said, CO2 is far from the only greenhouse gas. Methane, CFCs, Ozone, and even water vapor in the form of emitted steam from a volcano can be a greenhouse gas and absorb and emit IR radiation in the same wavelength as Earth.
When China shut down industry in Beijing and west of Beijing in preparation for the Olympics, particulate in the air over LA dropped 40% …
You either have to get everyone on board … or you give those who do not participate a helluva competitive edge …
Do you really believe that the US, with the highest corporate tax rate on the planet and among the highest regulatory burden, can afford to be any less competitive ?
Is industry not leaving fast enough already ?
Or, are we going to depend on the service sector for our future ? I’m gonna come mow your grass and you can come mow mine … and somehow we’re going to build a thriving economy out of that … right ?
Nah … don’t think so. When manufacturing leaves, the US becomes a third world country.
Those who understand are building their Arks. The HNWIs are mostly going South. The UHNWIs are finding their way to mostly Singapore and Dubai.
The psychology of climate change denial.
Not that it will change anybody’s mind, but……http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/50034
Particularly fascinating is the profile characteristics of many climate change deniers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
