The Climate Change Hoax

[Ray]

The atmosphere is a very delicate part of the earths system and the easiest to bring out of balance because it has very little mass.

The atmosphere as a whole has a quite significant mass. By comparison the increased mass of CO2 in the atmosphere, from human emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution, is of the order of 0.012%. If you suffer from OCD or some similar disorder, I appreciate that that tiny amount could be alarming. 

So there is enough reason to invest in clean energy, rather than keep coal mines open, that in fact are not so economical.
The damage to the environment and to the health of people they cause has never been part of the economical consideration, but should be.

The damage to the environment from human activity has always affected our health and security. We slash down huge areas of forest for agricultural purposes and to build cities and suburban dwellings. In some countries they burn coal without adequate emission controls, as in China and India. The noxious fumes from such outdated power plants also affect neighbouring countries such as Japan, as well as the local inhabitants of China.

Countries such as Indonesia engage in seasonal burn-off of forests for agricultura purposes cuasing significant amounts of haze and smog which drifts over to other countries such as Malaysia and Singapore resulting in the need for many people to protect themselves by wearing masks.

We pollute the sea with huge quantities of plastic waste, disrupt the Great Barrier Reef with the run-off of artificial fertilizers and pesticides used for farming near the coast, and in some countries release toxic chemicals from industrial processes into nearby rivers.

We foolishly build house in known flood plains, in complete denial of the likelihood that another major flood will occur within a few years, then protect ourselves from the obvious fact that we have been completely stupid, by shifting the blame for the flood to anthropogenic climate change.

If we add to that general destruction of the environment the additional damage done from major wars when huge amounts of explosives are used to destroy entire cities, then it is reasonable to accept that all our activities in total will have some effect on the climate.

Simply reducing CO2 emissions is not going to solve the many problems that mankind faces. In fact, it might have a negative effect by shifting the focus away from the 'real' problems and giving people false hope that their lives will be better as a result of reduced levels of that clean and odorless gas called CO2 which is of great benefit in compensating for our destruction of the forests by helping the remaining forests to grow more vigorously.

[Alan Klein]

To be good stewards of the planet is wise.  To expand our population is not.

  Regarding expanding population, humans are like other animals.  If the resources are there, they will increase their numbers.  While it's true that we can think and over-ride our instincts to a point, other influences have greater effect.   The cost to rear children, pay for shelter, taxes, health costs, are going up.  People decide they can't afford more than a couple of kids.   Many countries like Japan, Italy, are limiting their reproduction.  Population is going down there although it's going up in other areas which will, by the way, need cheap fossil fuel to support themselves.     

Anyway, what do you suggest to limit population?  Forced birth control like they had in China until recently?  Do you want to give up your freedoms to some master governmental birth control plan?

[LesPalenik]

Easy questions and very difficult answers.
The solution is definitely not adding more load to the planet. While adding another billion of people seems today like a doable thing, you can't grow the population indefinitely. In essence, it is the largest pyramid scheme, sanctioned by government(s). The question is only when is the breaking point. You and me won't be around when it happens, but it won't be pretty.

[Alan Klein]

Easy questions and very difficult answers.
The solution is definitely not adding more load to the planet. While adding another billion of people seems today like a doable thing, you can't grow the population indefinitely. In essence, it is the largest pyramid scheme, sanctioned by government(s). The question is only when is the breaking point. You and me won't be around when it happens, but it won't be pretty.

What do you mean "....sanctioned by government(s)..."?  Do you prefer governments regulating birth control like the Chinese did?

[Farmer]

Birth rates are, widely, a function of economic prosperity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate#/media/File:Countries_by_Birth_Rate_in_2014.svg

This then translates into the rate of natural increase when you subtract the crude death rate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_natural_increase#/media/File:Naturalincrease1.png

So strong economic position leads, through multiple channels, to lower birth rates.  China's dropping of the 1 child policy aligns with the growth in their economic prosperity.

In difficult times and conditions, humans reproduce more as a counter to economic disadvantage in the hope that a large family can function to look after itself.  It's not a new phenomenon.

[Blue439]

I've been reluctant to start a new thread on this topic because I understand there's a lot of emotional/religious views that prevail, and most people seem unable to investige the issue [...]

If one is scientifically illiterate [...]

How about just basic illiteracy? 

Sorry, I couldn't resist —nor could I find the courage to read on any further, therefore I stopped.

[Ray]

You must have misquoted me. I see no spelling mistakes. 

[LesPalenik]

What do you mean "....sanctioned by government(s)..."?  Do you prefer governments regulating birth control like the Chinese did?

The pyramid scheme / population growth is pushed and sanctioned by government. The more people, the more taxes/revenue, the bigger the government, debt, and impact on Earth. Let the future generations worry about the problems.

Some may have a different motivation than preservation of the Earth.
In an escalating dispute with Europe, the Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has asked his countrymen living there to extend their influence and to produce more children.
"Do not make three, but five children, because you are the future of Europe," Erdogan said Friday in Eskisehir, a city in western Turkey. "This will be the best answer you can give to the impertinence, hostility and injustice that you will be subjected to." The President of the Republic, however, criticized "fascist Europe" and called on his supporters to stand up to it.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/erdogan-tuerken-in-europa-sollen-mehr-kinder-kriegen-14930132.html

[Alan Klein]

Well, if the population decreases, then there won't be enough young people to pay for your social security and health care when you get old.

[LesPalenik]

Well, if the population decreases, then there won't be enough young people to pay for your social security and health care when you get old.

You mean all those young people without jobs and proper education?
That's the old, conventional thinking (pyramid scheme), which worked when the world population was in a decent, manageable range.
Managing a decreasing population is possible, but a continuing growth will lead to a sure disaster. The question is only at what point.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

You mean all those young people without jobs and proper education?

Correct, the demographic dynamics will require a different (financial) system to cope with it. Mass migration will further stress the existing systems of yesteryear. That will be partly caused by climate change, and I mean Anthropogenic change to a fluctuating dynamic climate, because climate as such is inherently changing all the time. Part of the human influence on climate has already become irreversible, we should try to avoid further irreversible changes for the worse, and that means that we need to act now, and hope to see the trend effects take a turn for the better in a few decades.

Cheers,
Bart

[Chairman Bill]

The Climate Change Hoaxers have broken new ground; they've now managed to sink half a dozen of the Solomon Islands. Is there no end to their vile cunning?

[Alan Klein]

You mean all those young people without jobs and proper education?
That's the old, conventional thinking (pyramid scheme), which worked when the world population was in a decent, manageable range.
Managing a decreasing population is possible, but a continuing growth will lead to a sure disaster. The question is only at what point.

Please explain where the government will get the funds to pay for social security and health care (and other government spending) for an increasing older population with a decreasing younger population that currently provides the money needed?  Medicare and Social Security are already slated to run out of money in a few years.  Maybe we should let in more Mexicans. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Please explain where the government will get the funds to pay for social security and health care (and other government spending) for an increasing older population with a decreasing younger population that currently provides the money needed?  Medicare and Social Security are already slated to run out of money in a few years.  Maybe we should let in more Mexicans.

The US has perhaps the lowest rate of overall taxation of any developed country.  I'm reading TR Reid's great new book on the US tax system and it's failings, "A Fine Mess:  A Global Quest for a Simpler, Fairer, and more Efficient Tax System."  This is important reading for any American, particularly the chapters on tax avoidance by major corporations.  Our Congress has made the tax system a total laughingstock compared to other countries.  All the current problems with various social programs can be dealt with by ending all the stupid tax preferences.  In return, Americans will get lower 'real' rates.

[LesPalenik]

Please explain where the government will get the funds to pay for social security and health care (and other government spending) for an increasing older population with a decreasing younger population that currently provides the money needed?  Medicare and Social Security are already slated to run out of money in a few years.  Maybe we should let in more Mexicans.

I would reword it:
Please explain where the government will get the funds to pay for social security and health care (and other government spending) for an increasing older population AND an unemployable younger population that ideally should provide the money needed, but now must be supported by government and aging parents and grandparents? If they keep running Medicare in its present form, then it and Social Security will run out of money in a few years.  Maybe we should let in more Mexicans and use their taxes to help Elon Musk to accelerate colonization of Mars.

[Farmer]

The US has perhaps the lowest rate of overall taxation of any developed country.  I'm reading TR Reid's great new book on the US tax system and it's failings, "A Fine Mess:  A Global Quest for a Simpler, Fairer, and more Efficient Tax System."  This is important reading for any American, particularly the chapters on tax avoidance by major corporations.  Our Congress has made the tax system a total laughingstock compared to other countries.  All the current problems with various social programs can be dealt with by ending all the stupid tax preferences.  In return, Americans will get lower 'real' rates.

The data is a bit out of date, but yes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

The US and Australia are about the lowest.  Alan (if he's reading) will be interested to note that we manage both universal healthcare (well, a decent hybrid of it) and relatively strong military expenditure :-)

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Coral bleaching

"On 10 March 2017 the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority confirmed mass coral bleaching is occurring on the Great Barrier Reef for the second consecutive year.

Mass coral bleaching is moderate to severe bleaching over a large spatial scale — the bleaching is part of an ongoing global event affecting the world’s coral reefs since 2014.

How this event unfolds on the Great Barrier Reef depends on local weather conditions over the next few weeks and, as updates become available, information will be released on this webpage and through our current conditions report.

Reported bleaching is consistent with the accumulated build-up of thermal stress across the Reef shown in the Bureau of Meteorology’s thermal stress mapping tools. Thermal stress has been accumulating Reef-wide, with accumulation greatest in the central region of the Reef between Townsville and Port Douglas"
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/media-room/coral-bleaching

The Thermal stress is caused by accelerated Global warming due to Greenhouse gasses such as CO2 and Methane. In addition to the rising temperatures and ocean acidification, increased land erosion and farming runoffs add to the problem, and the crown-of-thorns starfish doesn't help either.

'Zero recovery' for corals in back-to-back Great Barrier Reef bleaching:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/04/10/zero-recovery-corals-back-back-great-barrier-reef-bleaching

"Coral bleached for two consecutive years at Australia's Great Barrier Reef has "zero prospect" of recovery, scientists warned Monday, as they confirmed the site has again been hit by warming sea temperatures."

""As temperatures continue to rise the corals will experience more and more of these events. One degree Celsius of warming so far has already caused four events in the past 19 years.

"Ultimately, we need to cut carbon emissions, and the window to do so is rapidly closing.""

http://ocean.si.edu/corals-and-coral-reefs
"Coral reefs are the most diverse of all marine ecosystems. They teem with life, with perhaps one quarter of all ocean species depending on reefs for food and shelter. This is a remarkable statistic when you consider that reefs cover just a tiny fraction (less than one percent) of the earth’s surface and less than two percent of the ocean bottom. Because they are so diverse, coral reefs are often called the rainforests of the sea."

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Goldhammer]

Alan (if he's reading) will be interested to note that we manage both universal healthcare (well, a decent hybrid of it) and relatively strong military expenditure :-)

Quite right about health care and virtually all other countries save the US provide universal health care to their citizens.

[Ray]

“We do not believe that any group of men is adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy, error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.


Here's the other side of the story about the Great Barrier Reef from people who live in the region and frequently dive to explore the corals.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/08/24/great-barrier-reef-in-near-pristine-condition-dive-boat-operators/

"Dive boat operators who visit the reef almost on a daily basis taking thousands of tourists on diving expeditions have been telling authorities for several years there is nothing wrong with the reef."
"Tourist operators have advised the State Government that coral bleaching is a natural and annual event that can affect small sections of the reef."
"According to the late Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University in an interview several years ago, this is a natural phenomenon that has occurred for several thousand years."

Okay! This article is probably biased in the opposite direction, because of the tourism involved. So let's try to find some other good news with a stronger scientific association.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/these-remote-coral-reefs-are-doing-just-fine/2016/03/25/6bb00214-f122-11e5-89c3-a647fcce95e0_story.html?utm_term=.159cdb2cfdff

"A new report from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California at San Diego provides reason for optimism by highlighting the potential for preservation efforts. In a massive project spanning 56 islands, researchers documented 450 coral reef locations from Hawaii to American Samoa.
The results show that coral reefs surrounding remote islands were dramatically healthier than those in populated areas that were subject to a variety of human impacts.

“There are still coral reefs on this planet that are incredibly healthy and probably look the way they did 1,000 years ago,” said Jennifer Smith, lead author of the study and a professor at Scripps’s Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation."

Now, I would suggest that a reasonable interpretation of these differing points of view, is that the Great Barrier Reef is not in such bad shape as the AGW alarmists report, and not in such good shape as the locals report, who do not want to discourage tourism.

If the Great Barrier Reef really is in poor shape, it is probably more due more to agricultural run-off of pesticides and fertilizers, the Crown of Thorns Starfish, and intense tourist activity, than global warming due to CO2 increases.

The fact that there are many healthy reefs in areas with similar temperatures and ocean acidification needs an explanation.

It's quite all right for someone to report that a particular reef, or section of a reef, is bleaching, just as it's quite all right for someone to report that a particular glacier is melting, or a section of the Arctic or Antarctic is melting, if this is in fact an observation.

However, it is not all right, and is deliberately alarming and misleading, to attribute these effects to anthropogenic global warming without mentioning the other observations that many reefs are growing and thriving, many glaciers in New Zealand and the Himalayas are increasing in size, and parts of the ice in Antarctica are also growing.

This one-side-of-the story reporting is the nature of alarmism. Only report the bad news and never the good news.

Fortunately, we skeptics have more sense and are less biased. 

[Alan Klein]

Quite right about health care and virtually all other countries save the US provide universal health care to their citizens.

Just wondering where the money comes from?  This year our deficit is $600+ billion.  Our debt has grown $10 trillion in the last 8 years.  Should we keep borrowing from the Chinese?  Should we start printing money again and reduce the value of everything we own and earn? Will you accept a 10% cut in your Social Security?  Will you agree to double your Medicare payments before and after retirement? Should we pull out of NATO and let Europe defend itself? Should we stop dropping bombs on Syria and let others become the arbiter of international norms?  Should we reduce our carrier forces to let's say 6 rather than 12 and tell the Japanese, Australians and South Koreans they'll have to deal with an expanding China on their own?  Should we pull out of the Middle East and let Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, and other friends deal with a nuclear Iran on their own?  Should we become America First?

We're stretched too far.  We're not the rich country we use to be.  Something's got to give.