Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Climate Change?

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Fido said:

This whole "man made global warming" thing is the biggest hoax upon mankind since..... well ever.

Since at least.   Y2K.....http://time.com/3645828/y2k-look-back/

 

But there is no doubt we are going through a climate change. There is however some doubt as to what we can do to stop and reverse the change but I suspect nothing can or will be done, mother nature is tough to beat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much CO2 is actually a part of our atmosphere?

About 0.039%. LESS THAN a trace.

What happens if that less-than-a-trace is reduced by any significant factor? Plants die.

I'm tired. Maybe more later!!!

 

zzzzzzz.....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Canada helps broker negotiations for UN pact on airline emissions

Transport Minister Marc Garneau says historic deal would be 'significant' achievement

Fri Sep 09, 2016 - CBC News
By Kathleen Harris, Margo McDiarmid

Canada is playing a leadership role in international negotiations for a landmark UN accord that would set a global market price on airline pollution.

Officials from 191 member states of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) have been wrestling behind the scenes in the run-up to the UN body's assembly that opens at its Montreal headquarters on Sept. 27.

It could be a historic first for the aviation sector — and a critical test for Canada's diplomatic muscle.

The key goal is to create a common carbon-credit system and establish aircraft certifications leading to a carbon-neutral growth in emissions by 2020.

Transport Minister Marc Garneau said bringing all countries on side is a formidable challenge, and signing a deal would mark a "significant" achievement.

Global standards needed

"If Canada takes an approach with respect to its airlines and other countries don't, then it's not really achieving what we need to achieve, because there is competition between these airlines," he told CBC News. "So we need everyone to be on board and that's what's unique about this."

The stakes are high, but reaching consensus, for now, is far from certain.

Concessions to bring in developing countries such as a voluntary period and phased-in targets have been staunchly opposed by some members like the European Union.

The 191 member states of the International Civil Aviation Organization meet in Montreal Sept. 27 to negotiate a deal on global emissions standards.

Right now, airlines make up roughly two per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental groups say an uptake of 80 to 90 per cent of the world's emitters is required to slow global warming.

Technical talks have been in the works for more than a decade, and if an agreement is reached in Montreal, it would be the first sector deal since the Paris climate talks.

Important precedent

"It's a big deal in terms of the amount of emissions and the precedent it would set," said Annie Petsonk, international counsel for the Washington-based Environmental Defence Fund.

The overall cost to industry is pegged at 0.5 to 1.5 per cent, which she estimates would add an average $6 to $7 US to the price of a ticket.

With the deal now down to the wire, Petsonk said three main sticking points remain:

  •     Which countries will be covered and which will carve out exceptions.
  •     Which participating countries with developing aviation industries should get a break.
  •     How the carbon offset market will work to include other sectors beyond aviation.

Petsonk said there's a lot riding on a deal, since International Civil Aviation Organization assembly won't reconvene for another three years.

"It there's a failure by ICAO in some sense that failure falls, in diplomatic terms, on Canada as well as on ICAO," she said.

'The world's biggest emitters like the U.S. and China have agreed to sign on, but developing countries argue it will hurt their burgeoning industries'

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Terence Corcoran: Ontario Liberals’ huge green energy about-face shows renewables aren’t so doable after all

Wed Sep 28, 2016 - Financial Post
By Terence Corcoran

One should never underestimate the ability of politicians to convert massive policy failure into a dazzling display of green concern for the welfare of voters. That’s the trick now being attempted by the Liberal government of Ontario as it begins to unravel parts of its financially disastrous green energy program.

Glenn Thibeault, the province’s latest energy minister, on Tuesday read through the script provided by the spin-meisters within Premier Kathleen Wynne’s government. The province, he said in a speech to the Ontario Energy Association, had decided to “suspend procurement” of 1,000 additional megawatts of unneeded wind and solar power. The cancellation is “expected to save $3.8 billion in electricity system costs,” thereby saving a typical residential consumer “an average of approximately $2.45 per month.”

Only a government can get away with declaring a saving for consumers by not spending on projects that are not needed.

It’s the latest defensive electricity market move by the Wynne Liberals, who are down in the polls and facing a crisis over electricity prices. An eight per cent provincial sales tax recently imposed on power was suddenly eliminated and rural Ontarians will receive rebates on part of their soaring electricity costs.

But there’s more to the decision to suspended 1,000 MW of wind and solar projects than attempting to mollify unhappy consumers. The real objective is to keep consumers and the public in the dark over the electricity mess that exists after a decade of Liberal policy based on the slogan “Renewable is doable.” In the rush to green, Ontario’s electricity sector has become an overbuilt collection of electricity-producing assets selling power at high prices into a declining market. Since 2006, annual electricity demand within Ontario has dropped 6.5 per cent, mostly a function of declining industrial sectors. Meanwhile, installed capacity soared by more than 25 per cent, mostly a function of the government’s expensive wind and solar schemes.

While masses of new generating and transmission capacity have been added, the latest report from the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator warns that electricity demand is unlikely to increase over the next 20 years. The only way to boost demand, it projects, would be to adopt Plan C: mandate residential conversion to electric water and space heat, reduce commercial and industrial use of fossil fuels, and turn 2.4 million automobiles into electric vehicles.

'This is an abrupt about-face for a province that had made green energy a religious mission'

 

.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd guess Alberta will win the How-pretty-can-you-arrange-the-deck-chairs contest, but Ontario will probably take second prize. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mitch Cronin said:

I'd guess Alberta will win the How-pretty-can-you-arrange-the-deck-chairs contest, but Ontario will probably take second prize. 

So sorry you are not biased at all .   However for the facts re overall pollution etc. you might want to take a look at the following report, you might be pleasantly surprised to see how your home province rates re overall environment.: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/provincial/environment.aspx  and also this one http://www.tiactimes.com/?p=95

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch, I like your post for the link to the "point of no return" story, and for your deck-chairs comment.

That said, climate change deniers forget two things:

1) Nature isn't political and has rid itself of more species than are extant today,

2) No matter what the source, cause or origin of climate change, or who is doing the blaming, what if the scientists are right?

3) Intelligence is no guarantee for survival - cockroaches and sharks have several hundred million years on the species that believes it rules nature.

We pass the point of no return and narry a whimper? Let's keep on dancing...?

Oh wait, no one in North America believes science thanks to Bush and Harper so we're just fine, nothing to see here.

But if even if some of our scientists are right, we'll all be second-prize "winners" just like Gahan Wilson's cartoon from about 30 years ago. Just dress the guy up in a business suit and replace the knife and the automatic weapon with a bag of money.

 

I think I won_Wilson_2016-09-29_124149.jpg

Edited by Don Hudson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at it this way.  The earth is a living organism.  when a living organism begins to get sick from say bacterial infection or viral infection, the organism begins to fight off the infection.  Why would earth be any different?  The human race has grown exponentially for centuries. We have hit the point where the body begins to fight off the human infection. 

Step 1:  Fever.  The bodies way of fighting off infection.  raise the temperature of the host to make the host inhospitable to the infection.  Check.

Step 2: Attack the infection with anti bodies.  Wide spread flooding, storms and natural disasters.  We will see.

Step 3: expel the infection.  Lets just hope is doesnt come to this.

In any organism there is a balance.  There are always potential infections present in balance with the natural ability to keep things in check.  

Our host is fighting back and do you know what?  She WILL win.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global carbon dioxide levels reach highest point ever, likely for good

400 parts per million has long been considered a benchmark of irreversible damage

By Laura Wright, CBC News Posted: Sep 30, 2016 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Sep 30, 2016 5:16 AM ET

Scientists say we're in 'uncharted territory' when it comes to the levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

Global carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have surpassed 400 parts per million, and will almost certainly remain there indefinitely, according to new numbers from the Scripps carbon dioxide monitoring program at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii.

The 400-level has long been considered a benchmark of irreversible damage to the environment.

"We're really in uncharted territory," said Ralph Keeling from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who directs the program. "It's too bad we're this deep into it already, but that's the fact."

The level has swung above 400 parts per million before, but this is the first time it will have stayed that high for all 12 months of the year.

While the year isn't over yet, the month of September almost always has the lowest levels, because it comes at a time when plentiful summer plants in the Northern Hemisphere slow down their carbon dioxide uptake and begin to die off in the fall.

Keeling said that sometimes October has a lower number, but it's only happened four times since 2002. He said it's unlikely that the number will dip below 400 parts per million this year.

And to make matters worse, we've surpassed that benchmark more quickly than anticipated, said Keeling.

"It was first in 2014 that we had a monthly value that was above the 400 level. So it only took a year and a half or two years to overwhelm that natural cycle," he said.

The number is also unlikely to decrease. Keeling said that even if we implement the best environmental policies tomorrow, it would take hundreds of years to stabilize and then lower the levels.

40% rise since Industrial Revolution

Carbon dioxide levels can seem an obscure concept, making it difficult for people to gauge what, exactly, is going on.

To put it into context, Danny Harvey, a professor in the department of geography at the University of Toronto, who teaches about climate change, explains that before the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide levels were around 280 parts per million.

"So that's about a 40 per cent increase, and way, way outside the range of the last million years," he explained.

This, coupled with temperature increases, puts the planet on track to become ice-free at some point in the future.

"It doesn't mean all the ice is going to melt in the next 100 or 1,000 years, but it does give you a perspective on just how big these changes are and the trajectory of where we're heading," he said.

University of Toronto scientist Danny Harvey says carbon dioxide levels have increased about 40 per cent since the Industrial Revolution. (Justin Sullivan/Getty)

Harvey said if we do nothing, we're on a clear path toward a climate that is between 1.5 and 4.0 degrees warmer, with carbon dioxide levels around 450 or 500 parts per million.

In order to stop that increase, the world would have to eliminate fossil fuel emissions completely by 2060.

'Status quo isn't on the table'

But this latest benchmark is just one of many that scientists have been warning about for years.

On Thursday, the Pembina Institute released a report saying that Canada is not on track to meet its 2020 or 2030 climate goals.

"Climate change is a more difficult policy problem than anything we've ever faced before," said Kathryn Harrison, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia who studies climate change policy.

The intangibility of the problem makes it a challenge to address.

"Left to their own devices, individuals will make rational decisions to use fossil fuels, because the benefits of driving your car to work — you get those," said Harrison. "While the costs of driving your car are spread among everybody across the planet and to future generations."

Harrison said that's where governments come in — she said leaders will have to be courageous in their plans.

"Because the option of staying the way things are now — it isn't available to us," she said. "The status quo isn't on the table, and I think that's a message that hasn't come through loud and clear."

Game not over yet

Harrison and Harvey both said that the costs of implementing policies that would reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be about one or two per cent of the country's gross domestic product.

Harrison said this could include making cars on the road more efficient, tightening environmental rules for new construction projects, and phasing out fossil fuel extraction.

"Those things are not crazy and radical," she said.

Despite the glum news, Harvey said all isn't lost.

He said we're in a position now similar to a hockey team that's down a goal in the last two minutes of the third period.

"You might still win the game, but you have to pull your goalie, put your best players on the ice, and then maybe get that goal and then win in overtime."

He said if we want a chance of winning the so-called game and limiting warming as much as possible, then "we have to go flat out."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The massive failure of those who argue that climate change is a hoax, is the claim that it isn't man-made so we can ignore climate change and keep on dancing in the dark.

That broad level of comprehension of science and of the data is frightening. I can recall teaching "pollution" in elementary school in 1970. The textbook showed the ubiquitous smoke stacks, but the chapter and the chapter on "conservation" was always at the back of the textbook so one got to it if one had time in June...

But here we are almost fourty-seven years later, still dancing on our ship's deck, watching as business & politics trump survival.

Anyone else here have grandchildren?

Edited by Don Hudson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no denying we have an effect on the climate.  So, also, does mother nature. The natural warming trend is also being affected by humans which is speeding up the process.  we must remember that Canada was once Tropical.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, boestar said:

There is no denying we have an effect on the climate.  So, also, does mother nature. The natural warming trend is also being affected by humans which is speeding up the process.  we must remember that Canada was once Tropical.

 

And also it appears that more people cause more global warming, so although I am in favour of immigration, I don't understand how bringing in more immigrants will help us meet our goals re improving  / reducing climate change. Is it possible that our government has screwed up???? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, boestar said:

There is no denying we have an effect on the climate.  So, also, does mother nature. The natural warming trend is also being affected by humans which is speeding up the process.  we must remember that Canada was once Tropical.

 

One of the oldest petrified rain forests is on Axel Heiberg Island. Look that up in Google Earth!

If humans have destroyed the atmosphere (there are about 7.5 billion of us now and about 30 billion forecast for 2050),what can be done? To reverse the current trend, commenced in the mid 18th century, the world would have to cease completely CO, CO2, CH4 emissions for the next 20-50 years. Completely. So is the solution to "climate change"...the elimination of the human race?

I am not, nor ever have been...a Deny-er (izzat a word?). I am however a monumental skeptic of the Gore-Zuki approach adopted by most Western world governments on what to do. That "what-to-do" is culminating in massive tax revenue gains for all western governments, with little or no effect on the root of the problem - reduction of GHG's.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article re the Arctic Ice.  Seems that some of the "experts" were wrong, but the major question is "WHY". Is the science faulty or ??? Y2K all over again???

‎Today, ‎October ‎8, ‎2016, ‏‎23 minutes ago
 

Scientist accused of ’crying wolf’ on climate change with claim that Arctic sea ice would vanish

 
‎Today, ‎October ‎8, ‎2016, ‏‎1 hour ago | Sarah Knapton, The Telegraph

Dire predictions that the Arctic would be free of sea ice by September have proven unfounded after satellite images showed there is far more ice now than in 2012.

Scientists including Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Moderey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, a warning that has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.

Prof Wadhams, who is considered a leading expert on Arctic sea ice loss, has recently published a book entitled A Farewell To Ice in which he repeated the assertion that the Arctic would be free of ice in the middle of this decade.

screen-shot-2016-10-08-at-5-02-09-pm

As late as this summer he was still predicting an ice-free September.

Yet when figures were released for the yearly minimum on Sept 10, they showed that there was still 4.14 million sq km of sea ice, which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.

For the month of September overall there was 31 per cent more ice than in 2012, figures released this week by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) show, amounting to an extra 1.09 million sq km of sea ice.

Although NSIDC satellite data going back to 1981 show an undeniable downward trend in sea ice over the past 35 years, scientists have accused Prof Wadhams and others of “crying wolf” and harming the message of climate change through “dramatic”, “incorrect” and “confusing” predictions.

Dr Ed Hawkins, associate professor in the department of meteorology at the University of Reading, said: “There has been one prominent scientist who has regularly made more dramatic, and incorrect, in my view predictions suggesting that we would by now be in ice-free conditions.

“There are very serious risks from continued climatic changes and a melting Arctic but we do not serve the public and policy-makers well by exaggerating those risks.

“We will soon see an ice-free summer in the Arctic but there is a real danger of ’crying wolf’ and that does not help anyone.

“As global temperatures rise we will see a continuing decline in Arctic sea ice extent, although this will happen somewhat erratically, rather like a ball bouncing down a bumpy hill.

screen-shot-2016-10-08-at-5-02-18-pm

“Without substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the ball will reach the bottom of the hill, meaning the Arctic is ’ice-free,’ starting with a few days one summer, a few weeks another summer and gradually becoming more and more frequent.”

It is the latest example of experts making alarming predictions which do not come to pass. Earlier this week environmentalists were accused of misleading the public about the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” after aerial shots proved there was no “island of rubbish” in the middle of the ocean.

Likewise, warnings that the hole in the ozone layer would never close were debunked in June.

Scientists said that such claims risked detracting from the real issue.

Losing Arctic sea ice is a major problem because ice reflects 85 per cent of sunlight while open water reflects just seven per cent, meaning the rest is absorbed by the planet, which speeds up global warming. A massive melt of freshwater could also disrupt global ocean currents, and change weather systems.

For more than a decade most scientists have accepted that the Arctic will be free of ice by 2050, while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculates there is a 66 per cent chance of no ice by the middle of the century if emissions continue to increase annually.

Yet in 2007 Prof Wadhams predicted that sea ice would be lost by 2013 after levels fell 27 per cent in a single year.

By 2013 ice levels were actually 25 per cent higher than they had been six years before. In 2012, following another record low Prof Wadhams changed his prediction to 2016.

(AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Jonathan Hayward)
(AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Jonathan Hayward)This July 10, 2008 file photo made with a fisheye lens shows ice floes in Baffin Bay above the Arctic Circle, seen from the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Louis S. St-Laurent.

The view was supported by Prof Maslowski who in 2013 published a paper in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences also claiming that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2016, plus or minus three years.

Instead of record lows, this year the Arctic has seen the quickest refreeze on record with the extent of sea ice growing 1.05 million sq km in just three weeks since the Sept 10 minimum. The Danish Meteorological Institute said that refreezing was happening at the fastest rate since its daily records began in 1987.

Andrew Shepherd, professor of earth observation at University College London, said that there was now “overwhelming consensus” that the Arctic would be free of ice within the next few decades, but warned that earlier predictions were based on poor extrapolation.

“A decade or so ago, climate models often failed to reproduce the decline in Arctic sea ice extent revealed by satellite observations,” he said.

“One upshot of this was that outlier predictions based on extrapolation alone were able to receive wide publicity. But climate models have improved considerably since then, and they now do a much better job of simulating historical events.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/AP/NOAA
THE CANADIAN PRESS/AP/NOAA This 2014 photo provided by NOAA shows Arctic ice coverage.

“This means we have greater confidence in their predictive skill, and the overwhelming consensus within the scientific community is that the Arctic Ocean will be effectively free of sea ice in a couple of decades should the present rate of decline continue.”

Prof Myles Allen, of Oxford University, added: “The Arctic was only predicted to be close to ice-free in September by mid-century.”

Scientists said it was clear that sea ice was shrinking but there were large fluctuations between years. For example 2013 showed a 50 per cent increase from the previous year.

Prof Jonathan Bamber, of the University of Bristol, said: “This year’s low was the second lowest on record and not as low as 2012 but there is always variability in any part of the climate system so you would not expect a monotonic decline year on year, whatever was going on.

“The signal of Arctic sea ice decline is possibly the clearest we have of climate change. That does not mean, by definition, it is manmade but there is no question that sea ice volume has been declining, on average, over the past 40 years and that all the indications from climate data, satellite observations etc. are that the decline will continue.”

Bob Ward, of the Grantham Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, added: “Peter Wadhams has made predictions of the imminent disappearance of summer Arctic sea ice, which have not been fulfilled, but the evidence still shows a rapid decline.

“The trend in Arctic sea ice extent is definitely downwards for every single month of the year. The most recent IPCC forecast is that the Arctic has up to a 66 per cent chance of being ice-free in September by 2050 for the highest emissions scenario.”

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, Prof Wadhams accepted that sea ice decline had not happened as quickly as he had predicted. However, he still believes that an ice-free Arctic is still only a “very small number of years” away.

“My view is that the trend of summer sea ice volume is relentlessly downward, such that the volume (and thus area) will come to a low value very soon – in a very small number of years,”

He said. “This is to be contrasted with some of the bizarre predictions made by computer modellers, who have the summer sea ice remaining until late this century, which is quite impossible.”  http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/scientist-accused-of-crying-wolf-on-climate-change-with-claim-that-arctic-sea-ice-would-vanish?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NP_Top_Stories+(National+Post+-+Top+Stories)

NP_Top_Stories?d=yIl2AUoC8zA NP_Top_Stories?i=CIcUaERlcAY:ezyd0Rh1c1A:V_sGLiPBpWU
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now for some truth:

http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/MediaDetail2.php?MediaID=1929&MediaTypeID=1

Sep 15, 2016
2016 Arctic Sea Ice Ties for Second Lowest 

On September 10, 2016, Arctic sea ice extent shrank to 4.14 million square kilometers (1.60 million square miles). The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) announced that this summer low was statistically tied with the minimum of 2007 for second-lowest in the satellite record, both behind the 2012 record low.

The map shows Arctic sea ice concentration as measured by satellites on September 10, 2016. Areas with at least 15% ice cover appear in shades of gray-blue to white. Open ocean water (less than 15% ice cover) is navy blue. The yellow line shows the median (middle of the range) sea ice extent for 1981–2010.

For more information, see the NSIDC link below or read the full story at Climate.gov

Click here for an unlabeled version. Real-time sea ice data can be access in NOAA View here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mitch Cronin said:

Now for some truth:

http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/MediaDetail2.php?MediaID=1929&MediaTypeID=1

Sep 15, 2016
2016 Arctic Sea Ice Ties for Second Lowest 

On September 10, 2016, Arctic sea ice extent shrank to 4.14 million square kilometers (1.60 million square miles). The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) announced that this summer low was statistically tied with the minimum of 2007 for second-lowest in the satellite record, both behind the 2012 record low.

The map shows Arctic sea ice concentration as measured by satellites on September 10, 2016. Areas with at least 15% ice cover appear in shades of gray-blue to white. Open ocean water (less than 15% ice cover) is navy blue. The yellow line shows the median (middle of the range) sea ice extent for 1981–2010.

For more information, see the NSIDC link below or read the full story at Climate.gov

Click here for an unlabeled version. Real-time sea ice data can be access in NOAA View here.

Yabut Mitch: Giving you buy into this, WHAT SHOULD WE AS A PLANET DO?

Lots have complained, quoted scientists, quoted "pseudo-scientists", denied, whatever.

Short of us all dying, and of course created more carbon dioxide by the deaths of 7 billion of us, what are we to do?

Raise taxes to build pipelines?

I'm curious. Lots of doom-sayers but infinitesimal numbers of solution...

Mitch?

Anybody??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moon The Loon said:

Partially, certainly! ..... Some think we're too late... we've already begun the self sustaining 'snowball' toward a world humans can't live on... That, even if we somehow magically stopped all fossil fuel burning today, levels of CO2 in the upper atmosphere would continue to increase for about 10 years, bringing us well past the point (which the argument says we've passed anyway) of no return due to feedback loops, leading Earth to a "runaway greenhouse" Venus twin. 

...and we all know there's no magic at the moment that'll even slow fossil fuel burning, let alone stopping it.

Others will highly encourage any and all individual efforts to stem the tide, as in the 'every little bit counts' methodology, encouraging us to believe that some technology for reversal through CO2 collection will eventually become a reality... but in the mean time, any little bit we can do to limit the peak effects would be very wise.

One thing that is rarely mentioned is that our insistence on remaining omnivores is responsible for an enormous contribution to the overall problem. Grazing areas alone consume zillions of acres of would-be/once-was forest; replacing CO2 consuming/oxygen generators with methane producers. Good to see your linked article! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mitch Cronin said:

...leading Earth to a "runaway greenhouse" Venus twin.

Can't believe that for an instant Mitch :rolleyes:

http://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

vs:

http://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html

Or, Venus - nearly 100% CO2 with trace amounts of nitrogen vs Earth - 0.038% CO2.

We're a long ways away from baking to death, me still thinks.:box:

And 'sides, what would the world be without Big Mac's and Papa Burgers????????:Dancing-Chilli:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this