• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Alarmism in the 1970's

longview said:
IMOHO, The cooling seen from the 1940's to the 1970's could have been from aerosol pollution.
The founding of the EPA, and global efforts to curb aerosol pollution, resulted several decades of warming from the skies clearing.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the generally accepted explanation. For a while, the effects of aerosols in the atmosphere were able to counteract the effects of increasing greenhouse gases. Note, though, that while Western skies are now much clearer, the same is not true for skies over the newly industrialised East.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yes, the biggest crop used is soya. Not exactly gain. Neither is sugar.

What other arible crops are you talking about.
Click to expand...

You claimed that 40% of arable production in the US goes on biofuel production. But your source states only that 40% of the corn crop is used for biofuel production. So your source doesn't support your claim.
 
Surface Detail said:
You claimed that 40% of arable production in the US goes on biofuel production. But your source states only that 40% of the corn crop is used for biofuel production. So your source doesn't support your claim.
Click to expand...

He's a little loose with the facts....pretty much par for the course for his posts
 
Surface Detail said:
You claimed that 40% of arable production in the US goes on biofuel production. But your source states only that 40% of the corn crop is used for biofuel production. So your source doesn't support your claim.
Click to expand...

These so-called "energy crops" include wheat, corn, soybeans and sugarcane
Click to expand...

10 Top Biofuel Crops | HowStuffWorks

Did you get the bit of oilseed trippling?

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/229961468140943023/pdf/WP4682.pdf
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yep, see above.

Food security: how drought and rising prices led to conflict in Syria

It avoids the elephant in the room, that the increase in food prices is due to the use of vast amounts of food to make fuel, not a slight drop in local production. A rise in food price index from 90 to 175 makes the poor suffer.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this Tim. I'm going to ask a follow up question, but I'm still dropping all kinds of disclaimers, because I know how quickly things devolve on this subject sometimes, and I'm enjoying our chat. I really haven't thought about it from this perspective.

How much of Syria's problem was driven by farming biofuels, and how much was driven by the general increase in the cost of groceries in 2008, which was driven by the spike in oil prices in 2008 (increasing the cost of food, by driving up the cost of production and transportation), which was driven by the financial crash in 2008? Syria had a drought that coincided with one of the bigger global economic failures in recent memory, forcing them to import food when the cost of shipping would be at a peak. Also, in looking it up, it would appear that greater demand for variety of groceries, especially meat, is also a driver in the food shortages being called out in '08.

I'm not saying biofuels didn't contribute - from doing more research on it, I can confirm it plays a part. And I'm not a huge fan of biofuels. I'd much rather see EV's take over, after some improvement to make them more practical. I'd like to see our shipping fleets replaced with super cargo ships that can run on nuclear, and cut the number of ships on the seas down drastically. And of course, I'd like to see greater environmental stewardship on the part of corporations. But since I don't find myself in disagreement with you on the biofuels, we might as well chat on exactly how negative of an impact it's been - in this example, I think it merely played a supporting role to a much bigger, more complicated problem. But I'm open to being wrong. :)
 
Deuce said:
I think you've fundamentally misunderstood what "cooling papers" even means in this context. Historical temperature reconstructions or records are not a prediction of a future ice age.
Click to expand...

Don't try to deflect.
 
Deuce said:
Notice that most of the "imminent ice age" talk comes from journalists, and not scientists.
Click to expand...

Actually, there was a 100% consensus among the 46 scientists at the National Science Foundation in March 1973 that the Holocene Interglacial Period had come to an end and we were all now facing another 100,000 years of glaciation.
NSF.jpg
 
Glitch said:
Actually, there was a 100% consensus among the 46 scientists at the National Science Foundation in March 1973 that the Holocene Interglacial Period had come to an end and we were all now facing another 100,000 years of glaciation.
View attachment 67267679
Click to expand...

I can list 200 agencies that support AGW
 
vegas giants said:
40% of arable production. That is your claim. It is a false claim.


Why should we believe any of your posts?
Click to expand...

Do you get the difference between agricultural production and arible production?

In the US, historically, arible would be almost exclusively grain but now it is strongly built of soya production and indeed sugar.

So yes about 40% of arible production, Grain, soya, sugar, oil seed etc are going into biofuel.

Dairy production not. Cattle for beef not. Fruit growing not.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Do you get the difference between agricultural production and arible production?

In the US, historically, arible would be almost exclusively grain but now it is strongly built of soya production and indeed sugar.

So yes about 40% of arible production, Grain, soya, sugar, oil seed etc are going into biofuel.

Dairy production not. Cattle for beef not. Fruit growing not.
Click to expand...

Great. Let's see the reference that says that exactly.



Or you can admit you got it wrong.



Either is fine
 
[h=2]Listen To The Scientists[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on November 6, 2019 by tonyheller[/FONT]
Eleven thousand scientists say there is a climate emergency, and that billions of people need to be removed from the planet.
“Earth is facing a climate emergency ……. there needs to be far fewer humans on the planet”
​
The new declaration comes on the 50th anniversary of leading Stanford scientist Paul Ehrlich saying there is a global cooling emergency, and that huge numbers of humans need to be removed from the planet via poisoning the food and water supply.

These 11,000 scientists say that forty years ago, scientists were ready to solve global warming.
“Forty years ago, scientists from 50 nations converged on Geneva to discuss what was then called the “CO2-climate problem.””
​
This was right around the time when scientists were trying to stop global cooling.

 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Listen To The Scientists[/h][FONT="]Posted on [URL="https://realclimatescience.com/2019/11/listen-to-the-scientists/"]November 6, 2019[/URL] by tonyheller[/FONT]
Eleven thousand scientists say there is a climate emergency, and that billions of people need to be removed from the planet.
“Earth is facing a climate emergency ……. there needs to be far fewer humans on the planet”
​
The new declaration comes on the 50th anniversary of leading Stanford scientist Paul Ehrlich saying there is a global cooling emergency, and that huge numbers of humans need to be removed from the planet via poisoning the food and water supply.

These 11,000 scientists say that forty years ago, scientists were ready to solve global warming.
“Forty years ago, scientists from 50 nations converged on Geneva to discuss what was then called the “CO2-climate problem.””
​
This was right around the time when scientists were trying to stop global cooling.
Click to expand...

http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html
 
OlNate said:
Thanks for this Tim. I'm going to ask a follow up question, but I'm still dropping all kinds of disclaimers, because I know how quickly things devolve on this subject sometimes, and I'm enjoying our chat. I really haven't thought about it from this perspective.

How much of Syria's problem was driven by farming biofuels, and how much was driven by the general increase in the cost of groceries in 2008, which was driven by the spike in oil prices in 2008 (increasing the cost of food, by driving up the cost of production and transportation), which was driven by the financial crash in 2008?
Click to expand...

The transfer of food out of feeding people to biofuel, at no net CO2 improvement, cannot be 100% perfectly isolated from the other factors which cause the food price to wander about. The effect of biofuel policy does clearly make the price of food much more than it would be if it was not happening.

Syria had a drought that coincided with one of the bigger global economic failures in recent memory, forcing them to import food when the cost of shipping would be at a peak. Also, in looking it up, it would appear that greater demand for variety of groceries, especially meat, is also a driver in the food shortages being called out in '08.
Click to expand...

Yes. But importing cheap food is a lot easier than importing very expensive food. Syria also was an oil producing nation. The increase in oil prices should have been good news for them but the food cost (different to price) increased more than the oil.

I'm not saying biofuels didn't contribute - from doing more research on it, I can confirm it plays a part. And I'm not a huge fan of biofuels. I'd much rather see EV's take over, after some improvement to make them more practical. I'd like to see our shipping fleets replaced with super cargo ships that can run on nuclear, and cut the number of ships on the seas down drastically. And of course, I'd like to see greater environmental stewardship on the part of corporations. But since I don't find myself in disagreement with you on the biofuels, we might as well chat on exactly how negative of an impact it's been - in this example, I think it merely played a supporting role to a much bigger, more complicated problem. But I'm open to being wrong. :)
Click to expand...

I might be wrong in my general thinking that all this anti-CO2 stuff is a con. That is a debate that is on going and important. But the mass hunger being inflicted on the poor of the world is the greatest act of murder since the Mongol invaisions. 3 billion people on less than $2.50 a day.
 
Tim the plumber said:
The transfer of food out of feeding people to biofuel, at no net CO2 improvement, cannot be 100% perfectly isolated from the other factors which cause the food price to wander about. The effect of biofuel policy does clearly make the price of food much more than it would be if it was not happening.



Yes. But importing cheap food is a lot easier than importing very expensive food. Syria also was an oil producing nation. The increase in oil prices should have been good news for them but the food cost (different to price) increased more than the oil.



I might be wrong in my general thinking that all this anti-CO2 stuff is a con. That is a debate that is on going and important. But the mass hunger being inflicted on the poor of the world is the greatest act of murder since the Mongol invaisions. 3 billion people on less than $2.50 a day.
Click to expand...

40% of arable production
 
Tim the plumber said:
The transfer of food out of feeding people to biofuel, at no net CO2 improvement, cannot be 100% perfectly isolated from the other factors which cause the food price to wander about. The effect of biofuel policy does clearly make the price of food much more than it would be if it was not happening.



Yes. But importing cheap food is a lot easier than importing very expensive food. Syria also was an oil producing nation. The increase in oil prices should have been good news for them but the food cost (different to price) increased more than the oil.



I might be wrong in my general thinking that all this anti-CO2 stuff is a con. That is a debate that is on going and important. But the mass hunger being inflicted on the poor of the world is the greatest act of murder since the Mongol invaisions. 3 billion people on less than $2.50 a day.
Click to expand...


I mean, I agree with you in principle, but maybe not in scope? It just seems that there is a lot going on in the world that would contribute to our woes - root cause analysis is very tricky these days, especially when it requires the kind of discipline that we've abandoned somewhat, in favor of partisanship (that goes for all sides).

But irrespective of the portion of blame biofuels deserve, it does make a strong case for innovating new energy sources. If the world ran on nuclear and hydro (from non fossil fuel generation - hydroelectric dams / wind / solar / some new thing on the horizon), there would be no need to grow corn to make ethanol. Or much less need. The land could be reverted to food production, thereby fixing this situation.

I think there are ways for us to manage our planet and our population. We just need to stop fighting so damn much. :)
 
PoS said:
Pwned. :lamo

/thread
Click to expand...

Do you know what the word "most" means? Do you know what the word "minority" means?

Because you and Jack both interpreted that as "zero," which is adorable. Pwned yourself :lamo
 
Glitch said:
Actually, there was a 100% consensus among the 46 scientists at the National Science Foundation in March 1973 that the Holocene Interglacial Period had come to an end and we were all now facing another 100,000 years of glaciation.
View attachment 67267679
Click to expand...
Post the entire article so it can be properly assessed. You like 1973, so here's some 1973

1973 T.J. Hughes, "Is the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Disintegrating?" J. Geophysical Research 78: 7884-7910.

1973 R. Lee, "The 'Greenhouse' Effect." J. Applied Meteorology 12: 556-57.

1973 Lester Machta, "Prediction of CO2 in the Atmosphere." In Carbon and the Biosphere, edited by George M. Woodwell and Erene V. Pecan. Washington, DC: Atomic Energy Commission (National Technical Information Service, CONF-7502510).
 
Surface Detail said:
Yes, this is the generally accepted explanation. For a while, the effects of aerosols in the atmosphere were able to counteract the effects of increasing greenhouse gases. Note, though, that while Western skies are now much clearer, the same is not true for skies over the newly industrialised East.
Click to expand...
Aerosols do not always lead to cooling, temperature inversions can occur in the right conditions.
LA saw them in the 1960's
 
OlNate said:
I mean, I agree with you in principle, but maybe not in scope? It just seems that there is a lot going on in the world that would contribute to our woes - root cause analysis is very tricky these days, especially when it requires the kind of discipline that we've abandoned somewhat, in favor of partisanship (that goes for all sides).

But irrespective of the portion of blame biofuels deserve, it does make a strong case for innovating new energy sources. If the world ran on nuclear and hydro (from non fossil fuel generation - hydroelectric dams / wind / solar / some new thing on the horizon), there would be no need to grow corn to make ethanol. Or much less need. The land could be reverted to food production, thereby fixing this situation.

I think there are ways for us to manage our planet and our population. We just need to stop fighting so damn much. :)
Click to expand...

There is no need to divert food to make fuel.

It does no good in terms of CO2. Just as much CO2 is created with the making of fertilizer, the transporting of it all, the growing of it and the converting of it into fuel.

All that is achieved is that rich land owners get richer.
 
Tim the plumber said:
There is no need to divert food to make fuel.

It does no good in terms of CO2. Just as much CO2 is created with the making of fertilizer, the transporting of it all, the growing of it and the converting of it into fuel.

All that is achieved is that rich land owners get richer.
Click to expand...

You said 40% arable production
 
Tim the plumber said:
There is no need to divert food to make fuel.

It does no good in terms of CO2. Just as much CO2 is created with the making of fertilizer, the transporting of it all, the growing of it and the converting of it into fuel.

All that is achieved is that rich land owners get richer.
Click to expand...

Agreed. So, let's be for finding fuel sources that don't steal from our agriculture, don't pollute the environment (or pollute less, we're never going to be perfect), and don't leave oil-poor countries beholden to oil-rich ones.

Are ya with me, brother? :)
 
OlNate said:
Agreed. So, let's be for finding fuel sources that don't steal from our agriculture, don't pollute the environment (or pollute less, we're never going to be perfect), and don't leave oil-poor countries beholden to oil-rich ones.

Are ya with me, brother? :)
Click to expand...

How about we just stop creating hunger unnecessarily for statrers.

The debate about if we need to change fuel is a separate thing.
 
Tim the plumber said:
How about we just stop creating hunger unnecessarily for statrers.

The debate about if we need to change fuel is a separate thing.
Click to expand...

I dunno, they seem to be related, judging from your concerns. But don't worry, I won't make ya say it, I know it would kill you, and I like our chats... ;) :lol:

Have a good one, Tim. Thanks for the learnings, and for being reliably pleasant to talk to. I don't engage in climate discussions often, because I'm not an expert on the science...but I do like to test the logic of more general approaches. Somewhere out there there's a win / win. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom