• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register

Climate Debate
DUDe,  I dont agree that carbon dioxide is the worst pollutant.  Nuclear fallout is estimated by the ECRR as having killed many tens of millions of people and is responsible for the cancer epidemic.  There are many pollutants from fossil fuels that are actually toxic;

Carbon Monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, lead,  soot and dirty aerosols

I liked the thrust of the article on organic farming.  But in my opinion she makes an error.  She says the disrupted carbon cycle is  pushing diverse species to extinction at 1000 times the normal rate.   Anthropogenic environmental degradation is the driver of the increased extinction, not climate.  

How did humans drive the extinction?  We killed and ate them,  invaded their space,  destroyed their habitat, poisoned them.  We introduced species where they didnt exist before, destroying the balance.

 Of course climate could spiral out of control.  Climate could become a major driver of extinction.  But it is a totally over hyped problem at the current time.  The sci fi nightmare is already here, but people dont care about it;

[Image: 5a1c92d7140000460050f76b.jpeg?ops=1778_1000]
the 15 trillion dollar new green deal question;  is carbon dioxide the biggest threat,  responsible for the sixth great extinction?

"The current mass extinction crisis, also named as the “sixth extinction wave,” was clearly
triggered by humans. Human population growth and economic development significantly
increased the human effects on wildlife through environmental change and disturbances such
as habitat destruction, pollution, impacts from invasive species, and primarily human-introduced pathogens; all these factors have been implicated in biodiversity loss"

Wait....no it must be carbon dioxide, that is the known cause of all bad things in the universe.

Some people have tried to estimate how much the extinction is driven by climate.  They dont agree

"According to a meta-analysis of 131 studies, the estimated percent of species predicted to go extinct from climate change varied from 0 to 54%, with an average of 7.9%"


Im not sure the climate factors in the above meta analysis studies are anthropogenic climate change, since natural climate factors have been implicated in species extinction.  But the killing and the eating,  that is pretty certain.  

"The Holocene extinction is mainly caused by human activity.Extinction of animals, plants, and other organisms caused by human actions may go as far back as the late Pleistocene, over 12,000 years ago"

I think the wiki article is not bad

"Some scholars assert that the emergence of capitalism as the dominant economic system has accelerated ecological exploitation and destruction, and has also exacerbated mass species extinction."
studies attempting to correlate past temperature and carbon dioxide levels with species diversity and productivity yield conflicting results

Temperature is a poor proxy for synergistic climate forcing of plankton evolution.

A long-term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and extinction in the fossil record

Biodiversity tracks temperature over time
(10-10-2019, 04:17 PM)Guest Wrote: Howdy Dude.....The words ECONOMY, JOBS need to be removed from all vocabulary and stricken from the planet in order to solve the Climate Crisis. They should be replaced with RESPECT, LIFE.

Oh well guess we ar screwed. See ya in photon form.


Hi and i agree rthsmth..on all points..and all shared crisises..

Ha!.....in a nutshell...

"I've packed the freezer with ice to keep it cool, but if I can run [the refrigerator] off our car for a couple of hours a day to bring it to minimum temperature, that will help," Borenstein said. "It's a pain in the ass. This is why we live in a modern economy, so we don't have to spend most of our lives doing these things."

PG&E power shutdown
DUDE says "And tbh , if you don't pick up the calls for reducing all kinds of pollution and returning to a more symbiotic agro/econo/ecolo /equal human society then you are dwelling too much in the opposite counterarguments against the "climate movement" (as if it is a single thing with only one direction/coach) , just as i am probably to much setled/drawn in the pro-grassroot-activisme..because its the only activisme that is uniting people and getting arrested for it at the moment..all over the globe..incomplete and hijacked or not.."

Please excuse my insistence.  In my opinion, contrary to what you say, it is me who is always calling for a comprehensive "symbiotic agro/econo/ecolo /equal human (and biosphere) society "   while you are focussing on U.S. politics and carbon based climate change and not  talking about reducing all kinds of pollution

I pointed out the Greta Thunberg phenomenon as a likely hijacked propaganda tool devoid of any real tooth toward saving the biosphere while instigating a riot toward business as usual.  You didnt acknowledge it.

Similar to the occupy movement, its not clear what you and your grassroots activists want to actually do.   I have proposed actually de-funding those economic/political/military/industrial-complex  entities by a coordinated tax revolt.   Too radical for you peace-at -all-costs (including losing the biosphere) types.    It appears to me that the latest extinction rebellion is demanding the government tell the truth,  end anthropogenic carbon by 2025 and “A just transition that prioritises the most vulnerable and indigenous sovereignty , reparations and remediation led by and for black people, indigenous people, people of colour and poor communities for years of environmental injustice.”

Its the government after all, thats telling the people that carbon dioxide is the threat.  (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

Im supposing  they want the government to spend money....trillions of dollars...to end carbon dioxide emissions.  Why not bypass the government and give the money directly?  They should buy solar, give up their cars and walk to work, giving a kind ear and cash to the homeless on the way. Stop buying imported stuff.

In fact they want the cause of the problem to provide the solution, without changing the cause of the problem.  What do you propose DUDe?

I had an interest in the activism phenomenon after the blazingly obvious false flag demolition of the world trade center and the push for war in the middle east.  The Iraq and Afghanistan wars (despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, our 'ally').   The media control was such that hardly anybody in the U.S. knew what was happening around the world.

 "On 15 February 2003, a coordinated day of protests started across the world in which people in more than 600 cities expressed opposition to the imminent Iraq War..Social movement researchers have described the 15 February protest as "the largest protest event in human history"  estimates collected by Centre for Applied Studies in International Negotiations (CASIN) researcher Karin Simson range from 8 million to 30 million."

"Some of the largest protests took place in Europe. The protest in Rome involved around three million people, and is listed in the 2004 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest anti-war rally in history."

Wow,  30 million protestors around the world?!?!   staggering!!   What did it do?    Nothing.    

Not only am I not impressed by the climate change activism,  I think they are barking up the wrong tree.   They dont care, or cant even dream about changing the cause of the problem.  Instead they blindly follow the pied piper, like lemmings, somehow content that they are actually doing something by stopping traffic or standing around naked. 

At least plant some trees.

Ethiopia Plants 350 Million Trees in 12 Hours
That Dissident Voice article....it sounds like the climate apocalypse is already here....people are dying, everything is going extinct due to this climate crisis. 

Frankly, I had no idea it was already so bad.  But how bad is it?  I would like to see the info on this, if you dont mind.

The article says Greta writes her own speeches, checks with experts and knows the science.   That really is remarkable.

Im a little confused myself,...hate to admit it.    Can anybody explain how the greenhouse thing works?   Seems to have something to do with the temperature gradient at the tropopause.  If the C02 got into the stratosphere where the temp gradient reverses, would it cause global cooling (disregarding the lack of thermal mixing?)

I just read nine articles relating to the Greta and climate issue.  So far they are all empty of substance.   Its a tad frustrating.   The closest I came to something is the open letter to extinction rebbelion...some kind of support petition among scientists in Australia it looks like.  https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019...-academics

They conflate the entire dramatic collapse of everything to global warming.  For this alone,  I think the letter is garbage.  In my humble opinion, its just garbage. 

"The science is clear, the facts are incontrovertible. We are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction, with about 200 species becoming extinct each day. This includes many species of insects, some of which are essential to our food systems. Many people around the world have already died or been displaced from the effects of a rapidly warming climate. July 2019 was the Earth’s hottest on recordArctic peat is burning and ice is melting at rates far beyond even the most radical scientific predictions. The Amazon is burning at an alarming rate. All are creating devastating feedback loops, releasing more CO2 and reducing the Earth’s heat reflecting capacities.

Humans cannot continue to violate the fundamental laws of nature or ignore the basic science with impunity. As oceans rise and temperatures soar, ecosystems will continue to collapse."

Someone should point out to those folks that the collapse of the biosphere is caused thus far by various poisons,  cutting, dredging, hunting, displacement,  nuclear fallout and bad farming practice.  They are woefully, and I repeat woefully misguided,  professionals though they may be. 

This is serious.  Its as if the barn is on fire and they claim its due to carbon dioxide.  Nobody will be able to put the fire out by focussing on Co2.  Thus the earth will be lost.

And by the way, I doubt Greta writes her own speeches, arranges her own publicity, and knows climate science.   

Prove it

sequential loss of mammals in the north Pacific.    Global warming?   Just please look at the great whale biomass.  Imagine an ocean alive and thriving, teaming with 10 times, even 100 times more whales and other animals.   You live on a dead and dying planet and dont even know it, falsely blaming carbon dioxide.     come on people of the world....

[Image: F2.medium.gif]

Since 1986, Dr. Baum’s analysis of logbook data suggests a population decline of 89% in hammerhead sharks, 79% in great white sharks, 65% in tiger sharks, 80% in thresher sharks, 60% in blue sharks, and 70% in mako sharks.   the population of oceanic whitetip sharks declined by more than 99% since the 1950’s.


Fish biomass
[Image: Sandin.png?w=283]

Right whales.  Did you know?  Whale poop affects plankton and plankton aerosols affect cloud cover, and cloud cover is a larger driver on climate than carbon dioxide.  

[Image: Model-projections-of-the-total-populatio...-using.png]
[Image: Sandin.png?w=283]
Ive been looking for papers on the known effect of climate change on ocean life.

What Ive found so far; they dont know.  

It goes something like this;  the basis of the food chain is the very small life, so called micronekton.  And they theorize that as temperatures change, the small animals will change location and behavior and this could have an effect on the food chain.   The ocean warming is indeed alarming when you consider the size of the thermal mass and everything.  But in perspective, that half a degree SO FAR  is very small compared to daily, seasonal and other fluctuations.  VERY SMALL indeed.  Im not saying we should ignore it.  We should stop burning fossil fuels for one thing.  But there is a lot of other even more important stuff to do.

[Image: sea-surface-temp-figure1-2016.png]

Consider that the bioconcentration factor of radionuclides for plankton is very high.  This is a known effect; the plankton absorb nuke fallout, die and fall to the bottom.  Thus they clean the ocean of fallout.   But hold on....going to the bottom, dead and full of radioactivity is a lot more dramatic than shifting over a few hundred miles, alive and well, from a half a degree average difference in water temperature..

Now here is a quote from a paper on the effects of climate change.  Please ask yourself what this says about climate change


"Studies in the Benguela upwelling system provide another

example of the potential complexity of climate change effects
through interaction with other factors. In
the northern Benguela, populations of sardines 
and anchovies  have remained collapsed
since their overexploitation, 45 years ago,
threatening species of top predators, such as the community of
seabirds specialised on small pelagic fishes .
Environmental anomalies involving unusual low oxygen events
are thought to have prevented the return of small pelagics. This combination of overfishing and environmental forcing has shifted the system towards a regime dominated by jellyfish"

Carbon dioxide is neither the cause of the species collapse, nor the lack of oxygen.  The wind is the primary driver of oxygenation and is thought to play a major roll in the Benguela el nino.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benguela_Current

For my taste, they arent saying anything about climate.  They go on to speculate, and even cite colder temperatures due to winds,  shifting due to fishing pressures etc.  

Here is a list of things they dont know very well, so called research gaps

Trophodynamics,  lack of long term observations,  early life feeding, ecosystem model data uncertainty,  mechanistic understanding of key environmental and biological drivers of trophic groups, impact of climate change on marine trophodynamics

Impacts of climate on marine top predators

Here is another study.  They show a graph, check it out.   Causes of collapse.


Causes, listed in order of impact.  The overwhelming causes are the ones listed in the beginning.  Climate is listed last with no discernible effect

habitat loss;
human disturbance;, 
introduced land predators; 
 invasive species;, 
climate change

So there is in fact a list, in the order of importance, of things to do about the catastrophe of biosphere collapse.
Make note of it and send a copy to Greta and the entire media system.  And by the way the forgot to include nuclear fallout which is estimated to have killed many tens of millions of people and no doubt a corresponding loss of life in ecosystems
cause of collapse, another paper


[Image: Primary-threat-to-LPI-populations-Source...F-2014.png]

 the current global trend is a serious concern: it projects the collapse of all species of wild seafood that are currently fished by the year 2050 (collapse is defined as 90% depletion).

“This isn't predicted to happen, this is happening now,” says co-author Nicola Beaumont an ecological economist with the Plymouth Marine Laboratory. “If biodiversity continues to decline, the marine environment will not be able to sustain our way of life, indeed it may not be able to sustain our lives at all.”

Nuclear contamination and fallout would fit right in with 'Pollution'. Nuclear pollution does degrade/change the habitat. Or should we fit nuclear right into the big 'exploitation' chunk?

Raising Tritium levels in the Ocean. What are the consequences? Tritium destroys Aquatic life.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
The nuclear sciences are the number one matter in the equation- even the most intelligent of our species struggle to control and understand its nature. And it's too late. For way too much. We have enamored our environment with man-made radioactive elements, forever.

Clean up
West lake landfill

Epic. Epic. Fail.

A reasonable search produced no results. Finally, this : https://www.en24.news/2019/09/what-is-gr...nergy.html


"... Thunberg then sends her back to the scientific opinion: "Ask the scientists. It's something I can not talk about because I do not have that scientific background. It's such an important decision that we need scientific evidence and scientific recommendations on what we should do, so I can not say we should do … "..."

People should decide what they want to save;  humans or the planet.   

Im making a protest sign "stop climate change to save cows and pigs, I want to eat them"

Science fiction stories of aliens farming humans for consumption create a scene of horror.   But that horror is here on earth now. 

What is the point of climate activism?  To save cattle and people or the biosphere?  Because right now 90% of many large animals are already gone and the ocean fisheries will be decimated in 30 years.   None of it due to climate. 

What is it exactly they hope to save?  Save Bangladesh, Shanghai, Mexico City and their cows!  No cost is too high!

  "Humans and our livestock now make up 97 percent of all animals on land.  Wild animals (mammals and birds) have been reduced to a mere remnant: just 3 percent.  This is based on mass.  Humans and our domesticated animals outweigh all terrestrial wild mammals and birds 32-to-1."
[Image: DdzFWfUVMAAR50A.jpg]
It's been pointed out that Greta hasn't thought out her support or ambivalence toward Nuclear energy. If she was more firmly anti-nuclear then her message of a cleaner, green Earth would resonate. The child is being misled and will in turn mislead the other children following her. She toured here in Denver and ranted against global warming on a record setting cold October day. When she goes to Japan, will she urge the Japanese to not dump their tritium laced contaminated water out to sea and kill off the rest of the Ocean? Emotional rants waste the energy that could be used for practical solutions.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
how many books on Greta?  Consider she was unknown just last year


Corbett Report.  Using children for propaganda


Gretas speeches.   She gets around!
The weather outlook for the next hundred years looks rather unsettled with a chance of warming or cooling.  

Some discussion from the Visitor Comments Oct 2019 was moved here.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
Search the web for climate change, and one is deluged with the catastrophe.  Everything from pandemics to extinction to loss of jobs to mental disease are caused by climate change. Whales in danger?  Climate change.   Got a flat tire? climate change.  

This extreme media position may be a red flag.   Maybe climate change will make everything go extinct or something, but a deeper look into the science reveals some intrigue and some very heavy complexity which makes that deluge of doom very suspect.   Follow the money! 

This climate scientist discusses his career.  It has some intrigue, like IPCC lies, government attacks and more

Im not saying his story or conclusions are right....let the debunkers and quackbusters debunk each other.   


"Globally there’s no clear evidence of trends and patterns in extreme events such as droughts, hurricanes and floods. Some regions experience more, some less and some no trend. Limitations of data and inconsistencies in patterns prevent confident claims about global trends one way or another. There’s no trend in U.S. hurricane landfall frequency or intensity. If anything, the past 50 years has been relatively quiet. There’s no trend in hurricane-related flooding in the U.S. Nor is there evidence of an increase in floods globally. Since 1965, more parts of the U.S. have seen a decrease in flooding than have seen an increase. And from 1940 to today, flood damage as a percentage of GDP has fallen to less than 0.05 per cent per year from about 0.2 per cent."
"There’s no trend in U.S. tornado damage (in fact, 2012 to 2017 was below average). There’s no trend in global droughts. Cold snaps in the U.S. are down but, unexpectedly, so are heatwaves."

"the bottom line is there’s no solid connection between climate change and many major indicators of extreme weather that politicians keep talking about, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, rainfall and floods, The continual claim of such links is misinformation employed for political and rhetorical purposes"
Co2 contribution from burning forests 


George Woodwell, a botanist who had recently joined the Marine Biology Laboratory at Woods Hole to direct their Ecosystems Center, went still further with calculations he had begun independently of Bolin. Woodwell believed that deforestation and agriculture were putting into the air as much CO2 as the total from burning fossil fuel, or maybe even twice as much. His message was that the attack on forests must be stopped, not just for the sake of preserving nature but also to avoid disrupting the climate.

In 1978, Minze Stuiver used isotope measurements to estimate that two-thirds of the CO2 added to the atmosphere up to 1950 had come from cutting down forests. 

From the late 1970s onward, it was clear that nobody could predict the future of global climate with much precision until they could say how the planet's living systems affected the level of CO2.

 in 1983 a pioneering study modeled 69 regional ecosystems separately, and concluded that changes in land use since the 18th century had caused a net release of carbon from soils.They confirmed Stuiver's finding that until around 1960 humanity had released more carbon into the atmosphere by cutting down forests and the like than through burning fossil fuels.
Role of Aerosolized Coal Fly Ash in the Global Plankton Imbalance: Case of Florida's Toxic Algae Crisis

Red tide is the term used in Florida (USA) and elsewhere to describe a type of marine harmful algal bloom (HAB) that grows out of control and produces neurotoxins that adversely affect humans, birds, fish, shellfish, and marine mammals. HABs are becoming more abundant, extensive, and closer to shore, and longer in duration than any time in recorded history. Our objective is to review the effects the multifold components of aerosolized coal fly ash as they relate to the increasing occurrences of HABs. Aerosolized coal fly ash (CFA) pollutants from non-sequestered coal-fired power plant emissions and from undisclosed, although “hidden in plain sight,” tropospheric particulate geoengineering operations are inflicting irreparable damage to the world’s surface water-bodies and causing great harm to human health (including lung cancer, respiratory and neurodegenerative diseases) and environmental health (including major die-offs of insects, birds and trees). Florida’s ever-growing toxic nightmare of red tides and blue-green algae is a microcosm of similar activity globally. Atmospheric deposition of aerosol particulates, most importantly bioavailable iron, has drastically shifted the global plankton community balance in the direction of harmful algae and cyanobacterial blooms in fresh and salt water. Proposed geoengineering schemes of iron fertilization of the ocean would only make a bad situation unimaginably worse. Based on the evidence presented here, the global spread of harmful algae blooms will only be contained by rapidly reducing particulate air pollution both by implementation of universal industrial particulate-trapping and by the immediate halting of jet-sprayed particulate aerosols. Corrective actions depend not only on international cooperation, but on ending the deadly code of silence throughout government, academe, and media on the subject of ongoing tropospheric aerosol geoengineering. Long-standing weather control, climate intervention, and geoengineering operations have come to threaten not only all humans but the entire web of life on Earth.
Woods Hole opines that global warming could instigate a new Little Ice Age 

"Whether the pathway for propagation of climate change is atmospheric or oceanic, or whether changes in oceanic and terrestrial sequestration of carbon may globalize effects of climate change, as suspected for glacial/inter-glacial climate changes, are open questions. Yet we begin to approach how the paradox mentioned above can happen: Global warming can induce a colder climate for many of us."

possible changes in the hydrological cycle,  the relative saltiness of ocean regions may drive an ocean current.  A flooding of the northern Atlantic with fresh water from these various sources has the potential to reduce or even disrupt the overturning circulation.

"Whether or not the latter will happen is the nexus of the problem, and one that is hard to predict with confidence. At present we do not even have a system in place for monitoring the overturning circulation."

"Besides needing believable models that can accurately predict climate change, we also need data that can properly initialize them.  For the ocean, our data coverage is wholly inadequate. We can’t say now what the overturning circulation looks like with any confidence and are faced with the task of predicting what it may be like in 10 years!"

"Our knowledge about past climate change is limited as well. Better definition of past climate states is needed not only in and of itself, but for use by modelers to test their best climate models in reproducing what we know happened in the past before believing model projections about the future. We are not there yet, and progress needs to be made on both better data and improved models before we can begin to answer some critical questions about future climate change."

"Researchers always tell you that more research funding is needed, and we are not any different. Our main message is not just that, however. It is that global climate is moving in a direction that makes abrupt climate change more probable, that these dynamics lie beyond the capability of many of the models used in IPCC reports, "

Plankton as a climate driver: A new view on past climate change

"In our model, the carbon cycle is largely controlled by plankton living in the surface ocean,"

In this new view on climate change, the relationship between causes and effects is radically different from the standard orbital theory. The marine biosphere rather than insolation is setting the pace and amplitude by controlling the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere. "Our new theory is supported by observations and consistent with our understanding of biogeochemical cycles in the ocean," according to Prof. Wallmann.

"However obliquity and other orbital parameters may also affect global climate change when their delicate effects on insolation are amplified by positive feedback mechanisms. Therefore, the periodic climate change documented in the geological record may reflect both the breath of the biosphere and the response of the Earth system to external orbital and insolation forcing,"

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Nukes Are No Answer To Climate Crisis Staup 1 2,968 06-14-2019, 08:06 AM
Last Post: Staup
  Krypton-85 and climate change Horse 0 2,148 06-06-2019, 07:54 AM
Last Post: Horse

Forum Jump:

Browsing: 1 Guest(s)