Atmospheric CO2 (from Miracle CO2 delivery ...)

Philomath

Member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
775
Age
54
Location
Chicagoland
What would Ray Peat think about global warming? We may never know, but I believe we can extrapolate.
Ray mentioned a scientist Wal Thornhill in one of the Politics and Science pod-casts. Wal, and others, promote the Electric Universe theory. Wall supports the work of Ben Davidson, the creator of suspicious0bservers.org. Ben provides a great deal of research on climate change and it's relationship to solar activity. We can all have an opinion on global warming, man-made or not, but I think Ben gives an excellent alternative.
 

johns74

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Messages
501
Philomath said:
What would Ray Peat think about global warming?

Probably that it's good, considering Peat's opinion is almost always the opposite of the mainstream. He mentioned that increasing CO2 is good for evolution of life and planets at all levels.
 

pboy

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
1,681
it doesn't even appear by temperature and weather there is any global warming at all...like really? think about it its some bull****. Its people not wanting to talk about the real issue, which is global 'POLLUTING', which is a serious issue...who cares if its a little warmer or cooler if the air is clean and life is good? its a joke, and really im at my wits end with people in general being so ignorant, the masses that is. Life is, and could be so good, but its ruined by there being millions, billions, of ignorant people consistently turning life into hell and making it impossible for those aaspiring for an actual life to live without being poisoned at every turn

I don't know about global warming or Co2, but honestly isn't that a side issue that is dodging the real ones?

its cool to talk about but brings no actual tangible change or benefit
 
OP
T

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Kenobi said:
Like I said, buildup of CO2 is highly unlikely because plants will grow larger and consume more with higher CO2.
Reality contradicts your theory here. It's happening already.

Kenobi said:
Most of the planet's fresh water is trapped in ice. Once it melts, there will be more water available to the planet. It will be mostly added to the ocean but where does fresh water come from? The ocean. It just undergoes purification.
Purification is a limited process. Settlements and civilisations have established themselves around available fresh water. If the quantities of fresh water in inhabited catchments changes significanty, up or down, it can be very disruptive.

Kenobi said:
Extreme weather? Cold spells? Why would those things happen with more CO2 in the air?
More CO2 (and other GHGs) means more solar energy trapped by the atmosphere. That energy goes into the sea and into weather systems. More heat in the sea means more hurricanes (I don't think this is controversial - I think that is the standard meteorological explanation for hurricanes.) More energy in the weather system means more weather. More extreme events are predicted. Ie more floods, droughts, strong winds, hot spells, cold spells, etc.

Kenobi said:
Desertification? Pretty sure there will be more rain than before.
The scientists predict more precipitation in some places (often wetter ones) and less in other places (often the already drier ones).
 
OP
T

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
johns74 said:
Philomath said:
What would Ray Peat think about global warming?

Probably that it's good, considering Peat's opinion is almost always the opposite of the mainstream. He mentioned that increasing CO2 is good for evolution of life and planets at all levels.

The mainstream culture and politics has been ignoring and denying the science for decades, and continues to lag badly in terms of acknowledging and addressing the seriousness of the situation. My impression of Peat is that he is in favour of human decisions being informed by the evidence. I would be surprised if he would share argue arguments of the fossil fuel industries on this issue. That we are on the upward slope of anthropogenic global climate change is scientifically uncontroversial, though there is plenty of uncertainty about the details of how it wil play out. The media sometimes seem to think that balance means giving both sides of an argument equal emphasis. This does not give a balanced view of the science.
 
OP
T

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
pboy said:
it doesn't even appear by temperature and weather there is any global warming at all...like really? think about it its some bull****.
The average temperature of the Earth is increasing. This does not mean there is/will be a uniform increase in temperature everywhere. It may be easier to think of it as global climate change, to avoid some of the confusion. Personally, I'm not thrilled about the likely increase in tornados and hurricanes - we can't build basements where i am. Nor am I indifferent to the prospect of many of the world's large cities and much productive farmland becoming seabed. Rather than thinking about and dissecting the popular terms at a theoretical/etymological level, you could consider finding out what the science is actually saying.

pboy said:
Its people not wanting to talk about the real issue, which is global 'POLLUTING', which is a serious issue...who cares if its a little warmer or cooler if the air is clean and life is good?
I agree that other kinds of pollution are also real issues. I'd like them all discussed openly and solved. For instance (and there are many examples), Fukushima power station is seldom in the news these days, but the problem has not gone away. I think there is a real possibility that all kinds of other pollution may worsen as a result of global climate change. What do you think will happen to all the toxic dumps that might be overwhelmed with sea level rise? The pesticide factories? What do you think will happen if it rises far enough to inundate a few nuclear power stations?
But even apart from these risks, humans co-evolved slowly along side a lot of other species in an environment that has changed very slowly. It is a good environment for us because we are evolutionarily adapted to it. If it changes suddenly, and 100 years is very sudden in geological and evolutionary terms, we may no longer be well suited to it, and life may not seem anywhere near so good. A good many of the species we rely on for food may not be able to adapt to a different environment. Forget getting the precise food you want to stay optimally healthy - much more widespread famines - ie serious insufficiency of any food even vaguely fit for human consumption - could be a future reality.

pboy said:
its a joke, and really im at my wits end with people in general being so ignorant, the masses that is. Life is, and could be so good, but its ruined by there being millions, billions, of ignorant people consistently turning life into hell and making it impossible for those aaspiring for an actual life to live without being poisoned at every turn
I sometimes feel at wits' end in the face of the persistence of climate science denialism.

pboy said:
I don't know about global warming or Co2, but honestly isn't that a side issue that is dodging the real ones?
Complaining about other people's ignorance while proclaiming your own ignorance about this issue doesn't go well together. It could turn out, if we don't change direction soon, that the change we are wreaking on the world's climate will be the defining legacy of the anthropocene. As you may have gathered by now, I think this is very much a real and central issue for the future of humanity and our fellow species. :)
pboy said:
its cool to talk about but brings no actual tangible change or benefit
Concerted action is also needed. That won't happen without conversation.

Much as I value this forum as a space to discuss and learn about factors affecting individual health, in the context of dealing with actual climate change, some of the discussions on this forum, including most of my own, will probably make rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic look like the height of effective action. I remind myself that our health is what gives us a base for intelligent action.
 

pboy

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
1,681
tara, if we stopped the pollution, all or any 'co2' problems would also vanish. That's all im trying to say, you could microanalyze and make predictions for this and that, but it doesn't really matter if the fossil fuel and heavy metal, radiation, pollution were to go or be drastically minimized. Theres only so much time and energy in a day and people cant think, often times, in too many details...but if you paraphrase it down and point out obvious things, then they can deal with it.

By living the way I do, which is a dedication to no pollution and all the toxic stuff, I automatically am living in a way that would fix the co2 issue if everyone were to live this way. If you only speak science lingo, people think its over their head, do nothing about it, and wait for 'them' to do it. There is no 'them', theres only the collection of us. I just find its easier, more effective, and easier for people to use their senses if you say that pollution is the issue rather than climate change, even tho they might be related

and also, im pretty sure if we stopped the nuclear and marjoity of fossil fuel pollution, consciousness would change and people would be more cooperative...its too volatile and inhumane at the moment for people to think and perceive clearly, and its a large part due to the bombardment of these 2 things

I agree, it seems a monumental or futile task at times....I just take care of my personal end and try to rub off on others, but I don't let it infect my mind with fear and doubt...if you simply go to a park or out of the city, youll find that things still seem pretty good in nature, nature is doing fine away from the heavily polluted centers
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Some stray thoughts on this subject area:

1. Don't we need a thread devoted to Peat and Climate Change?
I know it has been addressed in threads not dedicated to the subject,
but have we had a dedicated thread to it?
Maybe I've missed it.

2. The first I became aware of Peat having what might be called
"politically incorrect" views on climate change
was in the interview with Kim Greenhouse.
There were several general things bearing upon climate change there
that made me take note:
a) Peat said, in response to Greenhouse's question about the significance
of CO2 and the atmosphere:
"We don't have to worry about adding to the atmosphere."
I assume he meant that we needn't worry
specifically about adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
So...he did not say we should not worry about adding other pollutants.
b) In connection to the CO2 discussion,
Greenhouse made a comment about the EPA,
painting it a rather evil shade and referring to it, if I recall correctly,
as a "world policeman" or somesuch.
This was a little disturbing to me.
I generally enjoy Greenhouse as a host/questioner,
but personally I will say that I've not lost a lot of sleep
worrying about over-regulation by the EPA.
This made me consider Greenhouse in a certain political light,
a light which I'm not sure accurately illuminates Peat.

3. Perhaps Greeenhouse wishes to dis-establish the EPA,
much as Peat wishes to dis-establish the pharma/medical/"scientific" establishment.
Personally, however, I don't think it is warranted to leap from those shared stances
to a certainty that Peat shares Greenhouse's anti-EPA enthusiasm,
or--to make an even more tenuous leap--
that Peat would wish to dis-establish, let's say, the U.S. government whole hog,
and just plain do away with all regulation on the environment.
The scent of a certain American political affiliation wafts about in those respects,
and many seem to feel pretty sure that Peat will soon join Ted Cruz and his Tea Party,
but...I strongly doubt this.
I do not know Peat's political views in relation to Climate Change.
But I do not see evidence that he is an unrestrained deregulator and EPA-hater.
Not trying to pick any political fights here,
just making some observations about possible ideologies swimming about beneath the surface
of some of our postings on this subject.

4. Peat discussed a bit, in that same interview I think,
the views of the Russian scientist Vernadsky.
Forgive me if I have that spelling wrong--I don't have my notes to hand.
But Peat's take about not having to worry about adding CO2 to the atmosphere
seemed pretty general and speculative
and seemed to derive strongly from Vernadsky's ideas
about parallel development of the planet and individual consciousness.
It is, to me, a tantalizing and provocative angle,
but, as I noted, not a rigorously supported one.
Don't get me wrong:
Peat's unrigorous but artistic/scientific speculations are worth their weight in gold to me,
but...at this point, that is how I view it: speculation.
 
OP
T

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
narouz said:
2. ...
a) Peat said, in response to Greenhouse's question about the significance
of CO2 and the atmosphere:
"We don't have to worry about adding to the atmosphere."
I assume he meant that we needn't worry
specifically about adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
I don't know the context. If they were discussing increasing CO2 levels in individuals, could he have meant that the amounts of CO2 involved are trivial compared with other sources of atmospheric CO2 emissions?

narouz said:
b) In connection to the CO2 discussion,
Greenhouse made a comment about the EPA,
painting it a rather evil shade and referring to it, if I recall correctly,
as a "world policeman" or somesuch.
This was a little disturbing to me.
I generally enjoy Greenhouse as a host/questioner,
but personally I will say that I've not lost a lot of sleep
worrying about over-regulation by the EPA.
Me neither. :lol:

narouz said:
3. ...
I do not know Peat's political views in relation to Climate Change.
That's why I put the thread outside the Peaty subforums.
narouz said:
But I do not see evidence that he is an unrestrained deregulator and EPA-hater.
I agree.
He's pretty keen on avoiding agricultural and horticultural and other poisons in the food supply. I could speculate that he would not be impressed with the weakness the EPA shows in the face of pressure from various industries who make profits by externalising environmental costs. But that would just be speculation on my part.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
No, good decision to split off the thread.
Not complaining.
Just been thinking for a while that we should have a thread
titled : "Peat and Climate Change" (or something like that).
Been too lazy to do it. :D

It is great hearing what Kenobi and Such and pboy and others think about climate change.
I've just wanted to pin down more carefully what Peat has said/written/implied...

On the context of the Greenhouse interview,
they were speaking globally--the impact on the planet.
 

Philomath

Member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
775
Age
54
Location
Chicagoland
Just in case you weren't able to investigate the two sites/groups I mentioned earlier - here are a few snippets from Ben Davidson's site:

But is the science of so called 'climate change' really a settled matter? Far from the spotlight of popular media, increasing numbers of independent voices are exploring the scientific issues ignored in mainstream discussions...

You would be amazed at what doesn't make the news. CO2 Concentrations and Temperature have tracked closely over the last 300,000 years in a 'Perfect Correlation' until the Industrial Revolution. Both are going up, no doubt; but the correlation has been broken. While CO2 and Temperature break 100's of thousands of years of correlation, sunspots match very well AND our shield against the sun has been weakening.

'Global Warming "hiatus" puts climate change scientists on the spot' from the Los Angeles Times: "It's a climate puzzle that has vexed scientists for more than a decade and added fuel to the arguments of those who insist man-made global warming is a myth. Since just before the start of the 21st century, the Earth's average global surface temperature has failed to rise despite soaring levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and years of dire warnings from environmental advocates.


There is no doubt man has added to the levels of CO2, other gasses and overall pollutants. However, what Ben Davidson is trying to point out is that when it comes to global weather it's the Sun that has the most considerable impact, not mankind. And your right Tara, we need to make some serious changes to our lifestyle in order to prepare for what is coming...

"Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field" - NASA Article:

-Earth's magnetic north pole is shifting 40 km/year; 2x speed over one half the time.
-Earth's magnetic field is 10% weaker than in the mid-19th century.
-Magnetic reversals come every 300k years; it has been 780k years since the last one.

"The solar wind isn't inflating the heliosphere as much as it used to, that means less shielding against cosmic rays." -David McComas, SWRI

'Sun's bizarre activity may trigger another ice age' from the Irish Times: "Latest data shows solar activity has been falling steadily since mid-1940's.

The Sun is acting bizarrely and scientists have no idea why. Solar activity is in gradual decline, a change from the norm which in the past triggered a 300-year-long mini ice age."

"There is no scientist alive who has seen a solar cycle as weak as this one." -A. Munoz-Jaramillo, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (The Wall Street Journal Interview)

"I would say (the solar maximum) is the weakest in 200 years." -David Hathaway, Head of NASA Marshall Spaceflight Center (The Wall Street Journal Interview)

The changes on Earth do not compare to what is happening throughout our solar system (Jupiter loses a cloud band, Saturn spins 10% slower). Despite what the media and IPCC say, CO2 vs. Solar Activity is NO contest.

The health affect of pollution is one story…You just saw the truth about the other one. This is an electromagnetic solar system shift. I would be more concerned about what happens when an extreme solar flare hits our weakened magnetic field than CO2 levels. Our over dependence on electricity should be our biggest concern. The last time a major flare hit the earth, in the late 1800's, telegraph wires caught fire. Imagine what would happen today if half of the planets power grid was destroyed.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom