Climate Change: We're Doomed

Alleviating worldly suffering along the way.

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:17 am

Zhen Li wrote:Do you need any more evidence to prove that opinions on this are almost always politically motivated than this?:
Perhaps we are not as stupid as you presume. We simply have not bought into right wing climate denial.

I am not a conservative, and political opinions have nothing to do with evaluating arguments. Science can't be based on politics, it's based on empirical observation!

Don't all you biased politically motivated liberals understand that ALL of your stock high school-level arguments from websites have answers. Even that stupid graph you posted. And every answer has an answer in reply equally as smarmy and unctuous.

You can only argue science based on facts! It's so simple...


Unfortunately climate denial is all politics and no facts.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11740
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:20 am

smcj wrote:
Granted, it will change in a thousand years or so after we either stop burning oil for energy or we run out...

How so? The carbon will still be there. It took millions of years for the carbon to be scrubbed out of the atmosphere by plants to get it to the point it is at.



Grasses sequester more carbon than trees, actually...you can easily find estimates about how long it will take carbon outputs to to be "put back in". Anyway, we will be long dead before there is even anything like a rational social response to the climate crisis.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11740
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:21 am

Unfortunately Anthropogenic Climate Change is all politics and no facts.

:guns:
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:22 am

Zhen Li wrote:Unfortunately Anthropogenic Climate Change is all politics and no facts.

:guns:



The preponderance of research simply does not support your opinions in this matter. I read with interest your analysis of Marx and largely agree with them. But here, you are just on the wrong side of both scientific consensus and history.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11740
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby smcj » Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:29 am

Stepping out of the theme of this thread, but in keeping with the theme of this website, I'd like to point out that climate change is an example of what Dharma calls "the suffering of change". This means that the answer to any problem, such as the industrial revolution, will in time create its own problems. This is why I say that Dharma does not allow for Utopias, either civic or personal.
A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN
smcj
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:31 am

smcj wrote:Stepping out of the theme of this thread, but in keeping with the theme of this website, I'd like to point out that climate change is an example of what Dharma calls "the suffering of change". This means that the answer to any problem, such as the industrial revolution, will in time create its own problems. This is why I say that Dharma does not allow for Utopias, either civic or personal.



Tell that to Amitabha!
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11740
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:35 am

Well, Malcolm, I think you made up your mind before you considered the argument.

It's undeniable that billions of dollars are invested in the validity of Anthropogenic Climate Change.

And most critiques I've seen are really blatant simplifications of the opponent's arguments. The majority of scientists who have dissented from the consensus definitely do not deny climate change (as I don't), but do deny that humans have the deciding role in it.

Of those who dissent, there are two kinds, those who believe that it is too soon, not enough data, or not possible to draw conclusions about precisely what causes climate change, and those who believe that there are clear causal links elsewhere.

There's absolutely NO reason to treat people who believe there is a reasonable doubt in a scientific theory like Crypto-Nazis.

The politically and financially motivated trolls behind Anthropogenic Climate Change wouldn't make so much energy to refute doubts if money wasn't involved.

Do you realise that there are huge doubts as to what theory of plate tectonics is correct? Where are the critique and bashing sites in the realm of geophysics?

Why doesn't the mainstream media spend millions of dollars on documentaries about these controversies?

Why doesn't NASA have a bashing site critiquing MOND in favour of General Relativity?

It doesn't take a scientist to understand how the system works.

(By the way, glad you liked my analysis of Marxism, I always had the impression that you were a Marxist)
Last edited by Zhen Li on Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby dharmagoat » Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:37 am

Malcolm wrote:Tell that to Amitabha!

No don't, it'll break his heart.
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:48 am

Zhen Li wrote:Well, Malcolm, I think you made up your mind before you considered the argument.

It's undeniable that billions of dollars are invested in the validity of Anthropogenic Climate Change.

And most critiques I've seen are really blatant simplifications of the opponent's arguments. The majority of scientists who have dissented from the consensus definitely do not deny climate change (as I don't), but do deny that humans have the deciding role in it.

Of those who dissent, there are two kinds, those who believe that it is too soon, not enough data, or not possible to draw conclusions about precisely what causes climate change, and those who believe that there are clear causal links elsewhere.

There's absolutely NO reason to treat people who believe there is a reasonable doubt in a scientific theory like Crypto-Nazis.

The politically and financially motivated trolls behind Anthropogenic Climate Change wouldn't make so much energy to refute doubts if money wasn't involved.

Do you realise that there are huge doubts as to what theory of plate tectonics is correct? Where are the critique and bashing sites in the realm of geophysics?

Why doesn't the mainstream media spend millions of dollars on documentaries about these controversies?

Why doesn't NASA have a bashing site critiquing MOND in favour of General Relativity?

It doesn't take a scientist to understand how the system works.

(By the way, glad you liked my analysis of Marxism, I always had the impression that you were a Marxist)


Ben Franklin has an awesome analysis of anthropogenic climate change. He observed that whenever you cut down a lot of trees, the area would get warmer. Well, multiply this, add burning petroleum to the mix and you get what have today: acidification of oceans, increasingly intense storms, constantly rising global average temperatures, etc.

You appear to think that because there are uncertainties in one area of science, there must uncertainty in all.

As for marx, no -- as i said, I am a deep ecologist. Social ecologists (basically Marxists) consider us bourgeoise and reactionary.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11740
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:55 am

Zhen Li wrote:There's absolutely NO reason to treat people who believe there is a reasonable doubt in a scientific theory like Crypto-Nazis.

Agreed.
On the other hand, there is no reasonable doubt that AGW is real and it's here now.
If you genuinely don't know that, you are out of touch with the last ten years' worth of climate science (I could say twenty, but there was still some legitimate doubt back then) and need to catch up.
The pie-chart I uploaded is a fair reflection of the state of the science. If you refuse to believe that, you are choosing to believe flat-earthers, and I say that not to denigrate you but to alert you to the true situation.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Mon Jan 06, 2014 5:08 am

smcj wrote:Regardless of the actions or non-actions of politicians, I believe that every barrel of oil will eventually be dug up an burned. It's too easy to sell on the open market. We might be able to postpone the day that the oil runs out, but that day will come. All the carbon that had been filtered and buried out of the atmosphere over millions of years will be replaced back into it. And the consequences will be had--whatever they may be.

It's funny you should say that. :tongue:
It was Huseng/Indrajala's starting point http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=6973
smcj wrote:Does anybody doubt this? It is hard to see a scenario where it does not happen. It seems more a matter of when, not if.

Yes, I deny it - as I have since I entered this discussion. :smile:
Why?
(1) We are not that dumb. Really. When we have bashed ourselves in the face long enough, we stop. We did it with CFC's, we did it with tobacco, we are doing it with fossil fuels.
(2) The cost of solar power is now competitive with oil and coal in many markets - without subsidies - and is still dropping. Economics is now on the side of renewables.
(3) http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/18/3060131/13-clean-energy-breakthroughs-2013-2/
(4) Believing that we would do such a dumb thing may let it happen, and I choose not to do that. :jedi:

There are more, but (1) and (4) are enough anyway.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Mon Jan 06, 2014 5:33 am

Malcolm wrote:Ben Franklin has an awesome analysis of anthropogenic climate change. He observed that whenever you cut down a lot of trees, the area would get warmer. Well, multiply this, add burning petroleum to the mix and you get what have today: acidification of oceans, increasingly intense storms, constantly rising global average temperatures, etc.

Yes, that's because of evapotranspiration, the effect is local, not because it absorbs carbon dioxide, which even under strict Anthropogenic Global Warming models would require deforestation many many many orders of magnitude larger than local lumber works.

Surface temperatures can only tell us so much. The fact that the troposphere is warming is slower than surface temperatures tells us a lot too. Particularly that the models relied upon by proponents of AGW have incorrect predictions.

And, why do you also claim that we have constantly rising global average temperatures? Even the IPCC admits that they are not rising any more.

Malcolm wrote:You appear to think that because there are uncertainties in one area of science, there must uncertainty in all.
Yup, that's right.

That's how science works.

When a theory is accepted as fact, it doesn't mean it is the truth without any uncertainties. Theories are constantly overthrown by better ones. May the best theory always overthrow the worse theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

Btw, I faintly remember you arguing if not for Marxism then at least for communism on E-Sangha. Or am I mistaken?
Kim O'Hara wrote:The pie-chart I uploaded is a fair reflection of the state of the science. If you refuse to believe that, you are choosing to believe flat-earthers, and I say that not to denigrate you but to alert you to the true situation.

Is James Lawrence's chart peer reviewed? No.

This is based on John Cook's flawed paper, which he retracted after it was shown to be flawed in a Peer Reviewed journal: http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 013-9647-9 . His response was not accepted by any peer reviewed journal.

This is because the results of his survey actually found that he stretched three definitions of climate change, and morphed them into one. In fact, only 0.3% of peer reviewed papers, fit the definition of accepting AGW.

Newsflash, 0.3% is not a consensus.

Moreover, even if it was true, which it isn't, it is a simple logical fallacy, ad populum.

The reason you see stats like this is because no articles flat out in their titles "deny" or "confirm" AGW as a whole. It's simply cherry picking.

Arguments against AGW are based on individual studies, which are peer reviewed, in aggregation. I have already cited about a dozen, none of which make it their objective to prove or disprove a system of thought. Rather, the studies which lead people to doubt AGW are individual studies which may simply be measuring temperatures or change in one thing or another. If your goal is to report on a statistic, you don't then go on a tangent and try to put together all sorts of other data to create a grand unified theory. I thought you didn't like diversions Kim.

“It is unscientific to assume that most scientists believe what they have neither said nor written.”

No consensus in other fields either, even with dreadfully broad definitions (Peer reviewed):

Only 36% of Geoscientists and Engineers believe in AGW.

Only 19% of American Meteorological Society meterologists believe in AGW.
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:24 am

Zhen Li wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:The pie-chart I uploaded is a fair reflection of the state of the science. If you refuse to believe that, you are choosing to believe flat-earthers, and I say that not to denigrate you but to alert you to the true situation.

Is James Lawrence's chart peer reviewed? No.

This is based on John Cook's flawed paper, which he retracted after it was shown to be flawed in a Peer Reviewed journal: http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 013-9647-9 . His response was not accepted by any peer reviewed journal.

This is because the results of his survey actually found that he stretched three definitions of climate change, and morphed them into one. In fact, only 0.3% of peer reviewed papers, fit the definition of accepting AGW.

Newsflash, 0.3% is not a consensus.


(1) You are choosing to believe flat-earthers. Really. The authors of the paper you choose to trust are known - and notorious - fossil-fuel-lobby funded denialists.
(2) The piechart I uploaded was not based on work by John Cook. See - read, in fact! - http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby dharmagoat » Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:35 am

,,, Meanwhile carbon dioxide levels steadily grow without sign of slowing, and no-one can agree quite how disastrous the effects will be...
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:56 am

Kim O'Hara with a tinfoil conspiracy theorist hat wrote:(1) You are choosing to believe flat-earthers. Really. The authors of the paper you choose to trust are known - and notorious - fossil-fuel-lobby funded denialists.

You didn't provide proof that anyone is funded by anyone. The onus is on you.

Am I funded by oil companies? Do I make judgements based upon how much money I receive?

You are also being inconsistent, if research against AGW has been funded by anyone, where is this research? I thought according to you there are almost no publications against it? This is because you overlook the fact that arguments against AGW aren't made in individual studies, they're an aggregation of many. And if the stats were correct, which they're not, then oil companies wouldn't bother funding, since it's clear that journals won't accept any articles which contradict the consensus. But actually, most climate scientists don't believe in AGW when strictly defined.

Oil companies won't waste money on such things, they have nothing to gain from it. It's impossible to prove a negative. They know that even if everyone believes in AGW you can't do anything about climate change, climate always changes - it's how the world works, sorry.

They know that if AGW is true, we're all dead and there's nothing anyone can do, no one has actually proposed a workable solution. Oil companies are directed by the decisions of their boards of directors and CEO, who are chosen by the shareholders to make money from speculating on possible returns based upon predictions of the results of oil exploration, drilling, and production. They don't make money from funding science projects. You want them to? Buy some Exxon Mobil shares.

Oil companies are actually making money off the AGW "consensus." They are the main proponents of both carbon taxes and cap and trade. When people like you and Malcolm succeed in getting more regulations passed, it's going to filter out the competition and give them an even tighter oligopoly. Thus you are being inconsistent again, since in the Anarchism thread you posted in opposition to centralised control.
(2) The piechart I uploaded was not based on work by John Cook. See - read, in fact!

It says, "John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise."

Where do you think the numbers comes from? Here's one of based on John Cook's latest articles that are consistent with your opinions, and if you accept the Pie Chart, you would be inconsistent, yet again, to reject John Cook:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Kim O'Hara » Mon Jan 06, 2014 7:45 am

Zhen Li wrote:
Kim O'Hara with a tinfoil conspiracy theorist hat wrote:(1) You are choosing to believe flat-earthers. Really. The authors of the paper you choose to trust are known - and notorious - fossil-fuel-lobby funded denialists.

You didn't provide proof that anyone is funded by anyone. The onus is on you.

Am I funded by oil companies? Do I make judgements based upon how much money I receive?

You are also being inconsistent, if research against AGW has been funded by anyone, where is this research? I thought according to you there are almost no publications against it? This is because you overlook the fact that arguments against AGW aren't made in individual studies, they're an aggregation of many. And if the stats were correct, which they're not, then oil companies wouldn't bother funding, since it's clear that journals won't accept any articles which contradict the consensus. But actually, most climate scientists don't believe in AGW when strictly defined.

Oil companies won't waste money on such things, they have nothing to gain from it. It's impossible to prove a negative. They know that even if everyone believes in AGW you can't do anything about climate change, climate always changes - it's how the world works, sorry.

They know that if AGW is true, we're all dead and there's nothing anyone can do, no one has actually proposed a workable solution. Oil companies are directed by the decisions of their boards of directors and CEO, who are chosen by the shareholders to make money from speculating on possible returns based upon predictions of the results of oil exploration, drilling, and production. They don't make money from funding science projects. You want them to? Buy some Exxon Mobil shares.

Oil companies are actually making money off the AGW "consensus." They are the main proponents of both carbon taxes and cap and trade. When people like you and Malcolm succeed in getting more regulations passed, it's going to filter out the competition and give them an even tighter oligopoly. Thus you are being inconsistent again, since in the Anarchism thread you posted in opposition to centralised control.
(2) The piechart I uploaded was not based on work by John Cook. See - read, in fact!

It says, "John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise."

Where do you think the numbers comes from? Here's one of based on John Cook's latest articles that are consistent with your opinions, and if you accept the Pie Chart, you would be inconsistent, yet again, to reject John Cook:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Zhen Li,
There are so many errors of fact in your post that I hardly know where to start. :rolleye:
It is perfectly clear that you haven't read the earlier part of this thread so I will paste links to some key information - using wikipedia as a convenient common source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels_lobby
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

This one is not from wikipedia but concisely presents oil companies' motivation for funding denialism:
http://www.carbontracker.org/wastedcapital
Campaigns like this http://gofossilfree.org/about/ increase the pressure.

Please do your homework before you post again.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby reddust » Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:00 am

Malcolm wrote:
reddust wrote:I dont buy into the left-right agenda and I am a skeptic of man made climate change argument. I don't want spend my time arguing about this. Time will be the decider on this debte. Lets stop trying to fix samsara (sarcasm) I've been told...don't leave. Lets have some good Dharma debates :namaste:



Closed biosystem + increasing carbon inputs from burning petrochemicals = warming.


Granted, it will change in a thousand years or so after we either stop burning oil for energy or we run out...

Of course it will come as no surprise to any one that I am a deep ecologist/left biocentric ala The late David Orton.

http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/lbprimer.htm


I don't understand closed system, no system within earth is closed and earth is always in flux with systems outside/within itself (said with a lisp). No thing is in and of itself.... I had to look up what you mean since I am just a pleb so to speak regarding all things higher in knowledge. I know of no closed systems in nature at all but again, I don't know much. It's that little voice inside my head that said this, it is very strident on this issue, "do a search it says." I call him George Carlin as a nic-name. I am sure that little voice isn't George but then again you never know!

Universe can be defined as what exists with regard to matter, M, and heat energy, H. System is defined as that part of the universe under consideration. A system is separated from its “surroundings,” S, by a “boundary.”
Biological Thermodynamics

Which of these describes Earth? The answer depends on context.

We all know that sunlight heats the surface of Earth. For most practical purposes, however, Earth is a closed system. Why is that? The mass of the planet is essentially constant in time. Molecules in our atmosphere are attracted to Earth by gravity and do not migrate off into space. This is not true of the Moon or asteroids.

In broad terms, by contrast, Earth is definitely an open system. How can that be? Meteors strike the planet from time to time, bringing in matter from space. Indeed, it is probable that Earth’s substantial iron core (and therefore its magnetic field, and therefore life as we know it) and the Moon owe their existence to an impact between Earth and a massive asteroid about 4 billion years ago.

The seemingly simple question of whether Earth is an open or closed system, like many other questions in science, cannot be answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ without qualification.


I don't agree with anyone regarding everything they say, but I do question just about everything because, frankly, I don't know much. I know one thing though. Malcolm is super cool in my books even if I don't agree with his politics :twothumbsup: because...surprise...I am a political atheist! :spy:
Mind and mental events are concepts, mere postulations within the three realms of samsara Longchenpa .... A link to my Garden, Art and Foodie blog Scratch Living
User avatar
reddust
 
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:29 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:59 am

Yeah, closed systems don't exist. Otherwise rises in global mean temperatures wouldn't be directly preceded by intensifications of solar activity and cosmic ray activity. Not to mention the fact that life on earth wouldn't exist because the sun would be closed from interacting with photosynthesizers.
Kim O'Hara wrote:There are so many errors of fact in your post that I hardly know where to start. :rolleye:
It is perfectly clear that you haven't read the earlier part of this thread so I will paste links to some key information - using wikipedia as a convenient common source.

:rolleye: Good one. Problems with Wikipedia: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/WikiSpooks: ... _Wikipedia

If you want to see the nitty gritty of the global warming pages, I dare you to to access the discussion pages. It's not pretty.

And the Global Warming page can't even be edited, all you get is the IPCC version of the story. As for the ones which can be edited, more or less, if anyone posts an argument which contradicts the IPCC, it's removed, or refutations are posted without counter-refutations.
Kim O'Hara wrote:This one is not from wikipedia but concisely presents oil companies' motivation for funding denialism:
http://www.carbontracker.org/wastedcapital
Campaigns like this http://gofossilfree.org/about/ increase the pressure.

These are biased sources.
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby dharmagoat » Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:12 am

The Earth is very definitely a closed system with regard to carbon, which is what was being referred to.
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed

Postby Zhen Li » Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:17 am

Lots of things are being referred to. The main issue is temperature. A measure which is not limited to any closed system, and which historically hasn't risen as a result of atmospheric CO2. :stirthepot:
Image
User avatar
Zhen Li
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am

PreviousNext

Return to Engaged Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

>