Skip to comments.Keeping It Simple: Scientist Uses Haiku to Explain Climate Change
Posted on 12/21/2013 3:44:49 AM PST by goodwithagun
If youre not a scientist, the thought of reading a 2,000-page climate change report probably sounds as enticing as reading the U.S. tax code. But boiled down to a series of haiku, our planets descent into ecological destruction makes for an engaging and easy read.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Fat a$$ al-Gore lies
Sunspots disappear and temperatures drop
The IPCC weeps
during the last fifteen years.
We'll ignore that fact.
Higher chance of a meteor hit, than anything else. If I were a real worrier....I’d constantly be thinking of some big bus-size rock hitting the earth.
Carbon is necessary for life. Without sufficient carbon dioxide in the air, plants cannot grow. Without plants, we have no source of oxygen to breathe, and no source of carbon to sustain our lives (because our carbon comes from sugars, fats, and proteins, all made by plants with carbon dioxide).
The carbon cycle
Critters eat plants eat carbon
No carbon, no life
Ah - somebody gets it. There was a lengthy post on here the other day by a climate scientist (external article) where he "deconstructed" climate deniers' arguments. While there were multiple holes in his argument, one of the main ones I noticed was a statement that the C02 that plants don't absorb is the excess that mankind generates, or some such nonsense like that.
Basic life science says that populations expand to meet the food supply (note human populations of today versus 1,000 years ago as one example). So if there is more CO2, there will be more and stronger plants since they have a larger food supply. More plants absorb more CO2, reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere. Gee, just like the "ecosystems" they keep thumping their climate science Bibles over.
This simple fact somehow manages to escape these "scientists" over and over again. I'm sure the climate change religious fanatics would tell me I'm wrong for some obscure, statistical reason that I've never heard of.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls our climates.
3. The earth is a rock.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
After spending 20 + years the climate models and reality do not even closely match each other. So instead of using science to continue advocating a failed agenda that is costly and will not establish something false, they now use poetry to advocate a failed agenda because poetry does not depend on facts. And environmental wackos rarely understand science anyway.
I remember getting into a discussion with a AGW fanatic, who was making the claim that carbon from fossil fuel use stays in the atmosphere for seven years, on average.
To which I replied, “Really? How do plants know which CO2 came from fossil fuels so that they can avoid using it for seven years?”
The flip side of this—the efforts to “sequester” carbon dioxide and keep it out of the atmosphere—is actually quite dangerous and poses an existential threat. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere will not cause noticeable changes in the CO2 concentration. Plants must have a minimum concentration of CO2 to survive. Below that concentration, plants die. When they die, they decompose, releasing their carbon as CO2. That released CO2 enters the atmosphere, ensuring that CO2 levels remain at about the same concentration. As more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, the plants that are the most sensitive to CO2 concentration will die off first—the first tangible evidence of success in decreasing atmospheric CO2 will be a decrease in biomass. By the time that becomes noticeable, the environment will already be severely damaged.
Yes, I am a life scientist. I understand these things.
Seats of power seek
Increasing power from climate hype
For permanent rule
I hate haiku, but I do like limericks:
There once was a blowhard named Gore,
Who wanted to get more and more,
He said it’s alarming,
that the earth’s really warming,
so he could make money galore
Why look at sunspots
When power and wealth come from
Dearest FReeper: Feel free take as much creative license with this as you see fit. Cheers!
Truth be told it is only speculation and not absolute as many so called scientists would like us to believe.
The models are imprecise and the accuracy of the data is highly questionable. Certainly not accurate enough to predict global climate change weeks, months, and years into the future.
And certainly not definitive enough to “bet the farm” and create financial hardships for average Americans.
When did concerns for the environment and cleaning up pollution turn into climate change and the end of the world?
When the liberal arm of the government started paying for studies that show it and forgot about truth.
When Science became a slave to liberal politics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.