The Sky is Falling or on Revising the Nine Times Rule (Part V of V)

By now you should be conversant with the fact that ice ages happen on an eerily regular basis (Part I), that they are associated with earth’s rickety orbit and have nothing to do with carbon dioxide (Parts II and III). Additionally, in Part III we did the math and realized that you just can’t get to global warming with CO2. It is on the wrong side of the decimal point in terms of concentration (0.04%) to be much of a player unless you imbue it with superpowers that would also make it the darling of the insulation and energy conservation industries if it were really true. In Part IV we came face to face with ourselves and how climate change was THE agent provocateur in our evolution. We are beholden to climate change to smarten us up to our present state. Here in Part V we will learn what it all means.

By picking on CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere, we placed ourselves firmly on the wrong side of the decimal point. We need to get over the decimal and into the real percentages. Did you know that 1/4 of all mammals are on the endangered species list? How about a third of all amphibians? Make that a 50% loss of all the earth’s forests and all the earth’s grasslands. “Short of a miraculous transformation in the attitude of people and governments, the Earth’s remaining closed-canopy forests and associated biodiversity are destined to disappear in the coming decades” says the 2001 UN study’s author Klaus Toepfer. ... Destruction of forests is estimated to account for 20% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, second only to electricity and heat generation by fossil fuels. Try not to forget that forests store CO2 and carbon. They are pivotal in the extinction crisis.

Part five of a five part series. From Icecap.us:

Submitted for our evaluation by William F. McClenney, Professional Geologist #4430 (CA) who changed sides during his multi-year, painstaking research into all aspects of anthropogenic versus natural causes of climate changes. In his own words “The results of this research are startling. Not only can I safely state that the chances of AGW occurring due to greenhouse gases (GHG) is remote at best, and if it did occur might very well be the first time in the geologic record, but that GHG theorists are simply on the wrong side of the decimal point in this debate.” You may not agree with everything he says. I didn’t. But it is overall very insightful, interesting and provocative.

Part I: The Sky is Falling or on Revising the Nine Times Rule (Part I of V)

Part II: The Sky is Falling or on Revising the Nine Times Rule (Part II of V)

Part III: The Sky is Falling or on Revising the Nine Times Rule (Part III of V)

Part IV: The Sky is Falling or on Revising the Nine Times Rule (Part IV of V)

For those who don't want to work their way to the end:

In summation, we have wreaked havoc on our environment, and there is no question that with such massive effects on our biosphere, and its diverse and intricate equilibria, we have fundamentally altered many of these equilibria, which will be manifesting itself over time. Yes, we are emitting massive amounts of CO2 and other gases that undoubtedly will have some effect, but unless you do the voodoo math thing, you just cannot get to climate change from here. And if you are at all rational, you will have recognized from the Vostok ice core data that CO2 could not have been the agent provocateur of change. You have no rational source for the massive amounts of CO2 you must have at the end of those 100k year long deep freezes to rocket out of them so abruptly. And even a caveman could see that these events are easily tied to our rickety orbit, which we will not change one iota by passing draconian laws against an innocuous, odorless, colorless gas. And no amount of GHG taxation can provide the funds that would be needed to eliminate the other planet’s gravitational effects on spaceship earth.
And we have no reason at present to believe that these astronomically driven events will cease. And it will be somewhat difficult to measure anthropogenic effects against this backdrop of repetitive 400 foot changes in sea level so regular you can set your geologic clock by them.
If anything, what we have learned is that homo sapiens is a master of psychological denial on even more massive scales. Locked in to the Nine Times Rule since the Wisconsin Ice Age, we cannot decide which is the correct religion (there are so many to choose from, aren’t there?), but we regularly discard the pantheon of Greek and Egyptian gods while inventing new religions, like GHG-driven climate change. But the real problem with the Nine Times Rule is that we have reached a critical juncture in the last few centuries of this interglacial period. We have dramatically overpopulated ourselves. We have the fossil record to show us that this is a self-controlling phenomenon. Overuse of resources and trashing one’s environment has been the dirge of many a species. And unless we can find enough “M” class planets, and quickly, then just as quickly this becomes a case of intellectual capacity. Do we have enough? Because even a caveman would get this.
The real question here is do you (get this)? Unfortunately, the answer is that only 11.1% of us have that potential. I am not sure that is enough.

Sheesh... this guy is WORSE than the Global AWarmist crowd... he is of the opinion that HUMANS are the pollution...

He claims that human construction and destruction is destroying the climate... due to over-population. He's a modern day Malthus. In fact, it's really not just humans he blames, its AMERICAN Homo Sapiens. He claims that an American will consume 1,875 tons of mined, produced and refined energy and materials in his lifetime... and that is what is causing Global Warming!

The fact is that far from his "facts" the entire population of the Earth (currently 6,790,200,000 est.) could be moved to Texas (0.46% of the land area of the Earth) and have a population density of 1 person per 1075 square feet... or about 25,900 Per square mile... less than the population density of New York City.

Instead of worrying about Carbon Credits, something he views as a waste of money (I agree!), he seems to think we should spend the money on finding a way to regulate the orbit of the Earth around the Sun... talk about arrogant.

Trees grow back. People like trees. We only cut them down when we need to. When we don’t need to anymore, we replant them and let them grow back.

Forest fires used to burn entire forests to the ground. Now we put the fires out. In Siberia and northern Canada, the trees rarely get to 10 feet high before a forest fire comes through and burns them to the ground.

The eastern US was almost entirely deforested at one time and now there are more trees than there used to be. I am not worried.

It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with opinions, his facts are wrong. In part III, he pulls out the 95% number that he doesn't source and uses it to show that man-made CO2 contributes to less than 0.2% of GH effect. The 95% number applies only the troposphere (ignores the relatively greater effect of CO2 in the stratosphere). My analysis ( http://powerproxy.com/gw/myths.html#nothuman) shows 1.5% of GH effect from man-made CO2. Likewise his number for total GH effect from CO2 (3.5%) is completely false because it lacks consideration of feedback effects.

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.

FReepmail me to get on or off