Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 68. (Read 636445 times)

UN's new climate song for kids: 'Don't need no cars... don't need no bath'





The United Nations awarded the song "Climate Astronauts" the prize for best children's global climate change song. Performed by students from Bonn, Germany and "Climate Fairy" Bernadette La Hengst, the lyrics include, 'don't need no cars', 'we go by feet', and 'don't need no bath'.

Selected lyrics:
We are astronauts, and we can see
We are astronauts, what's good for you
We are astronauts, no plastic bags
We are astronauts, don't waste the food
We are astronauts, turn out the lights
We are astronauts, in the night
We are astronauts, don't need no cars
We are astronauts, we go by bike

We are climate, climate astronauts
We are climate, climate astronauts

[...]

Boys and girls around the world
Can you hear us
We are loud
We don't need no CO2
What we need is me and you
And, our solar rockets
We rocket, rocket

We are astronauts, we plant the trees
We are astronauts, we go by feet
We are astronauts, we save the world
We are astronauts, when we brush our teeth
We are astronauts, don't need no bath
We are astronauts, at every day
We are astronauts, we love you earth
We are astronauts, and we will say

We are climate, climate astronauts
[...]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzU86xmvFt0

Interesting. Thanks for the link and the definition. It's funny you know, we call this a "faux ami" or "false friend". Because it doesn't mean the same thing as the word "pollution" in French!

Not a bad definition though. It makes the word pollution more precise and directly linked to the degradation of the environment.
Seems English language is not always the weaker between French and English ^^

"Pollution

noun
1.
the act of polluting or the state of being polluted.
2.
the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment:
air pollution.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pollution"

it seems to me like you are interpreting the definition quite a bit.

so the china fog is CO2?

Of course it's carbon dioxyde, carbon monoxyde is another subject.
And it's pollution because it's an addition on nature by humans. That's just the definition: human production that change natural state. That's the definition, if you're not happy with it change the word.

WTF is "carbon pollution"? surely it is not carbon dioxyde but carbon monoxyde you are talking about...

you seem very confused  

It's stupid. If the concentration of carbone isn't pollution then Beijing isn't polluted. Because all that is in the Beijing air is already in the natural air, only in much smaller proportions.

I's like saying a 30° summer is the same as a 80° summer simply because it's hot in both case.

Many people will have a difficult time understanding this, but it becomes increasingly difficult to vacuum out the last of anything.  In fact, it approaches being infinitely difficult in mathematical terms.

This is important because it explains why CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere (currently around 400 parts per million.)  Biological systems need carbon to build mass and they are exceedingly good at getting it else they would not be competitive against other organisms.

One might note from the graphic I put up that the amount of carbon sequestered in sediment and rock formations is on the order 75,000,000 gigatons compared to on the order 40,000 for all conceivably available (including all fossil fuel reserves) vs. on the order 2000 reasonably available in the biosphere.

Basically marine creatures which form shells have been trying (fairly effectively) to kill the earth for a very long time.  But for volcanos and acidic conditions in karst geologies, they may have succeeded (except they would die before they did so.)

It seems a fairly reasonable suggestion that at times in the history of earth, the available CO2 for building hydro-carbons was much greater.  At that time plants probably competed for water more than for carbon.  In fact, one 'proxy' for historical CO2 levels is to look at the size of the pores that plants have to try to obtain what little CO2 is floating around.

This is important to conceptualize because it means that today's plant life will have relatively little difficulty gulping down minor 'imbalances' in CO2 'pollution' caused by human activities.  In particular, the more CO2 available, the faster it will be gobbled up.


Beijing is like a pristine alpine meadow compared to Chennai!  I had the mixed fortune of being in Beijing during significant rains, however, and that cleared things up significantly.  The pollution on the day I got there was shocking (to today's younger generation of Americans who don't remember the bad-old-days.)  I was sick from eating fast-food frog on the second day, then it rained and made things pretty OK for the next three weeks of my stay.  Also, the totalitarian govt was making ready for the Olympics, and the thing about totalitarian governments is that they can be more immediately effective in such efforts.

No, and I knew that's what you meant.  But it's incorrect because the carbon cycle is unchanged.  Varying one flow or one parameter does not change the cycle. 

It's like talking about winter and summer or day and night.   

I'm wondering now if anyone even knows what pollution is.  Go to Beijing, the minute you step out of the airport terminal you will learn real fast.   It's the stink, crushing unbearable air.  Never seeing the sun from the muck in the sky.

Nature has no problem absorbing the carbon that man emits.  None whatsoever. 

This is really a different subject than "climate change."  It's an attempt to ascribe more evil and terrible to carbon than just climate change. 

All life on Earth is carbon based.  Carbon is not evil or terrible.  Carbon is simply a very reactive atomic element which has high energy forms (think say methane) and very low energy forms, like carbon dioxide.  The carbon cycle is all of these flows.  Life is in the middle of them.

Ok here is the fact:
Without humans nature absorbs X amount of CO2
With humans nature has to absorb X + Y amount of CO
Hence the cycle of CO2 is changed. I didn't say it was a huge amount, I didn't say it would break the cycle or anything. But the cycle changes and THAT'S WHY it's called pollution! Because it's the main definition of pollution...

Well, I guess that this notion that CO2 is some kind of pollution has to have its origins somewhere and gain traction. Maybe this is it. Maybe it´s older who knows. It´s certainly widespread by now. I think it´s very likely that it´s ingrained in schools from elementary and up.

The simple problem with ever broadening rules such as this is that everything imaginable fits the definition, which of course is a conclusion bureaucrats and control freaks would love.

Most other estimates are going to be in the ballpark.  Sorry to not be able to find a more high resolution image.  Note the UNEP label on this

There are many such charts showing the 'perturbations' in the budget.  The main reason for doing so is to give an excuse to hide the somewhat modest nature of the human induced component.  At least that is my suspicion.

Ah, here's another:



Note that, while out of the UN (at least in part), it is pretty old.  Most of the newer graphics are of the 'perturbation' variety so it seems.  Funny that.

Trees grow back, and in the blink of the eye on geological time scales.

Further, if one cuts a tree, the areas that it was shading gets hit with solar radiation and other things will grow while waiting for the tree to grow back.

Using plants as energy sources (firewood, bio-fuel, food, etc) is one of the most tight-looped methods of harnessing 'solar energy' possible.  The main reason it is vilified is that it threatens other energy interests which are more easy to consolidate into corporate control.

.....In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued an endangerment finding concluding that

"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."

Greenhouse gases including CO2 unquestionably fit the Clean Air Act's broad definition of "air pollutants," and must be listed and regulated by the EPA if it can be determined that they endanger public heath and/or welfare.
Alternatively, the definition of "pollution" from Encyclopedia Brittanica is:

"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form."

Thus legally in the USA, CO2 is an air pollutant which must be regulated if it may endanger publich health or welfare.  And according to the encyclopedic definition, CO2 is a pollutant unless our emissions can be stored "harmlessly."....

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm

You misunderstood, i am just asking you what would be the percentage of human CO2 emission worldwide, as it surely would be ridiculously small (in comparaison with the oceans as it often comes up). I often hear the 1% to 0,00001% but lazy about digging up some good source.

Anyway I would personally side with antropogenic CO2 cycle having any effect on the earth as mystical bullshit.

But surely the rest of human pollution do have a horrifying effect.

AGW is like, the "tip of the melting iceberg", the "tree hiding the deforestation"...  

 

What about it?

It's a valid ARGUMENT to ask if human CO2 production is raising the global temperature by some significant amount.  Whether you agree or do not are answers to the argument.

It's not a valid argument to claim the carbon cycle is changed by man.  That's ridiculous, it's like denying the Earth is round or such.

One aspect of the large scale introduction of propaganda is the necessary elimination or narrowing of critical and skeptical thinking.  Everything must support "the narrative."

what you be the percentage of human CO2 production vs nature?

I do not think that's what is taught in high school, no.  The carbon cycle simple describes the conversion of carbon from atmospheric co2 to plant tissue, ocean floor deposits, minerals, partial pressure in water masses, and then eventually back into an atmospheric gas.   

Similarly there is a hydrologic cycle which describes the movement of water.

It may well be that the high schools are so clogged up teaching the propaganda that they simply do not have time to teach aspects of science such as these cycles.   

isnt that what they teach in school. must be true.