Advertisement

Michael Ramirez for September 28, 2019

71 Comments

Hide All Comments
  1. Nct beach wiz
    DD Wiz Premium Member over 1 year ago

    Glad to see Ramirez highlighting a serious issue and proposing the right solution, but just want to emphasize that the professor and the child are not at odds.

    The child gives the right answer in simple terms as to one of the things we need to do.

    The professor demonstrates the science as to why this is critical.

    And as for those trees, I have often thought, “wouldn’t it be great if someone would invent a machine that would just suck the CO2 out of the air and sequester it in solid form and replace it with more oxygen” — a device that would effectively empower us to reverse the climate damage we are causing.

    Then I realized the earth goddess “Mother Nature” bequeathed to us just such a device: trees.

    But instead of planting them, growing them, spreading them and installing them everywhere we are pumping massive tonnage of CO2 into the atmosphere, and we are cutting down the ones we already have — often clear-cutting thousands of acres of prime forest — or burning them to re-release the solid forms of carbon they had sequestered.

    As for the solution, definitely PLANT MORE TREES, but also stop pumping the toxic greenhouse (green house = brown air) into the atmosphere.

    When you’re in a hole, yeah, look for a ladder but, first of all: STOP DIGGING.

     •  Reply
  2. Tf 117
    RAGs  over 1 year ago

    Ramirez is anti-science, so he HAS to find a way to ridicule it. A serious problem often needs more than on answer. (Planting trees is a very good idea, but they grow at a slower rate than people cut them down)

     •  Reply
  3. E43f09f0 d9ab 4f55 b739 d75d4df15e24
    quixotic1  over 1 year ago

    Well, I suppose if you’re looking for simplistic answers (which I suppose is all we can really hope for from Ramirez), we might start with burning fewer trees down. But the biggest carbon sink is the carbon that’s sequestered in dead plants and animals that we call fossil fuels. And if we burn a significant portion of that, it’s gonna get a lot hotter no matter what else we do.

     •  Reply
  4. Picture
    EdMeiller Premium Member over 1 year ago

    If Trump got his way there would be nowhere left to plant any trees.

     •  Reply
  5. Desron14
    Masterskrain  over 1 year ago

    Anyone remember the Movie “Silent Running”???

     •  Reply
  6. 9cfa9d91 c1e1 4d65 978b 21952c11801b
    Zebrastripes  over 1 year ago

    The rain forests are coming down so fast it’s impossible to keep up….either to fires, deforestation, and greed from developers…BOO HISS

     •  Reply
  7. Ddc6jqv e3afdcca d9ea 4a28 bba1 0fce8dd95509
    NRHAWK Premium Member over 1 year ago

    Our country was a forested wonderland before progress set in and could be again if we all just got on the same page and planted the billions of trees needed to restore balance. And, like @DD Wiz said, stop digging. We have the technology and the means now all we need is the backbone to make the change before it is too late.

     •  Reply
  8. Celtic tree of life
    mourdac Premium Member over 1 year ago

    Lots of solutions that individuals can do. Plant trees; naturescape; insulate homes; eat more vegetarian fare/less meat; work against mass deforestation in other nations, which includes finding less impactful ways for their citizens to make a living; if you can’t install solar/wind generators, support your utilty company in their use of renewal energy sources; shop local. Small steps are effective, Mr. Ramirez.

     •  Reply
  9. Gradinggorrell 01
    GradingGorrell  over 1 year ago

    planting more trees might have worked years ago, but people like Ramirez were mocking the science back then too. and now we are running out of time to limit the effects of climate change and need bigger solutions.

    Exactly like cigarettes, if you started smoking as a teenager and knew you might eventually die from it you could:

    A. stop smoking as a teenager giving yourself the best chance at avoiding lung cancer in the future

    B. ignored your doctors and kept on smoking for years even after the effects are know, even when most restaurants and businesses change to not allow it, until you get cancer in which case you needed more drastic solutions to stay alive (chemo-therapy)

    again right wing cartoonists are only able to mock those who want to fight climate change. They don’t have ANY EVIDENCE at all to prove their point that “the climate is fine. everything is fine as is”

    They’ll just continue to mock, until the point at which we are all doomed to die slow and torturous deaths.

    What exactly would the downside be of listening to scientists be?

     •  Reply
  10. Homoerectus
    fusilier  over 1 year ago

    Because of climate change, pine-bark blister beetles aren’t being killed off during the winter.

    https://images.app.goo.gl/oSyAAJdkhjuQaUnT6

    fusilier

    James 2:24

     •  Reply
  11. Picture4
    #Rad-ish  Premium Member over 1 year ago

    Stop burning down the existing trees.

     •  Reply
  12. Hacking dog original
    J Short Premium Member over 1 year ago

    This issue is so politicized, who knows what is really happening. All I can say is we waste too much and the population grows exponentially. Here are some interesting predictions from the past from the likes of the Washington Post, Time Magazine, etc: https://cei.org

     •  Reply
  13. Missing large
    dandye  over 1 year ago

    The issue is how to get more Leftist/Government control and more MONEY!

     •  Reply
  14. Image
    shstuart Premium Member over 1 year ago

    Post a blackboard full of exaggerated talking points and contrast it with a remedy that’s been implemented in many other countries, China included…as is that lets the administration, who supports a Brazilian leader looking the other way as the rainforests are torched, off the hook. Not likely

     •  Reply
  15. Coexist
    Bookworm  over 1 year ago

    Trees are vitally important, accounting for approximately 1/3 of breathable oxygen. But more important is the annual algae bloom in the north Atlantic every spring which accounts for nearly 1/2 of atmospheric oxygen. But that bloom is being imperiled by the northern polar melting flooding the oceans with too much fresh water since the algae requires sea (salty) water.

     •  Reply
  16. Missing large
    NobodyAwesome Premium Member over 1 year ago

    I see Ramirez mockingly write these comments: “Spend Trillions”, “Redistribute wealth”. How are you supposed to plant the billions of trees without spending money? And if you do pay the folks planting the tree a decent salary, then the wealth would automatically get redistributed.

     •  Reply
  17. 6fde4aef02ccc7f8e6aea5330440eb7b
    SeanT  over 1 year ago

    By burning fossil fuels, we are literally burning all the forests, grasslands, and savannahs that have ever existed.

     •  Reply
  18. Can flag
    Alberta Oil Premium Member over 1 year ago

    Planting trees would work… so sacrifice the space your home occupies and plant trees. See, that is the problem, there are just too many people for this earth to accommodate without a negative effect. Stop burning fossil fuels.. sure, but walking is not an American tradition. Keeping warm.. having lights.. groceries in a store are all things “we” are not willing to give up.

     •  Reply
  19. Missing large
    lopaka  over 1 year ago

    And we have the trumpster. I have already told my grand children to instruct their children to pee on his grave. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2019/09/10/474256/vast-liquidation-public-lands-underway-alaska/

     •  Reply
  20. Tj
    • Thomas  over 1 year ago

    Now the League of Reaganites says plant more trees? Sure, always a good idea.

    ‘’Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let’s not go overboard on setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources.‘’ – Ronald Reagan, Sept. 1980

    “First of all, I didn’t say 80 percent. I said 92 percent, 93 percent, pardon me. And I didn’t say air pollution, I said oxides of nitrogen, And I am right. Growing and decaying vegetation in this land are responsible for 93 percent of the oxides of nitrogen.’’ – Ronald Reagan, Oct. 1980

    • Hydrocarbons are not an air pollution problem. Trees decay into nitrous oxide — not a serious health threat.

    Oxides of nitrogen are a serious problem. Industrial sources — not trees — are responsible for 90 percent of the oxides of nitrogen in this country.

    Outrageous Co2 levels will be the death of us. Just how many new trees would it take to nullify the excess man made Co2 already present?

    How many new trees would it take to nullify the excess man made Co2 going forward if we fail to reduce drastically?

     •  Reply
  21. Image
    magicwalnut Premium Member over 1 year ago

    The hardiest of the human race will just have to evolve to breath Carbon dioxide instead of oxygen.

     •  Reply
  22. Missing large
    DonnyTwoScoops  over 1 year ago

    But Ramirez’s boy in the White House said Global Warming is a “Chinese Hoax”.

     •  Reply
  23. Video snapshot
    Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 1 year ago

    Some problems with cmcmall2000’s chemistry and with Ramirez’s/

    1) Since 1959, measured increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is 45% of the pre-industrial average. The change in H2O in the atmosphere has been miniscule — because H2O in the atmosphere saturates producing you know, rain, snow, fog, dew, etc. So global increases in water vapor in the atmosphere happen only very slowly. So any “new” water used in photosynthesis increases (more plants) comes from our ground water sources — aquifers that take millennia to recharge!(PS – as a result of all that pumping of ground water, which eventually makes its way back to the oceans, a small increase in sea level results.

    2) Since 1959, the Keeling Curve tracks the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere from 315 ppm to about 410 ppm. The curve also shows the season variation of CO2 to be about 6ppm. That’s the change of CO2 in an entire hemisphere due plant growth and decay (and plant includes ocean life). Measurements at other sites show similar behavior. There is an increase in that value over the last 60 years, but the addition of CO2 simply swamps the increases in plant production. That means you have to increase the amount of plant life enormously to counter a even the last decade’s worth of CO2 production. And that plant growth requires water.

    3) Where will that come from? It takes energy to make fresh water from sea water and to move it to where it is needed. Most rain falls over the ocean (no surprise, given that about 70% of the surface of the earth is ocean. While the amount of precipitation is expected to rise with global warming, the fact is that it will take fairly long times for that water to move inland. So energy must be expended to increase the amount of plant life on the land because those plants need water and aquifers are rapidly depleting.

    continued…

     •  Reply
  24. Video snapshot
    Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 1 year ago

    4) While CO2 does not saturate in the atmosphere, it does saturate in the oceans. Right now, a large fraction of the CO2 that is produced is taken in by the oceans. However, as water warms, it retains smaller amounts of CO2. Carbonated beverages hold more CO2 when cold than when warm, for example. So as the oceans warm (and they are warming) less CO2 will be taken in, and some may be released back to the atmosphere.

    5) More CO2 in the oceans leads to acidification of the oceans – where most of our O2 is produced. The acidity is not good at all for the plants that produce our O2. Not good at all. And if the plankton die, what will other sea life eat? The ocean food chain starts with plankton. Cut that source and the food chain withers.

    6) The Chinese have taken to planting lots and lots and lots of trees … in a desert. Their motivation is good and in principle doing this should be a good thing. Increasing forestation should increase precipitation there … over time. But … those trees need water and they are not planting desert adapted trees. Once again, it’s the water…

    7) Brass Orchid likes to claim that the natural processes will move water from the oceans to the interior of continents. He’s right, but the natural, unassisted process takes glacial timescales. But the severe effects of global warming will require only human timescales to produce profound suffering and displacement of millions. Moving water from seas to continental interiors on human timescales will require enormous outlays of energy. Which better not come from fossil fuels. (That’s Catch-CO2)

     •  Reply
  25. Pine marten3
    martens  over 1 year ago

    Trees are fine, but not the whole story, by a long shot, as Baslim points out. The base of the global ecosystem is the phytoplankton of the oceans. It was the evolution of those photosynthetic organisms that, over a billion or so years, started establishing the oxygen atmosphere necessary for aerobic organisms. It is the basic carbon fixation by the phytoplankton that forms the base of all food chains. In the Permian Great Dying in which acidfication of the oceans due to CO2 occurred, 95% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial species died. That was estimated to occur over about 65,000 years. The current changes are measured in centuries (2 or 3 so far) and may be edging into measured in decades. Then there is the accelerated extinction rate. According to a new study, it’s 10 times worse than scientists previously thought with current extinction rates 1,000 times higher than natural background rates. We’re going to be running out of time to do something about it, folks.

    https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/current-extinction-rate-10-times-worse-previously-thought/

     •  Reply
  26. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  over 1 year ago

    Ramirez must spend hours on his drawings. Perhaps he could use some of that time to read some scientific information about the climate.

     •  Reply
  27. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  over 1 year ago

    I just picked up what looks to be an interesting book: “A New History of Life”, by Peter Ward and Joe Kirschvink. Anybody read it?

     •  Reply
  28. Missing large
    evanmarhews  over 1 year ago

    Even you being a republican get it!!

     •  Reply
  29. 20841741 470526546644028 5711918097007563718 n
    Nantucket Premium Member over 1 year ago

    Ramirez, out some trees in your garage, seal it up while you’re inside and start your car. Let us know how that works out.

    There isn’t a need to ELIMINATE cars, planes and boats. There are alternative sources for energy that don’t increase CO2 and HUMAN-caused climate change. Also don’t need to eliminate cheeseburgers; factory farms are the problem. Eat pasture-raised, grass-fed beef – it is higher in Omega-3s than farm-raised salmon and it tastes MUCH better. Sure it is more expensive, so people won’t eat them everyday – try some vegetables!

     •  Reply
  30. Video snapshot
    Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 1 year ago

    Wow! More denier crap.

    So the temperature increase is false, or based on bad statistics? HA HA HA HA!

    Tell that to the ground in the northern latitudes where increasingly, permafrost is melting. Tell that to the plants and animals moving uphill in mountainous areas as they try to live at temperatures that they are adapted to.

    All the stupid denier conspiracy theory crap fails when confronted with data. Data not just compiled by climate scientists, but naturalists of all persuasions. It is global warming and it is changing climates.

    I don’t accept global warming because of what others say. I look at the data.

    Sea level is rising, and the rate is accelerating.

    Global average temperature is rising, not falling.

    Ocean heat is rising, not falling, not “pausing.”

    Both the Antarctic ice cap and the Greenland ice cap are losing mass.

    Glaciers are losing mass

    Greenhouse gases are increasing, not decreasing.

    The sun’s radiation has had no significant decrease, and shows only the 1/1360 variation in the output associated with the solar cycles.

    All of the above can be explored with the above link to the climate dashboard: https://www.climate.gov/

    The behavior of plants and animals is consistent with warming.

    I believe the data. The data shows global warming.

    I also believe the physics.

    Add greenhouses gases, and you increase the trapping of infrared. This has been shown through satellite measurements which show a decrease in the amount of infrared leaving the atmosphere. (The amount entering obeys the solar cycle, but that is minimal, and subtracted out).

    Remove ice cover from the oceans and land (and snow on land), and the albedo of the earth decreases, leading to increased absorption of incoming solar radiation. That leads to warmer oceans, and increased re-radiation of infrared (some of which is trapped by the GHGs).

     •  Reply
  31. Brain guy dancing hg clr
    Concretionist  over 1 year ago

    “Plant more trees” is a very good idea. But it’s not an idea that’s sufficient  to solve the problem. And of course you have to plant them and then let them grow for a long time in order to actually sequester carbon. (PS: Hemp works even better, in some ways, and is happy to grow some places where trees are generally less happy).

     •  Reply
  32. Video snapshot
    Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 1 year ago

    I have some faith in the models ability to show likely behavior, even if they don’t follow exactly the measurements. The models are indeed incomplete, so they serve as a guideline. They are improved with more data, and more measurements.

    And here is another denier killer (not as big as the behavior of plants and animals, but big). If you remove from the models only the forcing due to human greenhouse gases, then the models predict that temperature right now would be slightly cooler than 40 years ago. Well, that is not the case.

    Some deniers say that humans cannot affect things anyway. Well, that is not true. James Hansen’s original 1988 model indicated higher temperatures than we see today. But shortly after that, the world decided to cut back on the CFCs that were depleting the ozone layer. Hansen’s original model assumed business as usual for CFCs. When corrected for the removal of CFCs, his model is nearly spot on. So, yes, we can affect positive changes as well as negative ones. And yes, the ozone layer is recovering.

    The overwhelming majority of all scientists, not just climate scientists, accept that global warming is happening, and that humans are the cause. Scientists associated with the Heartland Institute, not so much. And who provides Heartland with funding? Take a wild guess… or look it up.

     •  Reply
  33. Video snapshot
    Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 1 year ago

    Which makes more sense?

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/e/e2/Climate_change_which_makes_more_sense.png

     •  Reply
  34. Missing large
    gammaguy  over 1 year ago

    @Retired engineer: “No one is saying that Carbon dioxide is poisonous….”

    Not so. I am, and others could be. A high concentration of CO2 can be fatal.

    However, the atmospheric concentration that will cause (is causing?) catastrophic global warming is much less than that required to seriously harm a human body.

     •  Reply
  35. Picture4
    #Rad-ish  Premium Member over 1 year ago

    These Scientists Were Disbanded by the EPA — They Plan to Meet Anyway

    A group of 20 scientists charged with reviewing the nation’s air quality standards plans to convene and to issue a report on the country’s air pollution regulations, even though the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) disbanded their panel.

    https://www.ecowatch.com/scientists-epa-panel-air-pollution-2640669910.html?utm_campaign=RebelMouse&socialux=facebook&share_id=4924603&utm_medium=social&utm_content=EcoWatch&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0ut5uqyKG2Qi1Bmw45zGB5F95qU-LeLIwZLWPbug6lBBzLOxtXehaZ7PU

     •  Reply
  36. Missing large
    twclix Premium Member over 1 year ago

    Today, solar and wind are competitive with hydrocarbons for electrical generation. But the energy storage systems aren’t up to the task of evening out the load when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

    The only rational solution is advanced nuclear power. Bill Gates has funded a significant renewed effort to advance nuclear technology and his team is testing a massively improved, very feasible, practical reactor design that:

    1. Uses spent nuclear waste from conventional reactors as fuel.

    2. Is designed so that it cannot melt down. REPEAT—CANNOT MELT DOWN. IMPOSSIBLE TO MELT DOWN. It just shuts itself down first as a matter of physics, not as a matter of human monitoring and control.

    3. Generates power without the need for water as a coolant.

    4. Uses up its fuel sort of like a slow burning candle.

    5. Emits zero CO2.

    Will ignorant public opinion prevent science and technology from helping us pr serve the narrow band of climate conditions we and millions of other life forms have come to depend on?

    Probably.

    Safe nuclear reactors are not only possible, they’re being tested right now. Yes, plant trees. Yes, use better agricultural methods. Yes, incentivize solar and wind. Yes, pour massive amounts of R&D capital into battery technologies.

    But, make no mistake. Advanced nuclear technology is by far the most practical, implementable technology we need to help mitigate the climate crisis. Willful ignorance will prevent its deployment, but that’s not surprising. Scientific ignorance is why many cannot discern actionable energy policy based on the facts from blatant nonsense and dumb posturing.

    For those who have called me a "liberal, “a nitwit” and similar expressions of disdain, pay close attention. Advanced nuclear power should be the backbone of a rational global energy policy. That’s not regressive, it’s very progressive. But it’s not popular among environmentalists. Hmmm. Does that hurt your brain, regressives?

     •  Reply
  37. Youngferguson
    BWR  over 1 year ago

    Build thousands of nuclear plants.

     •  Reply
  38. Missing large
    jhayesd31  over 1 year ago

    How do you grow more acres of Trees? Stop cutting down forests of Trees. Especially for use of short term products like paper.

     •  Reply
  39. Mate1 9
    imagenesis  over 1 year ago

    Planting more trees sounds good Mr. Ramirez, but it would help more if we stop deforesting the lungs of the planet!!!

     •  Reply
  40. Missing large
    bob.gaston45  over 1 year ago

    China creates more carbon pollution than all of North America. They are also bringing a new coal fired power plant each week in China and another plant in Africa.

    China Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam dump more plastics into the Oceans that the rest of the world combined.

    There can be no rational discussion of carbon pollution or plastics until the role of China is part of that discussion.

    The fact that I had to dig on the net to get these facts from fairly obscure UN web sites, rather than from the American news media says a lot about our world wide effort to change how we consume energy, vis a vis our economic and political competition.

     •  Reply
  41. Inbound to iraq  2
    Scoutmaster77  over 1 year ago

    It’s all about cycles and balance, which we are having a grand time screwing them up.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment
Advertisement

More From Michael Ramirez

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement