Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
    There's the rub: Science and Politics usually mix about as well as bleach and ammonia.

    Well said!
    I did that once when cleaning the bathtub in my first apartment...
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
      I more or less agree with BobTheBarbarian but as The Doctor pointed out the complexity of the issues and the politics involved makes modeling suspect.

      That said the major concern for me is food security which seems more threatened by a volcanic or small asteroid event leading to cooling over the short run than warming. There are things we need to know and do that are not even being discussed. One of which is that conservative politics have reduced our available food reserves. Free markets do not address these kinds of issues any more than they provide for national defense.
      Nonsense. Free markets delivered Norman Borlaug's green revolution and the steady increase in agricultural productivity over the past 60 years.

      Originally posted by wolfhnd
      The conservative position it seems should be to conserve non renewables and practice good conservation of the environment. Who doesn't want clean air and clean water? Global Warming however is being used to push an agenda of complete elimination of coal, oil, and gas use.
      Conserve them for what? Coal, oil and gas are sources of energy. Work requires energy. Work generates wealth. Energy is a cost of generating wealth. Anything that drives up the cost of energy destroys wealth.

      The world will never run out of fossil fuels. Humans will develop sources of energy which generate more wealth per unit of energy than fossil fuels long before those resources are depleted. Civilization didn't leave the Stone Age in order to conserve rocks.

      Originally posted by wolfhnd
      The fact that it is impossible to maintain economic stability without fossil fuel is not something the liberals care about because they see the industrial complex as immoral. One only need look at the financial crisis of the last 10 years to see that the liberals are right. The people that run our industries are in fact immoral. While some people would characterize them as amoral that is just splitting hairs. In my view however the reckless disregard for the economy represented by liberal views is even more immoral. Ideology to me is the enemy left or right.
      Modern Liberalism is either a form of mental illness or a synonym for total ignorance.

      Originally posted by wolfhnd
      Policy decisions should be based on science and frankly I don't think we are spending enough money researching the background temperature. Without any high fidelity model for background temperature everyone is just guessing what the forecast should be.
      Yep.

      Originally posted by wolfhnd
      The polarization of the political process is making it impossible to implement the kind of research programs we need that would make it possible for me at least to take a solid position. I want to hear more from historians, paleontologists, geologists, and other disciplines in the debate as well as develop high fidelity climate models.
      It's impossible to not be polarized when one side is 100% wrong about everything.
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        I would have said red fuming nitric acid and furfuryl alcohol but...

        (that's a self-igniting rocket fuel...)
        Will it clean a bathtub?
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          Will it clean a bathtub?
          No, but it might put your bathtub on the moon!

          I recommend filling the tub and adding a couple of gallons of hydrochloric acid from the pool store. Cleans toilets shiny new too...

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
            MY question is, given all the vast and well-reasoned posts by the Doc, why do you and all the folks on your side twist and turn and even leave the thread rather than admit he made his point?
            Any point?
            Because I've said what I wanted to say, I just agree to disagree with Doc.
            "The people never have the power, only the illusion of it. And here is the real secret: they don't want it. The responsibility is too great to bear. It's why they are so quick to fall in line as soon as someone else takes charge."
            "

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by ace View Post
              Because I've said what I wanted to say, I just agree to disagree with Doc.
              That's like saying that you agree to disagree with 2 + 2 = 4.

              Which is really funny because you posted this...



              I have no idea who John Oliver is - my guess would be a more moronic, Canadian version of Jon Stewart - but I would bet that he doesn't have the slightest clue as to why this is one of the most idiotic things anyone has ever said in public. This is very typical of smarmy-a$$ed psuedo-intellectual libt@rds.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                No, but it might put your bathtub on the moon!

                I recommend filling the tub and adding a couple of gallons of hydrochloric acid from the pool store. Cleans toilets shiny new too...
                I forget... is PVC HCl proof?
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                  I forget... is PVC HCl proof?
                  Yes.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                    That's like saying that you agree to disagree with 2 + 2 = 4.

                    Which is really funny because you posted this...



                    I have no idea who John Oliver is - my guess would be a more moronic, Canadian version of Jon Stewart - but I would bet that he doesn't have the slightest clue as to why this is one of the most idiotic things anyone has ever said in public. This is very typical of smarmy-a$$ed psuedo-intellectual libt@rds.
                    He's actually British, and I'm guessing the 4 that 2 + 2 equals to me is different to the 4 that you get from 2 + 2.

                    We both see the same facts and we both seem to get different answers...
                    "The people never have the power, only the illusion of it. And here is the real secret: they don't want it. The responsibility is too great to bear. It's why they are so quick to fall in line as soon as someone else takes charge."
                    "

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ace View Post
                      He's actually British, and I'm guessing the 4 that 2 + 2 equals to me is different to the 4 that you get from 2 + 2.

                      We both see the same facts and we both seem to get different answers...
                      There are no facts in either of these posts:
                      Originally posted by ace View Post
                      My problem is with people who deny that climate changes at the hand of humans, the majority of scientist say that we as a species are seriously affecting climate and those that deny that fact are getting upset that people are no longer taking them seriously or mocking them.
                      Originally posted by ace View Post
                      Yes, some of the predictions have been wrong but no area's been accumulate 100% and any good scientist will admit it. The fact is that we have seen more unstable and aggressive weather changes in the past years that is a bit worrying. Plus I don't see any harm in helping the environment anyways, it doesn't hurt to help make a better world.

                      I've said my peace...
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        There are no facts in either of these posts:
                        fine

                        http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/



                        http://www.climate.gov/

                        but I'm guessing theirs nothing I can say that will change you're mind
                        "The people never have the power, only the illusion of it. And here is the real secret: they don't want it. The responsibility is too great to bear. It's why they are so quick to fall in line as soon as someone else takes charge."
                        "

                        Comment


                        • Global warming does not exist.
                          I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
                          --Salmon P. Chase

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ace View Post
                            fine

                            http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                            [IMG...ttp://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-1280x800.jpg[/IMG]

                            http://www.climate.gov/

                            but I'm guessing theirs nothing I can say that will change you're mind
                            Nothing you are likely to say will convince me that you have any grasp of the basic science.

                            How does the graph you posted support any of your "facts"?
                            • The majority of scientist say that we as a species are seriously affecting climate
                            • The fact is that we have seen more unstable and aggressive weather changes in the past years


                            The NASA graph only works if all of the data contradicting Antarctic ice cores are ignored. Only Antarctic ice cores show this rise to be anomalous. Greenland ice cores and plant stomata demonstrate that modern CO2 levels are barely anomalous.Fossil plant stomata data conclusively demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 levels have routinely been 300-350 ppmv and occasionally higher throughout the Holocene. (Older is to the left).



                            Wagner et al., 1999. Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration. Science 18 June 1999: Vol. 284 no. 5422 pp. 1971-1973
                            In contrast to conventional ice core estimates of 270 to 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), the stomatal frequency signal suggests that early Holocene carbon dioxide concentrations were well above 300 ppmv.

                            []

                            Most of the Holocene ice core records from Antarctica do not have adequate temporal resolution.

                            []

                            Our results falsify the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. SI-based CO2 reconstructions may even suggest that, during the early Holocene, atmospheric CO2 concentrations that were .300 ppmv could have been the rule rather than the exception.

                            Wagner et al., 2004. Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency. Quaternary Science Reviews. 23 (2004) 19471954
                            The majority of the stomatal frequency-based estimates of CO 2 for the Holocene do not support the widely accepted concept of comparably stable CO2 concentrations throughout the past 11,500 years. To address the critique that these stomatal frequency variations result from local environmental change or methodological insufficiencies, multiple stomatal frequency records were compared for three climatic key periods during the Holocene, namely the Preboreal oscillation, the 8.2 kyr cooling event and the Little Ice Age. The highly comparable fluctuations in the paleo-atmospheric CO2 records, which were obtained from different continents and plant species (deciduous angiosperms as well as conifers) using varying calibration approaches, provide strong evidence for the integrity of leaf-based CO2 quantification.

                            Van Hoof et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 during the 13th century AD: reconciliation of data from ice core measurements and stomatal frequency analysis. Tellus 57B (2005), 4
                            Atmospheric CO2 reconstructions are currently available from direct measurements of air enclosures in Antarctic ice and, alternatively, from stomatal frequency analysis performed on fossil leaves. A period where both methods consistently provide evidence for natural CO2 changes is during the 13th century AD. The results of the two independent methods differ significantly in the amplitude of the estimated CO2 changes (10 ppmv ice versus 34 ppmv stomatal frequency). Here, we compare the stomatal frequency and ice core results by using a firn diffusion model in order to assess the potential influence of smoothing during enclosure on the temporal resolution as well as the amplitude of the CO2 changes. The seemingly large discrepancies between the amplitudes estimated by the contrasting methods diminish when the raw stomatal data are smoothed in an analogous way to the natural smoothing which occurs in the firn.

                            The plant stomata data clearly show that preindustrial atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher and far more variable than indicated by Antarctic ice cores. Which means that the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the 1800′s is not particularly anomalous and at least half of it is due to oceanic and biosphere responses to the warm-up from the Little Ice Age. (Older is to the left).



                            From 1751-1875, atmospheric CO2 rose at ten time the rate of anthropogenic emissions. This CO2 was out-gassed from warming oceans.



                            Atmospheric CO2 actually stopped rising and possibly declined from 1940-1955, despite rising emissions, because cooling oceans were absorbing the CO2.



                            The ice core resolution problem was highlighted very well in this paper...
                            The stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 1940s and 1950s is a notable feature in the ice core record. The new high density measurements confirm this result and show that CO2 concentrations stabilized at 310 312 ppm from 19401955. The CH4 and N2O growth rates also decreased during this period, although the N2O variation is comparable to the measurement uncertainty. Smoothing due to enclosure of air in the ice (about 10 years at DE08) removes high frequency variations from the record, so the true atmospheric variation may have been larger than represented in the ice core air record. Even a decrease in the atmospheric CO2 concentration during the mid-1940s is consistent with the Law Dome record and the air enclosure smoothing, suggesting a large additional sink of 3.0 PgC yr 1 [Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The d13CO2 record during this time suggests that this additional sink was mostly oceanic and not caused by lower fossil emissions or the terrestrial biosphere [Etheridge et al., 1996; Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The processes that could cause this response are still unknown.

                            MacFarling Meure, C., D. Etheridge, C. Trudinger, P. Steele, R. Langenfelds, T. van Ommen, A. Smith, and J. Elkins. 2006. The Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O Ice Core Records Extended to 2000 years BP. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, No. 14, L14810 10.1029/2006GL026152.

                            CO2 levels could have declined during the mid-20th century cooling and the DE-08 core would not have resolved it.

                            Anthropogenic emissions did not "catch up" to the rise in atmospheric CO2 until 1960.



                            Atmospheric CO2 was on track to reach 320-345 ppmv by the early 21st century before athropogenic emissions became significant...



                            CO2 chronologies constructed from plant stomata indicate that Holocene CO2 levels have routinely reached 320-360 ppmv in response to multi-decadal and millennial scale natural warming cycles.

                            CO2 is not hazardous to human health health below 5000 ppmv. C3 plants suffer from carbon starvation at less than 200 ppnv CO2. CO2 has risen from ~280 ppmv to ~400 ppmv since the mid-1800's.

                            Late Pleistocene glacial stages routinely experienced CO2 starvation and the modern levels are barely elevated.The entire instrumental record (Mauna Loa Observatory) doesn't even break out of the Cenozoic noise level. (Older is to the left).



                            CO2 levels have been cycling downward for half-a-billion years. (Older is to the right).



                            Modern CO2 levels are almost indistinguishable from the carbon starvation levels of the Pleistocene glacial stages. (Older is generally to the right).

                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Savez View Post
                              Global warming does not exist.
                              Opinion noted
                              "The people never have the power, only the illusion of it. And here is the real secret: they don't want it. The responsibility is too great to bear. It's why they are so quick to fall in line as soon as someone else takes charge."
                              "

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ace View Post
                                Opinion noted
                                It hasn't existed since the end of the 20th century. This is fact...


                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X