Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III

Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 . . . 29 · Next
Author Message
Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,263,260
RAC: 1,439
United Kingdom
Message 1267472 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 10:00:10 UTC - in response to Message 1267193.

Moved from the tropics to the pole in 52 million years? That is an average speed of just over 1 mile per hour. Learn something new every day!

I don't agree with your arithmetic, but it is good to learn something new each day. Even better is to learn a few new things.

Also good is to stay with the here and now. The dinosaurs were a long time ago...


This is our only planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,263,260
RAC: 1,439
United Kingdom
Message 1267475 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 10:16:19 UTC
Last modified: 4 Aug 2012, 10:16:55 UTC

And yet we subsidise yet more fossil fuels pollution:

British Gas parent to grab £500m North Sea gas tax break

The government has announced a new tax relief for operators of shallow-water gas fields in the UK...


Should we not instead be subsiding faster development of non-polluting power?...

Despite all the FUD articles from the fossil fuels sympathisers, the USA and UK could easily be self-sufficient and non-polluting. There's an article claiming that is easily doable before the retirement of existing polluting power plants...


All on our only planet...
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2646
Credit: 1,181,864
RAC: 128
United States
Message 1267485 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 11:24:24 UTC - in response to Message 1267475.
Last modified: 4 Aug 2012, 11:40:43 UTC

This past month I used 5000 kilowatt hours of electricity . This was primarily to cool my home against the putative global warming. Peak demand was probably 20 KW. This would be when my ovens were going at the same time as my three Air Conditioning units and a dryer running as well. If you are worried about my gas stove and water heater and furnaces then raise the peak demand to 50 Kilo watts.

What can you sell me a solar system for with batteries to meet this demand at night including installation costs and replacement of the appliances and heaters that i have mentioned.

The world is on it's ass now due to high energy costs. Stupid, feel good and ineffective regulation and pursuit of more expensive, impractical schemes will only hasten our economic demise. I view such advocates, however well-intentioned, as enemies of the state and anathema to civilization since they would destroy society if left to their own desires--despite their claims to the opposite.

For everyone's edification. Recent huge natural gas discoveries in the US and elsewhere have made gas-fired electrical plants now competitive with coal. This should be a boon to the environmentalist kooks. The promise of bringing Saudi Arabia-sized energy amounts to the market via gas pipelines in the near future is a reality. This has convinced the people holding gas off of the market that it's likely that the highest price for gas is right now . Therefore the price is currently driven down. So let's not rail against a win-win situation and let's not let the price of natural gas be controlled by a monopoly, ala OPEC.

Another good environmental rant by Daddio

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 9130
Credit: 37,709,562
RAC: 36,426
United States
Message 1267509 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 13:37:07 UTC - in response to Message 1267193.
Last modified: 4 Aug 2012, 13:41:09 UTC

Antarctica once covered in palm trees scientists discover
Must have been something putting out all that CO2 for that to happen. One thing is sure though, it wasn't man! Oh wait, they said it wasn't CO2 that did the warming. Again, it looks like we know squat about global climate patterns, so we have more FUD based on GIGO models.


Antartica was not allways where it is.

Really?
An intense warming phase occurred 52 million years ago, leading tropical vegetation, including palms and relatives of today's tropical Baobab trees, to grow on the continent’s now frozen coasts.

Moved from the tropics to the pole in 52 million years? That is an average speed of just over 1 mile per hour. Learn something new every day!


Its been moving for at least 170 million years. read this link for a daily lesson.geology lesson

edit~ Ma is a unit of time that = one million years.
____________

Old James

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13206
Credit: 7,985,006
RAC: 16,173
United States
Message 1267610 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 18:39:12 UTC - in response to Message 1267472.

Moved from the tropics to the pole in 52 million years? That is an average speed of just over 1 mile per hour. Learn something new every day!

I don't agree with your arithmetic, but it is good to learn something new each day. Even better is to learn a few new things.

Intentionally wrong just to see if any of the FUD promoters are paying attention.

In any case the abnormal period of global cold we find ourselves in, is abnormal.

As to tipping points, numerical integration tends to do that as round off errors accumulate.

In any case when you plug the CO2 level from 52My ago into the model, the result isn't tropics in Antarctica. Clearly something is wrong with the model. GIGO.

____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,263,260
RAC: 1,439
United Kingdom
Message 1267625 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 19:03:56 UTC - in response to Message 1267610.
Last modified: 4 Aug 2012, 19:04:46 UTC

I don't agree with your arithmetic, but it is good to learn something new each day. Even better is to learn a few new things.

Intentionally wrong just to see if any of the FUD promoters are paying attention.

In any case the abnormal period of global cold we find ourselves in, is abnormal.

As to tipping points, numerical integration tends to do that as round off errors accumulate.

In any case when you plug the CO2 level from 52My ago into the model, the result isn't tropics in Antarctica. Clearly something is wrong with the model. GIGO.

Sorry, can't discuss or argue with your random unreal off-beat comments/rants.

Please enlighten us when you can say something factual rather than random FUD randomness.


As the good advice goes... Don't feed the trolls.

Good luck with your world!


All in our only world,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,263,260
RAC: 1,439
United Kingdom
Message 1267627 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 19:09:22 UTC - in response to Message 1267485.
Last modified: 4 Aug 2012, 19:09:55 UTC

This past month I used 5000 kilowatt hours of electricity . This was primarily to cool my home against the putative global warming. Peak demand was probably 20 KW. This would be when my ovens were going at the same time as my three Air Conditioning units and a dryer running as well. If you are worried about my gas stove and water heater and furnaces then raise the peak demand to 50 Kilo watts.

What can you sell me a solar system for with batteries to meet this demand at night including installation costs and replacement of the appliances and heaters that i have mentioned. ...

Sounds like you're 'cooking' in all respects. All the more reason to not cook you goose (or arse) any faster!

And noone would go personal solar-electric and batteries for your claimed peak power demands.


However, there is a lot more to the energy game than 'just' solar-electric.

Also, is your all-available 'cheap' gas still cost effective if it were to be made to be non-polluting?

You might get that gas on the cheap. Everyone else later has to pay for your pollution...


All in our only world,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,263,260
RAC: 1,439
United Kingdom
Message 1267636 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 19:27:05 UTC - in response to Message 1267485.

... What can you sell me a solar system for with batteries to meet this demand at night including installation costs and replacement of the appliances and heaters that i have mentioned. ...

If you're willing to consider the entire 'picture' and not attempt to scapegoat any one technology:

Renewable energy in Australia: Future prospects

2010
Australia could entirely transition to renewable energy within the 2010 decade by building 12 very large scale solar power plants (3500 MW each), which would provide 60% of electricity used, and 6500 7.5 MW wind turbines, which would supply most of the remaining 40%, along with other changes, according to the "Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan" ...

... The cost of oil, post peak oil, is increasing, and without converting now to 100% renewable sources the world will pay an additional USD$8 trillion over the next 25 years - and then convert to 100% renewable [regardless].



This is our only planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13206
Credit: 7,985,006
RAC: 16,173
United States
Message 1267710 - Posted: 4 Aug 2012, 22:06:28 UTC - in response to Message 1267625.

Sorry, can't discuss or argue with your random unreal off-beat comments/rants.

So sad when you head is buried so deep in the sand that you can't see the errors in your own data.

____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,263,260
RAC: 1,439
United Kingdom
Message 1268322 - Posted: 6 Aug 2012, 11:14:15 UTC - in response to Message 1267710.
Last modified: 6 Aug 2012, 11:15:04 UTC

Sorry, can't discuss or argue with your random unreal off-beat comments/rants.

So sad when you head is buried so deep in the sand that you can't see the errors in your own data.

Just as for the example for your Antarctic palm trees?


Here's a broadcast summary using easy journalist's language:

BBC Radio 'video': Palm trees grew on the Antarctic 50 million years ago

Researchers have discovered that temperatures in Antarctica 50 million years ago were warm enough for palm trees to grow.

They suggest it provides a warning for what is to come if global warming continues. ...



Again: Note the 50 million years ago, and the fact that humans were not there.

Note the "now" where we humans are using our industry to recreate those conditions... Measurably ever more quickly and ever more certainly.


So where do you put your head? You have a choice of sand, water, or another planet... Or are you old enough to be a "don't care for the rest of the world"?


All on our only planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13206
Credit: 7,985,006
RAC: 16,173
United States
Message 1268370 - Posted: 6 Aug 2012, 13:56:33 UTC - in response to Message 1268322.

Sorry, can't discuss or argue with your random unreal off-beat comments/rants.

So sad when you head is buried so deep in the sand that you can't see the errors in your own data.

Just as for the example for your Antarctic palm trees?


Here's a broadcast summary using easy journalist's language:

BBC Radio 'video': Palm trees grew on the Antarctic 50 million years ago

Researchers have discovered that temperatures in Antarctica 50 million years ago were warm enough for palm trees to grow.

They suggest it provides a warning for what is to come if global warming continues. ...



Again: Note the 50 million years ago, and the fact that humans were not there.

Note the "now" where we humans are using our industry to recreate those conditions... Measurably ever more quickly and ever more certainly.

Thank you for proving the point. 50 million years ago CO2 levels were far lower than today and the planet was far hotter. You have just disproved the connection between CO2 levels and planet temperature.

So where do you put your head? You have a choice of sand, water, or another planet... Or are you old enough to be a "don't care for the rest of the world"?


All on our only planet,
Martin

I place my head in valid data, not in declaring that a valid datum must be false because it does not support my predetermined conclusion.

____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,263,260
RAC: 1,439
United Kingdom
Message 1268379 - Posted: 6 Aug 2012, 14:36:44 UTC - in response to Message 1268370.
Last modified: 6 Aug 2012, 14:54:23 UTC

I place my head in valid data, not in declaring that a valid datum must be false because it does not support my predetermined conclusion.

Only in your dreams. You cannot just "make it all up" and have everyone believe your say-so. Produce some valid reliable research to back up your claims, or please troll elsewhere.

Note how you continue to selectively ignore most of this thread and the last 200 years or so to continue to just make wild claims... You on the payroll of the fossil fuels FUD?...

Sorry, enough of pandering to your FUD.


Meanwhile, world politics is slowly acknowledging CO2 pollution. The question has moved on to whether world politics can move quickly enough to avert too great a disaster...

All in our only world,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,263,260
RAC: 1,439
United Kingdom
Message 1268381 - Posted: 6 Aug 2012, 14:41:33 UTC
Last modified: 6 Aug 2012, 14:55:38 UTC

Yet more recent valid data that the 'denialists' and 'sceptics' disbelieve:


Ocean acidification disrupting food chains

... As more and more carbon dioxide is generated by human beings, it becomes dissolved in the oceans, making them more acidic. And according to British, Australian and Singaporean scientists, this is affecting the size and weight of shells and skeletons, in a trend affecting many marine species.

As these creatures are an important food source for marine predators - and human beings - there could be effects on the global food chain. ...



Which rolls back a few years to the first of this thread to that very subject. Meanwhile, the consequences worsen...


There is a saying that you can watch the river flood and get washed away just the same. We are long long overdue from just merely watching to now desperately needing to do something positive about CO2 pollution.


All on our only one planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13206
Credit: 7,985,006
RAC: 16,173
United States
Message 1268402 - Posted: 6 Aug 2012, 15:55:56 UTC - in response to Message 1268379.

I place my head in valid data, not in declaring that a valid datum must be false because it does not support my predetermined conclusion.

Only in your dreams. You cannot just "make it all up" and have everyone believe your say-so. Produce some valid reliable research to back up your claims, or please troll elsewhere.

It is persons like you who dismiss valid science and claim it has to be false because it doesn't fit your predetermined conclusion. You know this is happening when people say only look at a portion of the data set. e.g. the last 200 years. If the science is valid, it is valid 50 million years ago as well as today.

The only thing "made up" is the connection between CO2 and global warming. If it doesn't work 50 million years ago, it doesn't work today.

____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,263,260
RAC: 1,439
United Kingdom
Message 1268407 - Posted: 6 Aug 2012, 16:15:58 UTC - in response to Message 1268402.
Last modified: 6 Aug 2012, 16:17:18 UTC

I place my head in valid data, not in declaring that a valid datum must be false because it does not support my predetermined conclusion.

Only in your dreams. You cannot just "make it all up" and have everyone believe your say-so. Produce some valid reliable research to back up your claims, or please troll elsewhere.

It is persons like you who dismiss valid science and claim it has to be false because it doesn't fit your predetermined conclusion. You know this is happening when people say only look at a portion of the data set. e.g. the last 200 years. If the science is valid, it is valid 50 million years ago as well as today.

The only thing "made up" is the connection between CO2 and global warming. If it doesn't work 50 million years ago, it doesn't work today.

CO2 has exactly the same effect as always, and throughout the entire history of the Earth. You can chase and dream up anything you like from the days of the dinosaurs. Meanwhile, we have the here and now.

It is only you who is creating your own 'reality' to ignore the real world around you.


Sorry, you have demonstrated that you have no wish to discuss the real world about you. Sorry, but I must label you a devout Denier and a Troll.

Enjoy your world. Please do not pollute the world for everyone else.


Regards,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13206
Credit: 7,985,006
RAC: 16,173
United States
Message 1268501 - Posted: 6 Aug 2012, 19:19:05 UTC - in response to Message 1268407.
Last modified: 6 Aug 2012, 19:20:05 UTC

I place my head in valid data, not in declaring that a valid datum must be false because it does not support my predetermined conclusion.

Only in your dreams. You cannot just "make it all up" and have everyone believe your say-so. Produce some valid reliable research to back up your claims, or please troll elsewhere.

It is persons like you who dismiss valid science and claim it has to be false because it doesn't fit your predetermined conclusion. You know this is happening when people say only look at a portion of the data set. e.g. the last 200 years. If the science is valid, it is valid 50 million years ago as well as today.

The only thing "made up" is the connection between CO2 and global warming. If it doesn't work 50 million years ago, it doesn't work today.

CO2 has exactly the same effect as always, and throughout the entire history of the Earth.

Precisely. So the low reading CO2 reading 52 million years ago with it much hotter than now means what? Just remember it works the same then as now, which you just said.

You can chase and dream up anything you like from the days of the dinosaurs.

K-T was 65.5 million years ago, so 52 million years ago puts it in the post dinosaur era. Relevant time frame.

Meanwhile, we have the here and now.

It is only you who is creating your own 'reality' to ignore the real world around you.

It is you who are ignoring the world around you. If the datum doesn't fit your pet theory you reject it. That isn't how science works, that is how religion works.

Sorry, you have demonstrated that you have no wish to discuss the real world about you. Sorry, but I must label you a devout Denier and a Troll.

Enjoy your world. Please do not pollute the world for everyone else.


Regards,
Martin

As you yourself have now proved that CO2 level has little effect on global temperature, you better get your rear in gear and find out what does make a big difference. Then perhaps humanity can do something about the problem. If for no other reason than humans being able to use it as a tool to balance the minor effect of CO2.
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,263,260
RAC: 1,439
United Kingdom
Message 1268537 - Posted: 6 Aug 2012, 22:29:22 UTC - in response to Message 1268501.
Last modified: 6 Aug 2012, 22:30:20 UTC

... 52 million years ago with it much hotter than now means what? ...

Just remember you now need to give a reliable reference to back up your wild dreamy claim and to explain how that fits in with the here and now.

Meanwhile, you also need to explain how you can ignore the rest of this thread...


Remember now, you need to accept the whole of Science and not just the bits that you find 'convenient'...

So?... Your real world credible reference to say that global heating/warming is 'not real' is?...


All on our only one planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13206
Credit: 7,985,006
RAC: 16,173
United States
Message 1268543 - Posted: 6 Aug 2012, 22:50:03 UTC - in response to Message 1268537.

... 52 million years ago with it much hotter than now means what? ...

Just remember you now need to give a reliable reference to back up your wild dreamy claim and to explain how that fits in with the here and now.

Meanwhile, you also need to explain how you can ignore the rest of this thread...


Remember now, you need to accept the whole of Science and not just the bits that you find 'convenient'...

So?... Your real world credible reference to say that global heating/warming is 'not real' is?...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

The Journal Nature:
"The CO2 content of the atmosphere as assumed for that time interval is not enough on its own to explain the almost tropical conditions in the Antarctic," said Jörg Pross, a paleoclimatologist at the Goethe University and member of the Biodiversity and Climate Research Center in Frankfurt, Germany.

Of course you didn't bother and read it simply because I posted the link a while back. Instead you blasted I was full of it.

Now it is on you to show what other factors are bigger than CO2 and caused it, or show it didn't happen. Then on you to show why these bigger factors are not an issue today or revise your model to include them. Then do an engineering study to see if any of these bigger factors can or can't be used to control global warming today. Then perhaps we can talk about CO2 in a rational manner rather than a religious mantra.

Oh, at least I assume you believe Nature is a valid publication and not a deniers rag.

____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,263,260
RAC: 1,439
United Kingdom
Message 1269246 - Posted: 8 Aug 2012, 22:14:37 UTC - in response to Message 1268543.

The Journal Nature:
"The CO2 content of the atmosphere as assumed for that time interval is not enough on its own to explain the almost tropical conditions in the Antarctic," said Jörg Pross, a paleoclimatologist at the Goethe University and member of the Biodiversity and Climate Research Center in Frankfurt, Germany.

Of course you didn't bother and read it simply because I posted the link a while back. Instead you blasted I was full of it.

Indeed you are full of blasting out FUD and misinformation.

Curious how you don't bother to link to your sources, or to give the full quote.

Note: I have read that article. Now... Can you be honest and give the full quote and the full intended meaning for everyone to see?

(Obviously, I'll be posting the honest account, and linked, so that we can see how you play your FUD. Just letting you know to keep you honest ;-) )


This is the only planet we have,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13206
Credit: 7,985,006
RAC: 16,173
United States
Message 1269260 - Posted: 8 Aug 2012, 23:13:50 UTC - in response to Message 1269246.

Curious how you don't bother to link to your sources, or to give the full quote.

Funny, right here. http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=67666&postid=1266760 But because I posted it or you didn't like the source you refused to read it. Just like you refuse to read, quote, or respond to the rest of my post.
Now it is on you to show what other factors are bigger than CO2 and caused it, or show it didn't happen. Then on you to show why these bigger factors are not an issue today or revise your model to include them. Then do an engineering study to see if any of these bigger factors can or can't be used to control global warming today. Then perhaps we can talk about CO2 in a rational manner rather than a religious mantra.

So before you continue with your FUD mission, perhaps you should think about the question at hand. If there are bigger influences than CO2, are you chasing the fools game with CO2? Ask an engineer about optimizing for performance. 99 times out of 100 he will guess wrong where the real bottle neck is. So now that we know CO2 isn't the biggest factor chasing it is the fools game. Time for engineering, not more BS FUD.

Why don't you try a plot of CO2 and the number of humans on the planet. Notice anything? Is there a correlation factor? Remember anything from math class about exponential growth? Anything about linear growth?

You FUD spreaders want to talk about a 10% cut. Well 10% is a linear measure. Just what does that do to an exponential growth curve? NOT A DAMN THING. Time to stop with the utter BS FUD. We need a solution.

So are you spreading FUD and humans aren't the cause and a little mild 10% hair trim will make the world safe, or are you spreading utter BS about a little trim and we need to slash world population by 90%? Time for the engineering and the problem solution. Or are you afraid of it? Why? Have something in the back of you mind telling you your science isn't good?

Maybe we should really look at all the other factors that are bigger than CO2 and see if we can coax one of them into play and save humans. What do you say? Or do you just want to spread more manure? I'll get that answer when you reply. It is okay if you don't have an engineering answer, I don't expect that, but I hope you aren't a FUD and are willing to actually discuss the problem and more importantly the solution.

____________

Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 . . . 29 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III

Copyright © 2014 University of California