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

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part II
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 . . . 28 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20435
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1190525 - Posted: 1 Feb 2012, 0:53:55 UTC - in response to Message 1190515.  

I thought we were now into a triple dip ?

Or are people hoping for a lucky dip?...


We can shape our own consequences just as we can control our own pollution...

Still our only one planet,
Martin



Blue Man Group on Global Warming
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1190525 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1190531 - Posted: 1 Feb 2012, 1:16:19 UTC

We can shape our own consequences just as we can control our own pollution...


Yup, can start by banning the use of diesel...this stuff becomes an out
and out killer once burnt in an engine and the fumes emitted to atmosphere.




The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.
ID: 1190531 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1190957 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 14:33:37 UTC - in response to Message 1190531.  

Banning diesel would stop all deliveries via semi truck and railroad. You would starve unless you had a farm with animals and a multi-crop garden.
ID: 1190957 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30717
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1190962 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 15:00:22 UTC - in response to Message 1190957.  

Banning diesel would stop all deliveries via semi truck and railroad. You would starve unless you had a farm with animals and a multi-crop garden.

Proof that the hype warmists issue is religion, not science.

ID: 1190962 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20435
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1190991 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 16:50:11 UTC - in response to Message 1190962.  
Last modified: 2 Feb 2012, 16:58:13 UTC

Banning diesel would stop all deliveries via semi truck and railroad. You would starve unless you had a farm with animals and a multi-crop garden.

Proof that the hype warmists issue is religion, not science.

Indeed, proof that the hype-denialists are determined to recklessly burn our planet for cheap at the cost of everyone else.


Nothing was said about BANNING the use of diesel... And certainly not just overnight.

However, due care should be taken that diesel is a health hazard and an environmental hazard, and all the more so when burnt.

Part of the pollution from burning diesel is soot which is bad for us humans and for the planet. Such great quantities of soot are produced that by merely just putting a filter on the exhausts of diesel engines (including those of shipping), we can directly reduce a significant man-made warming factor.


So what ya want: A filter and less pollution for cheap? Or just to blithely trash the place in gay reckless abandon?

Ignorant or what?


And there are alternatives also...

Still our only one planet,
Martin



Blue Man Group on Global Warming
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1190991 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1191015 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 18:38:18 UTC - in response to Message 1190957.  

Banning diesel would stop all deliveries via semi truck and railroad. You would starve unless you had a farm with animals and a multi-crop garden.


Will, there would obviously have to be exceptions to this banning. But
a good start would be to stop cars and light commercial vehicles from
using it.



The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.
ID: 1191015 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1191038 - Posted: 2 Feb 2012, 20:18:05 UTC
Last modified: 2 Feb 2012, 20:19:11 UTC

Nobody mentions the sub-micron (<0.5 micron) soot particles produced by petrol engines which are far more dangerous than the 8 micron to 10 micron soot particles from diesel combustion.

The danger from particles of <1 micron is the scilla in the mucuous passages let then straight through to the lung alvaeoli and then across the lung gas membrane in to the blood stream.

Larger soot particles get caught in the mucus membranes and give you dirty snot.

The fine particles from petrol cannot be caught in soot filter catalysts as are now being deployed on light commercial and private cars in Europe.

The danger from diesel is the fuel burns hotter than petrol and as a result produces higher quantities of NOx. That is why EGR is now common to cool each combustion stroke, and urea catalysts are being used to reduce or eliminate the higher NOx to less than petrol.
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 1191038 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30717
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1191114 - Posted: 3 Feb 2012, 1:55:31 UTC - in response to Message 1190991.  

Banning diesel would stop all deliveries via semi truck and railroad. You would starve unless you had a farm with animals and a multi-crop garden.

Proof that the hype warmists issue is religion, not science.

Nothing was said about BANNING the use of diesel... And certainly not just overnight.

Martin, you quoted a banning diesel post in your reply, perhaps you should see an eye doctor? Unless it is an American vs British English issue.

No one is saying you said it. Nick posted it most recently in Message 1190531


ID: 1191114 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20435
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1194504 - Posted: 12 Feb 2012, 20:53:32 UTC - in response to Message 1190023.  

... Do you not think it 'curious' that he has to publish in a newspaper rather than a respected scientific journal? ...

... There will be comment enough when others debunk the continued FUD. ...

More interesting is why such an opinion piece now? Perhaps to deflect from the BP Gulf oil spill that is back in the news for the moment?...


And so it begins, and my guess on that one was wrong...


Scientists unite to challenge global warming

... TIM FLANNERY: The essence of their argument is that if you are an elected politician, you don't need to worry about acting on climate change and it is not surprising again to see that coming out in the middle of a Republican race when there is a chance that one of the Republicans may decide that climate change doesn't need addressing. There has been no rethink on the science of climate change. There is broad public acceptance globally of the need for action.

You know it is only in Canada, the US and Australia that there is even a political debate really at all. ...



There's some excellent Climate Denial soundbites in there that are just far too slick not to be a setup. Oh, and the 'scientists' listed turn out to be retired or not even scientists at all (and easily bought?)... All intelligent people I'm sure, but why be swept up in this?

And the bit where I'm wrong?... Nothing to do with BP but merely a USA political game?


And so that little bit of silliness has been thoroughly debunked and trashed and my summary was perhaps a little too simple...


Panic Attack: Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal Finds 16 Scientists to Push Pollutocrat Agenda With Long-Debunked Climate Lies

... That the WSJ would publish an amateurish collection of falsehoods and half truths is no surprise. The entire global Murdoch enterprise is designed to advance the pollutocrat do-nothing agenda...

... As National Academy of Sciences member Peter Gleick explains in his evisceration of the piece, “Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal“:

But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter...

... Science magazine – perhaps the nation’s most important journal on scientific issues – published the letter from the NAS members after the Journal turned it down.

A tad more surprising is that 16 admittedly non-leading scientists would choose to soil their reputations by stringing together a collection of long-debunked falsehoods. What is surprising is that these falsehoods are more easily debunked than the typical disinformer clap-trap because they are so out-of-date!

Guys, if you’re going to push disinformation, you have to do better...



The sad thing is that in the media game, the hopelessly biased sponsored 'disingenuous' trash article in the WSJ is likely the only thing many will have read and remember... Can that journal be sued for the wanton slandering of a large part of science?...

Stupid! And to my mind, fraudulent.


Still our only one planet for everyone,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1194504 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19123
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1195458 - Posted: 15 Feb 2012, 7:35:31 UTC

ID: 1195458 · Report as offensive
Profile archangel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Apr 01
Posts: 62
Credit: 1,842,428
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1195588 - Posted: 15 Feb 2012, 14:05:35 UTC
Last modified: 15 Feb 2012, 14:11:00 UTC

Why limit the total atmospheric CO2 content to just the past 2.1 million years in your title?

Why not go back 150 million years, to the start of the cretaceous, when it was 66 times what it is today, and on the upswing?

With the average global temp in a deep plunge as well, i might add...

Or jump forward, 100 million years from that, with CO2 levels 30X higher than what they are today, steadily in decline, and with Earths average temp spiking at near records.

Or, heaven forbid, you jump back 600 million years, with CO2 levels off the charts, and earth maintaining its longest ever stable period of temperature norms, during its most prolific life genesis cycle...That we know of.



Frankly, as we sit here today in earths lowest ever levels of CO2 atmospheric content, I find the doom and gloom and dire predictions to be vaguely reminiscent of my Aunt Oree and her Church of Christ companions warning, "The End Times Are At Hand!"...

Of course she died many years back, and the "End of Days' did not come, in her lifetime, as they were all convinced by their limited evidence that it would...

Or the hundred lifetimes before that...

Neither did the sky fall for chicken little...

When based against any kind of geological evidence, the support for such a belief simply evaporates.

Earth has been thousands of times higher in CO2 concentrations on multiple occasions in the past... There was no "runaway effect" then, and there won't be today either, particularly with us at the lowest levels in geological history.

Intentionally limiting yourself to a very narrow window of 2.1 million years just to support your claim for a statistically significant rise is intellectually dishonest.

Period.
ID: 1195588 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20435
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1195653 - Posted: 15 Feb 2012, 18:00:21 UTC - in response to Message 1195458.  

Not going to say anything on the subject, just a link,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

Indeed an unfortunately telling multimillion dollar disinformation campaign. Dirty tricks indeed...

And the Science be damned...


"Creationism" anyone?

Still our only world,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1195653 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20435
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1195660 - Posted: 15 Feb 2012, 18:04:20 UTC - in response to Message 1195588.  
Last modified: 15 Feb 2012, 18:07:30 UTC

Why limit the total atmospheric CO2 content to just the past 2.1 million years in your title?

Why not go back 150 million years, to the start of the cretaceous, when it was 66 times what it is today, and on the upswing? ...

Period.


Simply, Mankind was not around during those earlier periods. Hell, you're stirring unrepresentative FUD by going right back to before life began!

We have enjoyed a beautifully benign period of climate and weather which is an important one of a few reasons why our civilization has flourished. Shame we're ever more quickly polluting ourselves to quickly and radically changing the very environment that has allowed us to flourish...


Note the earlier article about the "carbon bubble" that the fossil fuels industry is fighting... Including the funding of the "Heartland Institute"?...


Dirty stuff... All at a very high cost to us all.

All in our only world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1195660 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30717
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1195719 - Posted: 15 Feb 2012, 19:33:16 UTC - in response to Message 1195660.  

Why limit the total atmospheric CO2 content to just the past 2.1 million years in your title?

Why not go back 150 million years, to the start of the cretaceous, when it was 66 times what it is today, and on the upswing? ...

Period.


Simply, Mankind was not around during those earlier periods. Hell, you're stirring unrepresentative FUD by going right back to before life began!

http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/when-did-life-on-earth-begin-ask-a-rock
"Before life began" Better start retracting Martin. You are off over an order of magnitude.

ID: 1195719 · Report as offensive
Profile archangel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Apr 01
Posts: 62
Credit: 1,842,428
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1195721 - Posted: 15 Feb 2012, 19:40:50 UTC - in response to Message 1195660.  
Last modified: 15 Feb 2012, 19:42:56 UTC

Why limit the total atmospheric CO2 content to just the past 2.1 million years in your title?

Why not go back 150 million years, to the start of the cretaceous, when it was 66 times what it is today, and on the upswing? ...

Period.


Simply, Mankind was not around during those earlier periods. Hell, you're stirring unrepresentative FUD by going right back to before life began!

We have enjoyed a beautifully benign period of climate and weather which is an important one of a few reasons why our civilization has flourished. Shame we're ever more quickly polluting ourselves to quickly and radically changing the very environment that has allowed us to flourish...


Note the earlier article about the "carbon bubble" that the fossil fuels industry is fighting... Including the funding of the "Heartland Institute"?...


Dirty stuff... All at a very high cost to us all.

All in our only world,
Martin


Human kind wasn't around 2.1 million years ago either...

We've only been around half a million years, not even a blip of geological time.

Regardless of your position on this, it is obvious to all that of that half a million years, we've only been out of caves and cutting trees for about 30,000...

Which limits the scope of your affected timeline to that...

That said, there is no evidence that any extremely tiny movement we are seeing in the global CO2 level in our pico-second of geological blip on the frame is related to us at all.

Beyond that, there is further absolutely no indication that the current environment we enjoy is by any means the best possible environment. The scale i posted and refer to goes back only 600 million years. Higher life began over 1 billion years ago, so it is nowhere near 'before life began'... Life was not wiped out, the earth didn't turn to desert, nor did the oceans rise and cover the lands even when the climate was orders of magnitude warmer and richer in CO2.

Rather, the earth had it's richest and most diverse boom in species diversion during those times.

Even if you forget the facts and allow the argument, (which i don't), that CO2 is rising unchecked, even if you allow that we are the cause, (which i don't), then you cannot automatically assume that it will lead to negative consequences for either humanity or the planet as a whole.

Frankly, the evidence points to the complete opposite.
ID: 1195721 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20435
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1195828 - Posted: 16 Feb 2012, 0:14:35 UTC - in response to Message 1195719.  

Why limit the total atmospheric CO2 content to just the past 2.1 million years in your title?

Why not go back 150 million years, to the start of the cretaceous, when it was 66 times what it is today, and on the upswing? ...

Period.


Simply, Mankind was not around during those earlier periods. Hell, you're stirring unrepresentative FUD by going right back to before life began!

http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/when-did-life-on-earth-begin-ask-a-rock
"Before life began" Better start retracting Martin. You are off over an order of magnitude.

Ahhhh... So you can read charts and graphs after all?

So you should know about the Cambrian explosion (of life) and also how the early life changed our atmosphere from CO2 rich to O2 rich. That was millions of years ago, long long before Mankind and industry.

Also note the relatively stable periods of temperature and how they appear to change between different stable levels extremely rapidly...

Have you no concern that our measurably very rapid change in atmospheric CO2 concentration is not going to kick another very rapid jump to a new (different) stable temperature and a whole new set of weather systems from that?... (Oh, and we do know it is mankind generating the excess CO2 from matching against worldwide economies and also radioisotope measurements).


Still our only one planet,
and we're rapidly changing that in less than one pixel width of your chart...

Regards,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1195828 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20435
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1195831 - Posted: 16 Feb 2012, 0:19:10 UTC - in response to Message 1195721.  
Last modified: 16 Feb 2012, 0:20:54 UTC

... We've only been around half a million years, not even a blip of geological time.

[...]

Even if you forget the facts and allow the argument, (which i don't), that CO2 is rising unchecked, even if you allow that we are the cause, (which i don't), then you cannot automatically assume that it will lead to negative consequences for either humanity or the planet as a whole.

Frankly, the evidence points to the complete opposite.

Which makes the changes we are making over just the last half century all the more remarkable for how very quickly we are changing the atmosphere for the world and the chemistry for the rain and lakes and oceans. The changes are so rapid even for just looking over the last ten years that the changes are very unnatural.

Any big upheaval in society, whether political or environmental, is invariably for the worse... People die during the change.


Your 'contrarian' denialist 'evidence' is what exactly?


All on our only planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1195831 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30717
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1195887 - Posted: 16 Feb 2012, 3:39:27 UTC - in response to Message 1195828.  

So you should know about the Cambrian explosion (of life) and also how the early life changed our atmosphere from CO2 rich to O2 rich. That was millions of years ago, long long before Mankind and industry.

Yes, that was a horrible thing that happened. Earth should not have the amount of O2 is has and is seriously lacking in CO2. It should be man's duty to rectify that and return the planet to its natural state.

If you look at the chart you will see times when CO2 changed rapidly and nothing happened to the temperature; you will also see times when the temperature changed rapidly and the CO2 was stable. That appears to give a ZERO correlation factor between global temperature and CO2 level.

ID: 1195887 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20435
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1195950 - Posted: 16 Feb 2012, 10:46:29 UTC - in response to Message 1195887.  

Yes, that was a horrible thing that happened. Earth should not have the amount of O2 is has and is seriously lacking in CO2. It should be man's duty to rectify that and return the planet to its natural state. ...

I think that nicely sums up you line of frivolous argument... And you do appear to completely ignore our present epoch...

I'll leave you to your make-believe world of trolling.

Still our only planet that we are polluting,

Regards,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1195950 · Report as offensive
Profile archangel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Apr 01
Posts: 62
Credit: 1,842,428
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1195996 - Posted: 16 Feb 2012, 14:58:29 UTC - in response to Message 1195950.  

Yes, that was a horrible thing that happened. Earth should not have the amount of O2 is has and is seriously lacking in CO2. It should be man's duty to rectify that and return the planet to its natural state. ...

I think that nicely sums up you line of frivolous argument... And you do appear to completely ignore our present epoch...

I'll leave you to your make-believe world of trolling.

Still our only planet that we are polluting,

Regards,
Martin


ROFL... Whose make believe world?

I'm sorry, but there is simply no evidence to quantify anything you suggest.

"Which makes the changes we are making over just the last half century all the more remarkable for how very quickly we are changing the atmosphere"

We? or Thee?

You seem to be absolutely sure not only that the very minor rise in C02 levels in the last 'half century', while at global mean lows are our fault, but further that they will have devastating consequences.

And you accuse us of frivolity and ignoring the present epoch?

Pot, meet kettle.

The fact is, our pathetic 30,000 years out of the cave is so statistically insignificant on the timeline of life on this planet, that there is *no* evidence that if we were to systematically and globally set our minds to producing as much CO2 as humanly possible, we would even be able to approach documented historic levels... Which not only did not destroy the planet, but gave rise to the most significant period of ecological diversity ever know to the scientific world.

We will simply have to agree to disagree. You look a the data and see a black page. I look at the data and see a blank page.

Our conclusions are too far apart to rectify.

ID: 1195996 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 . . . 28 · Next

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


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.