boomerangutang Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Some say tom-ah-to and some say to-may-to. I kept using the word global warming for years after it became unfashionable. But now I'm going with the flow and calling it 'Climate Change' because actually: there will be some serious cooling, at least in northern Europe. You've probably heard already, but a warmer overall climate will affect the Atlantic's Gulf Stream. In a nutshell, the warmer water, when it gets to the Arctic region, won't have as much saltiness, and will therefore not plunge as dramatically down to continue the 'conveyor belt' to return southward - down low. Without the warming of the Gulf Stream, northern Europe will become very icy, like Canada or Siberia. It's happened before many times historically, and will happen again. Scandinavians may be able to grow bananas outdoors for a few decades in the latter part of this century, but when the Gulf Stream quits, it's back to dogsleds (or reindeer-powered sleds) on snow. Volvos won't be much good on chunky ice, meters thick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickBradford Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 The Koch Brothers are not only heroes, but they must be supermen. Look at what they've achieved. The Alarmists claim to have 99.9% of the scientists, all the world's scientific institutions, the UN, EU, IMF and World Bank, Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, the media, the insurance industry and the universities, Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. And yet they are still being beaten hollow in the field of climate action. Nothing is done. Always cited as a key reason for the failure to act, are these two elderly and unexceptional brothers from Kansas and their modest (in global terms) industrial conglomerate. And to read the never-ending wails from the Alarmists, these two old dudes are largely responsible for turning the UN's next climate confab (COP21) into nothing more than a mass tourism event with a high carbon footprint. Supermen indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) The Koch Brothers are not only heroes, but they must be supermen. Look at what they've achieved. The Alarmists claim to have 99.9% of the scientists, all the world's scientific institutions, the UN, EU, IMF and World Bank, Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, the media, the insurance industry and the universities, Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. And yet they are still being beaten hollow in the field of climate action. Nothing is done. Always cited as a key reason for the failure to act, are these two elderly and unexceptional brothers from Kansas and their modest (in global terms) industrial conglomerate. And to read the never-ending wails from the Alarmists, these two old dudes are largely responsible for turning the UN's next climate confab (COP21) into nothing more than a mass tourism event with a high carbon footprint. Supermen indeed! Money talks. Hmmm? The Koch Bros. or the National Academy of Scientists? Who can we trust? Edited October 17, 2015 by RidgeRunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickBradford Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Money talks. So it does. Take the non-profit Climate Central, an agit-prop news organisation which says it is: "Researching and reporting the science and impacts of climate change". You may not have heard of them. They've received funding from: The World Bank via The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Energy, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, National Institutes of Health via Johns Hopkins University, National Science Foundation via Columbia University, National Science Foundation via George Mason University, NASA Headquarters, NASA Langley, NOAA CICS (Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites) via North Carolina State University, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Google.org, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The David & Lucile Packard Foundation, Northrup Grumman plus 20 other foundations of various types. And they're still begging for money on their front page. Don't these people know when enough is enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitrevie Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 ^^^ Agreed. With the caveat of whether that is in fact what she said. At this stage we only have the BBC's word for it, as the documentary has not aired. But then again, Ms Blackburn appears not to believe in the theory of evolution, either, which doesn't say a lot for her scientific discrimination. Right. So why is she, "Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, the second-highest ranking member on the House energy committee,"? Because in today's GOP a purported belief in a book of fairy tales trumps all scientific knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 ^^^ Agreed. With the caveat of whether that is in fact what she said. At this stage we only have the BBC's word for it, as the documentary has not aired. But then again, Ms Blackburn appears not to believe in the theory of evolution, either, which doesn't say a lot for her scientific discrimination. Right. So why is she, "Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, the second-highest ranking member on the House energy committee,"? Because in today's GOP a purported belief in a book of fairy tales trumps all scientific knowledge. Boggles the mind. Educated people getting their science from a 2,000 year old book written by goat farmers and content to ignore the latest in scientific research. The USA has presidential candidates that think the universe was created in 6 days. (cue the Twilite Zone music) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 The Alarmists claim to have ...Daryl Hannah I'll take her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickBradford Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Boggles the mind. Educated people getting their science from a 2,000 year old book written by goat farmers and content to ignore the latest in scientific research. The Pope, you mean? After all, he believes in Divine Creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Some say tom-ah-to and some say to-may-to. I kept using the word global warming for years after it became unfashionable. But now I'm going with the flow and calling it 'Climate Change' because actually: there will be some serious cooling, at least in northern Europe. You've probably heard already, but a warmer overall climate will affect the Atlantic's Gulf Stream. In a nutshell, the warmer water, when it gets to the Arctic region, won't have as much saltiness, and will therefore not plunge as dramatically down to continue the 'conveyor belt' to return southward - down low. Without the warming of the Gulf Stream, northern Europe will become very icy, like Canada or Siberia. It's happened before many times historically, and will happen again. Scandinavians may be able to grow bananas outdoors for a few decades in the latter part of this century, but when the Gulf Stream quits, it's back to dogsleds (or reindeer-powered sleds) on snow. Volvos won't be much good on chunky ice, meters thick. You can continue to use both terms as they describe two totally separate issues. Global Warming is where the Earth as a whole increases in temperature. Climate Change is where large regions of Earth shift Climate. Scientists have always used both terms, including now, as they describe two separate events. I doubt you will find ANY scientific research or evidence that the Atlantic Gulf Stream has enough Forcing to alter Global Temperatures and generate a Glaciation (Ice Age). Short term regional variation similar to El Nino, yes. El Nino is shifting heat around the Pacific creating various weather extremes but the Earth as a whole just keeps ticking along continuing to warm. You are correct though the 8.2 kiloyear event when Lake Agssiz and its sister Lake Ojibway emptied probably as much fresh water equal to ALL the fresh water on land today into the North Atlantic altering the salinity and disrupted the 'Atlantic Meridinal Overturning Circulation' which includes the Gulf Stream. This event showed up in GISP2 Ice Cores but when you look at the southern Antarctic Vostok Ice Cores they showed the warming. Swings and roundabouts it will not effect the underlying heating from CO2 trapping heat in the lower Troposphere ensuring any possibility of the Earth cooling or entering a Glaciation (Ice Age). Even the gynormous 8.2 kiloyear event had no effect on global temperatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Boggles the mind. Educated people getting their science from a 2,000 year old book written by goat farmers and content to ignore the latest in scientific research. The Pope, you mean? After all, he believes in Divine Creation. The last 3 Popes have signed off on evolution. Google it. The Papal Academy of Science has thrown in the towel. They are keeping the "soul" theory to themselves though. God places a soul in every baby. Even the Hindus and Muslims that are doomed to eternal damnation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Boggles the mind. Educated people getting their science from a 2,000 year old book written by goat farmers and content to ignore the latest in scientific research. The USA has presidential candidates that think the universe was created in 6 days. (cue the Twilite Zone music) I thought it was 7 days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Boggles the mind. Educated people getting their science from a 2,000 year old book written by goat farmers and content to ignore the latest in scientific research. The USA has presidential candidates that think the universe was created in 6 days. (cue the Twilite Zone music) I thought it was 7 days? Don't you know? God took Sunday off. It's tiring, scattering a trillion galaxies all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Just did a quick scan of the internet and came up with some interesting figures on funding of both global warming and anti-global warming. On the anti-global warming side are two players already mentioned several times on this thread.. The Koch brothers have donated a total of $79,048,951 since 1997, an average of $4.65 Million annually. Exxon Mobil donated some $30 million beginning in 1981 but stopped donating in 2007. On the warming side Tom Steyer spent some $70 million on the 2014 mid-term elections trying to get global warming advocates elected. The elephant in the room for donating to the global warming theory is... The US government. The total for all pertinent departments comes to a rather impressive $21,408,000,000. That's $21.408 Billion. I seriously doubt more than $3.00 of that total went to the anti-global warming side. Following the money will tell you why the scientists are so heavily invested in global warming and keeping the cash cow belching money. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3115a362-20c0-11e5-aa5a-398b2169cf79.html#axzz3okI7tSjX http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf Taxpayers should pay to generate anti global warming climate denial? Most extraordinary suggestion I have ever heard. So when taxpayer funded science provides evidence of global warming the taxpayer should then fund pseudo 'Institutes', 'Foundations', 'Think Tanks','Unscientific Blog Sites' and pay for biased Media and opinion editorial that reject that scientific evidence. Your theory is scientists from all over the world got together to invent global warming to become wealthy by defrauding governments around the world. NASA, NOAA, Berkeley Earth, UKMet all Research Universities around the World have simply made up the evidence? The public should be guided on global warming and climate change by 'Institutions', 'Think Tanks', 'Foundations', 'Blog Sites', 'Media' and 'opinion editorial' funded by the Fossil Fuel Industries? "Taxpayers should pay to generate anti global warming climate denial? Most extraordinary suggestion I have ever heard. As soon as you climb down from your self righteous high horse, please show me where I "suggested" any such thing. It appears your over active imagination isn't limited to the global warming hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Boggles the mind. Educated people getting their science from a 2,000 year old book written by goat farmers and content to ignore the latest in scientific research. The USA has presidential candidates that think the universe was created in 6 days. (cue the Twilite Zone music) I thought it was 7 days? Don't you know? God took Sunday off. It's tiring, scattering a trillion galaxies all over the place. Oh I see. I wouldn't think a god would get tired. Maybe he was a Union member and that was his work place agreement flexiday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Boggles the mind. Educated people getting their science from a 2,000 year old book written by goat farmers and content to ignore the latest in scientific research. The USA has presidential candidates that think the universe was created in 6 days. (cue the Twilite Zone music) I thought it was 7 days? Don't you know? God took Sunday off. It's tiring, scattering a trillion galaxies all over the place. ....Ah....I am pretty sure that is Saturday that he took off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Just did a quick scan of the internet and came up with some interesting figures on funding of both global warming and anti-global warming. On the anti-global warming side are two players already mentioned several times on this thread.. The Koch brothers have donated a total of $79,048,951 since 1997, an average of $4.65 Million annually. Exxon Mobil donated some $30 million beginning in 1981 but stopped donating in 2007. On the warming side Tom Steyer spent some $70 million on the 2014 mid-term elections trying to get global warming advocates elected. The elephant in the room for donating to the global warming theory is... The US government. The total for all pertinent departments comes to a rather impressive $21,408,000,000. That's $21.408 Billion. I seriously doubt more than $3.00 of that total went to the anti-global warming side. Following the money will tell you why the scientists are so heavily invested in global warming and keeping the cash cow belching money. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3115a362-20c0-11e5-aa5a-398b2169cf79.html#axzz3okI7tSjX http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf Taxpayers should pay to generate anti global warming climate denial? Most extraordinary suggestion I have ever heard. So when taxpayer funded science provides evidence of global warming the taxpayer should then fund pseudo 'Institutes', 'Foundations', 'Think Tanks','Unscientific Blog Sites' and pay for biased Media and opinion editorial that reject that scientific evidence. Your theory is scientists from all over the world got together to invent global warming to become wealthy by defrauding governments around the world. NASA, NOAA, Berkeley Earth, UKMet all Research Universities around the World have simply made up the evidence? The public should be guided on global warming and climate change by 'Institutions', 'Think Tanks', 'Foundations', 'Blog Sites', 'Media' and 'opinion editorial' funded by the Fossil Fuel Industries? "Taxpayers should pay to generate anti global warming climate denial? Most extraordinary suggestion I have ever heard. As soon as you climb down from your self righteous high horse, please show me where I "suggested" any such thing. It appears your over active imagination isn't limited to the global warming hoax. Easy to spot the Faux News viewers. "Global Warming Hoax" That's the kind of garbage that Faux News tells our children. Dirty politics at it's worst. A signature of the Roger Ailes campaign stradegy. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) Just did a quick scan of the internet and came up with some interesting figures on funding of both global warming and anti-global warming. On the anti-global warming side are two players already mentioned several times on this thread.. The Koch brothers have donated a total of $79,048,951 since 1997, an average of $4.65 Million annually. Exxon Mobil donated some $30 million beginning in 1981 but stopped donating in 2007. On the warming side Tom Steyer spent some $70 million on the 2014 mid-term elections trying to get global warming advocates elected. The elephant in the room for donating to the global warming theory is... The US government. The total for all pertinent departments comes to a rather impressive $21,408,000,000. That's $21.408 Billion. I seriously doubt more than $3.00 of that total went to the anti-global warming side. Following the money will tell you why the scientists are so heavily invested in global warming and keeping the cash cow belching money. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3115a362-20c0-11e5-aa5a-398b2169cf79.html#axzz3okI7tSjX http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf Taxpayers should pay to generate anti global warming climate denial? Most extraordinary suggestion I have ever heard. So when taxpayer funded science provides evidence of global warming the taxpayer should then fund pseudo 'Institutes', 'Foundations', 'Think Tanks','Unscientific Blog Sites' and pay for biased Media and opinion editorial that reject that scientific evidence. Your theory is scientists from all over the world got together to invent global warming to become wealthy by defrauding governments around the world. NASA, NOAA, Berkeley Earth, UKMet all Research Universities around the World have simply made up the evidence? The public should be guided on global warming and climate change by 'Institutions', 'Think Tanks', 'Foundations', 'Blog Sites', 'Media' and 'opinion editorial' funded by the Fossil Fuel Industries? "Taxpayers should pay to generate anti global warming climate denial? Most extraordinary suggestion I have ever heard. As soon as you climb down from your self righteous high horse, please show me where I "suggested" any such thing. It appears your over active imagination isn't limited to the global warming hoax. Easy to spot the Faux News viewers. "Global Warming Hoax" That's the kind of garbage that Faux News tells our children. Dirty politics at it's worst. A signature of the Roger Ailes campaign stradegy. Sad. It's equally as easy to spot those that believe anybody disagreeing with the liberal progressive mindset is a Fox viewer. It seems that's all they have. Just for the record, I live in a small village in Isaan with TrueVisions only and have been doing so since 2008. Please provide me the channel number for Fox News on TrueVisions so I can watch something besides CNN and BBC. If you can't do that, how about a simple "oops"? Edited October 17, 2015 by chuckd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) *Deleted posts edited out* Fox News right? So this Paper from Dr. Christian George from Lyon Univ. and Prof. Dr. Hartmut Herrmann from Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research is a hoax? They just made it all up? Paper The person governments should be funding is the 'journalist' with absolutely NO scientific qualifications James Dilingpole who got the science totally back to front and totally wrong that the lead scientist Dr. Christian George described his conclusions as 'totally crazy' So ANY scientific evidence that provides evidence of Global Warming and Climate Change we should all just ignore that because it is all just fraudulent.? The person we should be listening to and funding is a journalist with absolutely no scientific credentials James Dilingpole? I don't mean to make you feel inferior I am just trying to understand why you feel we should not fund science and ignore science and listen to unqualified journalists that don't actually seem to understand the science, the 'totally crazy' guy. So ALL science is fraudulent or just the science on Global Warming and Climate Change? Just sounds all totally bizarre to me. Edited October 17, 2015 by Scott 2. Please do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes or wording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) "Taxpayers should pay to generate anti global warming climate denial? Most extraordinary suggestion I have ever heard. As soon as you climb down from your self righteous high horse, please show me where I "suggested" any such thing. It appears your over active imagination isn't limited to the global warming hoax. Easy to spot the Faux News viewers. "Global Warming Hoax" That's the kind of garbage that Faux News tells our children. Dirty politics at it's worst. A signature of the Roger Ailes campaign stradegy. Sad. You beat me to it ridge I spotted that pretty quickly. Parroting Murdoch's Fox News propaganda. Edited October 17, 2015 by metisdead 2. Please do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes or wording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Off-topic posts and replies removed. Stick to posting about the topic and not other posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Dear Up2u2 CFCs can be produced from volcanic eruptions, OK I admit it happens. Nevertheless it does not really affect what I said, man-made chemicals (albeit a group of cpds that can be found in trace amounts naturally) were identified as causing harm to the Ozone Layer. Campaigns were undertaken against the use of those chemicals. Those chemicsls are now banned in most countries and the Ozone Layer is recovering. Surely you don't have a problem with that ?!!!!! I don't understand your mention of pyrene, which is a naturally occurring chemical found mainly in certain species of trees. Man's current generation comes mainly from natural rubber processing, although in the past the processing of coal/coke to produce town-gas would have contributed, as coal was formed from ancient forests. So I would appreciate to know your logic on choosing pyrene. Have a nice day Hi eliot 100% agree with the science on CFC's depleting the Ozone layer and the remedy put in place at the time and now. pyrene? Do you mean the latest Paper on Isoprene? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 The thing that is the route cause of the "debate" is that it is impossible to chemically distinguish between CO2 produced by the activities of mankind and that produced by nature, likewise CH4. The case with CFCs was much more certain as naturally occurring CFCs don't exist and therefore the environmentalists were able to drive a very effective campaign against there production and use. If other man-made chemicals could be linked to the current changes in the Earth's climate then the case would be much stronger. "The thing that is the route cause of the "debate" is that it is impossible to chemically distinguish between CO2 produced by the activities of mankind and that produced by nature" It is very simple to detect the 'fingerprint' of man made CO2. Fossil Fuels are dead plant material deposited many many millions of years ago. Living plant material contains a balance of specific Carbon Isotopes mostly 12C but traces of 13C and 14C. Once a plant dies it stops exchanging Carbon with the atmosphere and over time (+5000 years) the Isotopes 13C and particularly 14C degrade. This is known as the Suess Effect. So take a piece of Coal or a barrel of Oil and we burn it. When the CO2 molecule is analysed we find the resulting molecule is depleted in Isotopes 13CO2 and next to no Isotope 14CO2 So it is a very simple process to arrive at the quantity of Natural CO2 it will be rich in 13C and 14C Isotopes and split out the Fossil Fuel CO2 as it will be depleted in 13C and little to no 14C Isotopes. ( C= Carbon) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Why don't you guys get a room. Only the lunatics are in denial. This one has been put to bed. Even the Pope signed off for Christ's sake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somtamme Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) Agreed, the debate is not about GW / CC, but how we are going to put energy strategies over the longer term at the centre of all we do e.g. make best of existing before new (private rented housing vs new build), but where there is need to develop new consider energy economies of scale (communal / district heating, combined heat and power vs individual units). Governments need to start investing and listening to engineers / scientists, rather than focussing on head-line grabbing politics e.g. immigration. Edited October 17, 2015 by Somtamme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliotness Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Dear Up2u2 CFCs can be produced from volcanic eruptions, OK I admit it happens. Nevertheless it does not really affect what I said, man-made chemicals (albeit a group of cpds that can be found in trace amounts naturally) were identified as causing harm to the Ozone Layer. Campaigns were undertaken against the use of those chemicals. Those chemicsls are now banned in most countries and the Ozone Layer is recovering. Surely you don't have a problem with that ?!!!!! I don't understand your mention of pyrene, which is a naturally occurring chemical found mainly in certain species of trees. Man's current generation comes mainly from natural rubber processing, although in the past the processing of coal/coke to produce town-gas would have contributed, as coal was formed from ancient forests. So I would appreciate to know your logic on choosing pyrene. Have a nice day Hi eliot 100% agree with the science on CFC's depleting the Ozone layer and the remedy put in place at the time and now. pyrene? Do you mean the latest Paper on Isoprene? Ooops sorry, yes I did mean isoprene. Had a bad day, electric went down, 32 degrees Celsius and a plague of flies from the mushroom farm up the road. Not quite sure about what you mean by "the latest paper" though, got a reference ? My basic point is, rather than a blanket CO2 campaign, if you pick off individual groups of man-made and man generated chemicals then a public acceptance of your campaign is far more likely to a success. For instance deodorants. Why are so many companies still using pressurised gases, probably of a high global warming potential. Pump action pressurisation works just as well. To quote a phrase "go for the low lying fruit first". Not only would that reap, albeit small but significant benefits. CFCs proved it, so why not build on that success, one piece at a time. But please do not ignore other facets of pollution, e.g. water pollution, pesticides, heavy metals, plastics etc. No point in saving the climate if we have to live on a poisoned planet. With the best will in the world, I am still certain that unless mankind curbs the current rate of population growth anything done or promised in Paris and thereafter will be meaningless. The route cause of the population problem is fundamentalist religions, be it Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim or whatever and I cannot see a way to change their minds. Fundamentalists feed off natural disasters (ignoring the fact it could be man's greed that contributed to that disaster) saying "it was an act of God" or whatever deity they worship and think they will go to heaven (or whatever they wish to call it). Put another way, no point in turning off the gas when your house is already fully ablaze ( I'm sure someone could give a much better analogy ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliotness Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 The thing that is the route cause of the "debate" is that it is impossible to chemically distinguish between CO2 produced by the activities of mankind and that produced by nature, likewise CH4. The case with CFCs was much more certain as naturally occurring CFCs don't exist and therefore the environmentalists were able to drive a very effective campaign against there production and use. If other man-made chemicals could be linked to the current changes in the Earth's climate then the case would be much stronger. "The thing that is the route cause of the "debate" is that it is impossible to chemically distinguish between CO2 produced by the activities of mankind and that produced by nature" It is very simple to detect the 'fingerprint' of man made CO2. Fossil Fuels are dead plant material deposited many many millions of years ago. Living plant material contains a balance of specific Carbon Isotopes mostly 12C but traces of 13C and 14C. Once a plant dies it stops exchanging Carbon with the atmosphere and over time (+5000 years) the Isotopes 13C and particularly 14C degrade. This is known as the Suess Effect. So take a piece of Coal or a barrel of Oil and we burn it. When the CO2 molecule is analysed we find the resulting molecule is depleted in Isotopes 13CO2 and next to no Isotope 14CO2 So it is a very simple process to arrive at the quantity of Natural CO2 it will be rich in 13C and 14C Isotopes and split out the Fossil Fuel CO2 as it will be depleted in 13C and little to no 14C Isotopes. ( C= Carbon) So what about the other means of man generating CO2. 7 billion, and rising, people breathing, going to the toilet, farting, burning "new" wood (I wish you could see the rolling smoke cloud coming out of some of the shanty towns in the mornings in 3rd world countries, they are not burning fossil fuels). Current governments are pushing for biomass energy plants, many exist. How does that fit your C14 methodology. Methane, a major "greenhouse" gas, generated by landfills, livestock, compost generation etc, not the same as methane from defrosting tundra. You are too focused on fossil fuels, you need to view a bigger picture. Come outside my friend, the coffee sure smells good ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 . . it is now more certain than ever, based on many line of evidence, that humans are changing the Earth's climate. Of course humans change the climate, and have done for millennia. Whether it's clearing land, burning rainforests, building cities, damming rivers, putting chemicals into the atmosphere or even building those silly wind turbines, we affect the climate on scales from local to regional to global. But that's not the point, is it? The questions that need to be answered are: Is what we are doing dangerous? If so, is there something we can do about it? Is the treatment better or worse than the disease? In the comic-book world of the Alarmists, the answers are naturally simple. 'Weepy' Bill McKibben, for example, has built an entire career on just this point, as his organisation 350.org states: "The number 350 means climate safety: to preserve a livable planet, scientists tell us we must reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from its current level of 400 parts per million to below 350 ppm." And their simplistic answer to this simplistic question? Shut down capitalism. As Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said publicly earlier this year: "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said. Turn back the clocks to 1865, CO2 vanishes from the atmosphere, and everyone lived happily ever after. In the real world, of course, things don't work like this, but these are difficulties which the Alarmists are unwilling to grasp. Bertrand Russell put it best: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." I guess it's your right to discount that statements from the most elite scientific groups on the planet. Maybe the industrial polluters and their political representatives are correct and these distinguished scientists have it wrong? Perhaps you can enlighten us as to their realistic solutions to the crisis they claim is about to kill us all? I have heard nothing from them, and they continue to jet about the world and drive cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Why don't you guys get a room. Only the lunatics are in denial. This one has been put to bed. Even the Pope signed off for Christ's sake! Solutions please. Irrelevant if every scientist in the whole world agrees if they can't come up with a solution. I have heard ZERO realistic solutions that China and India can implement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Still only the mantra that GW/CC is real, and not a single solution. Says it all really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 . . it is now more certain than ever, based on many line of evidence, that humans are changing the Earth's climate. Of course humans change the climate, and have done for millennia. Whether it's clearing land, burning rainforests, building cities, damming rivers, putting chemicals into the atmosphere or even building those silly wind turbines, we affect the climate on scales from local to regional to global. But that's not the point, is it? The questions that need to be answered are: Is what we are doing dangerous? If so, is there something we can do about it? Is the treatment better or worse than the disease? In the comic-book world of the Alarmists, the answers are naturally simple. 'Weepy' Bill McKibben, for example, has built an entire career on just this point, as his organisation 350.org states: "The number 350 means climate safety: to preserve a livable planet, scientists tell us we must reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from its current level of 400 parts per million to below 350 ppm." And their simplistic answer to this simplistic question? Shut down capitalism. As Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said publicly earlier this year: "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said. Turn back the clocks to 1865, CO2 vanishes from the atmosphere, and everyone lived happily ever after. In the real world, of course, things don't work like this, but these are difficulties which the Alarmists are unwilling to grasp. Bertrand Russell put it best: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." I guess it's your right to discount that statements from the most elite scientific groups on the planet. Maybe the industrial polluters and their political representatives are correct and these distinguished scientists have it wrong? Perhaps you can enlighten us as to their realistic solutions to the crisis they claim is about to kill us all? I have heard nothing from them, and they continue to jet about the world and drive cars. Is this a silly late night post by someone that's been drinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now