Questions.
How is the level of co2 over the past several thousand years known?
The article states that co2 levels have been constant for several thousand years. I had thought the amount varied a great deal due to volcanic activity, have I been mistaken?
Is co2 heavier than nitrogen?
How is the level of co2 over the past several thousand years known?
The article states that co2 levels have been constant for several thousand years. I had thought the amount varied a great deal due to volcanic activity, have I been mistaken?
Is co2 heavier than nitrogen?
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
There has been no "proof" that global warming is a farce on these forums. It does seem, however, that a majority of people believe that it's a farce. Science isn't really a democratic process though where we get to vote for what's real and what's not.
Climate Gate was mostly accusations made out of context. In the end, it was much ado about nothing.
umm...Climategate, despite the clever moniker, was largely a media-driven non-story, and the principals involved have been cleared of any wrong-doing or manipulation of data - of course you didn't see that story on your news channel, but the fact remains.
the 'global warming petition project'? Really? You are going to use that as some kind of counter-point to the otherwise well written article the OP brought up here?
Really?
Guess what percentage of the people that signed that piece of garbage actually have a background in climate science?
Go ahead - take a guess -
the actual result is POINT ONE percent.
Not 1 percent.
.1 percent.
If you want to add atmospheric science experience, it jumps all the way up to .5 percent.
Wow.
I'm convinced, aren't you?
One of the 'charter' works of this group, was, how shall I put this lightly - shat on by the National Academy of science - their quote: ""The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
You go ahead though, and put that group in your corner - I'll take the 97% of climate scientists who are on the other side of this fight.
If you want to argue against government control of things, fine.
If you want to argue about the best approach to reducing our impact on the climate, fine.
However - bending facts, or outright making things up, shouldn't be part of this discussion. The science here is largely a settled issue - what we do from here is certainly open for, and should be, up for debate.
greenman - the CO2 output from volcanoes is a tiny fraction of what man is putting into the air
the 'global warming petition project'? Really? You are going to use that as some kind of counter-point to the otherwise well written article the OP brought up here?
Really?
Guess what percentage of the people that signed that piece of garbage actually have a background in climate science?
Go ahead - take a guess -
the actual result is POINT ONE percent.
Not 1 percent.
.1 percent.
If you want to add atmospheric science experience, it jumps all the way up to .5 percent.
Wow.
I'm convinced, aren't you?
One of the 'charter' works of this group, was, how shall I put this lightly - shat on by the National Academy of science - their quote: ""The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
You go ahead though, and put that group in your corner - I'll take the 97% of climate scientists who are on the other side of this fight.
If you want to argue against government control of things, fine.
If you want to argue about the best approach to reducing our impact on the climate, fine.
However - bending facts, or outright making things up, shouldn't be part of this discussion. The science here is largely a settled issue - what we do from here is certainly open for, and should be, up for debate.
greenman - the CO2 output from volcanoes is a tiny fraction of what man is putting into the air
Last edited:
SparkyJJO
Lifer
- May 16, 2002
- 13,357
- 7
- 81
I see things in that so-called "article" doing just that. And the "science" isn't a settled issue.
Funny, I recall other articles saying the opposite.
monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
Like Dyson said:
Freeman Dyson, Scholar, Winchester College (1936-1941), B.A. Mathematics, Cambridge University (1945), Research Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University (1946–1947), Commonwealth Fellow, Cornell University, (1947–1948), Commonwealth Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1948–1949), Research Fellow, University of Birmingham (1949–1951), Professor of Physics, Cornell University (1951-1953), Fellow, Royal Society (1952), Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1953-1994), Chairman, Federation of American Scientists (1962-1963), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1964), Danny Heineman Prize, American Physical Society (1965), Lorentz Medal, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (1966), Visiting Professor, Yeshiva University (1967-1968), Hughes Medal, The Royal Society (1968), Max Planck Medal, German Physical Society (1969), J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize (1970), Visiting Professor, Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (1974-1975), Corresponding Member, Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1975), Harvey Prize (1977), Wolf Prize in Physics (1981), Andrew Gemant Award, American Institute of Physics (1988), Enrico Fermi Award, United States Department of Energy (1993), Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1994-Present), Member, London Mathematical Society (2000), Member, NASA Advisory Council (2001-2003), President, Space Studies Institute (2003-Present)
Notable: Unification of Quantum Electrodynamics Theory.
Signed: Global Warming Petition Project
“My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.” – Freeman Dyson
Freeman Dyson, Scholar, Winchester College (1936-1941), B.A. Mathematics, Cambridge University (1945), Research Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University (1946–1947), Commonwealth Fellow, Cornell University, (1947–1948), Commonwealth Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1948–1949), Research Fellow, University of Birmingham (1949–1951), Professor of Physics, Cornell University (1951-1953), Fellow, Royal Society (1952), Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1953-1994), Chairman, Federation of American Scientists (1962-1963), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1964), Danny Heineman Prize, American Physical Society (1965), Lorentz Medal, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (1966), Visiting Professor, Yeshiva University (1967-1968), Hughes Medal, The Royal Society (1968), Max Planck Medal, German Physical Society (1969), J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize (1970), Visiting Professor, Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (1974-1975), Corresponding Member, Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1975), Harvey Prize (1977), Wolf Prize in Physics (1981), Andrew Gemant Award, American Institute of Physics (1988), Enrico Fermi Award, United States Department of Energy (1993), Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1994-Present), Member, London Mathematical Society (2000), Member, NASA Advisory Council (2001-2003), President, Space Studies Institute (2003-Present)
Notable: Unification of Quantum Electrodynamics Theory.
Signed: Global Warming Petition Project
“My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.” – Freeman Dyson
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,879
- 10,200
- 136
We wouldn't dare claim that Weather = Climate would we? Given the claims about 2010, this seems fitting.
Peru Government Declares Cold Wave Emergency in 16 Regions
Peru Government Declares Cold Wave Emergency in 16 Regions
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,082
- 136
Absolutely.
You never need more than 5 minutes worth of information to make an important decision on anything.
And Obama loves us and always does whats best for us.
You never need more than 5 minutes worth of information to make an important decision on anything.
And Obama loves us and always does whats best for us.
Hacp
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2005
- 13,923
- 2
- 81
Its a fucking scam. Why are people grafting data? Why? Why are they lying about the Himalayas melting? Because they are in on the scam. When your tenure is at risk if you don't come up with a new scheme to lie about global warming, of course you're going to write tons of papers with fabricated data!
Yes, clearly the scam being perpetrated is by crooked academia and greedy scientists and not the saintly oil/coal/gas companies.
monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
You need to become better informed, most energy companies, oil and gas fully support MMGW and cap'N trade because of the huge amounts of money they'll make on it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/24/eu-climate-exchange-website-hacked/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/24/eu-climate-exchange-website-hacked/
CycloWizard
"It would make sense if he had said, "One of the properties of CO2 is that it absorbs incoming solar energy "
The above statement seems to be the opposite of my understanding of the action of CO2. I was under the impression that that a greenhouse gas effect was not absorbing solar radiation, but absorbing the IR radiated from the Earth's surface. That solar radiation warms the surface, which cools by emitting IR.
The concept of a greenhouse after all is to allow energy to enter a structure and inhibit its exit.
"It would make sense if he had said, "One of the properties of CO2 is that it absorbs incoming solar energy "
The above statement seems to be the opposite of my understanding of the action of CO2. I was under the impression that that a greenhouse gas effect was not absorbing solar radiation, but absorbing the IR radiated from the Earth's surface. That solar radiation warms the surface, which cools by emitting IR.
The concept of a greenhouse after all is to allow energy to enter a structure and inhibit its exit.
It adds up perfectly if you do your homework. The fossil fuel industry might lose a few bucks but those brokering the carbon credits (isn't GS involved in the C&T legislation?) will make a fortune.
The money doesn't just disappear, it goes into another industries/companies pocket. That is why there is so much argument over the science, because it involves making or losing tons of money.
manimal
Lifer
- Mar 30, 2007
- 13,559
- 8
- 0
Try to remove the lens of politics from this...just because fox news tells you its fake maybe, just maybe it has some validity.
Lets ask Teddy Roosevelt how he felt about saving nature. Is mindlessly turning our planet into a sauna a good idea?
There is no arguing with crazy people so go ahead hold your breath until you win.....
One can almost superimpose the denialist responses with talk about antievevolution....
Where is Kirk Cameron when you need him....
Lets ask Teddy Roosevelt how he felt about saving nature. Is mindlessly turning our planet into a sauna a good idea?
There is no arguing with crazy people so go ahead hold your breath until you win.....
One can almost superimpose the denialist responses with talk about antievevolution....
Where is Kirk Cameron when you need him....
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,879
- 10,200
- 136
I'm going to enjoy the next decade, as the cool shift in ocean oscillation ends this once and for all.
Last edited:
manimal
Lifer
- Mar 30, 2007
- 13,559
- 8
- 0
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
My BS is in Chemistry MS materials and I did radionuclide testing at NTS before metals testing at Lockheed which was also an environmental contractor. $500 a sample to run through digestion/ ICPMS. You're going to do a lot of samples ...know what I'm sayin? My team did hundreds a day.
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,137
- 225
- 106
well, I don't see much point in these posts....
Most people will still buy cars on how cool they look not even caring about the EPA. Most people will still buy incandescent light bulbs. Most people will crank up the AC or Heaters not caring about power bills or how much damage they doing to the environment. Most people will drive even if the live walking distance to the store, most people will use a dryer instead of hanging cloths out to dry. Most people will choose LAZY over doing anything to protect the planet.
I see a lot of people throw out trash or won't even bother to pick up trash if they see it blowing up/down the street. Most people will wash their hands in super hot water or the dishes in hot water even tho it could have been done in cold water. Most people never even bother to check the thermostat on the hot water heater or the refrigerator.
Most people just don't care how many watts they are using... Or how much water they are wasting.
Global WARMING is just that!!! GLOBAL being the key word. Even if America STOPPED 80% of it's energy wasting and became totally green, you'd have to get china and India on board Plus Russia, Japan, BASICALLY it's a GLOBAL problem and I just don't see the ENTIRE WORLD caring much about it Esp, the biggest piglets of all the USA!
Sadly I think your wasting your time preaching to people on this board. Very few care, and the ones that do care are too lazy to give a shit anyway. Saving energy and going green is a personal choice and a personal commitment. It won't amount to anything until our government gets serious about 'regulating and mandating' energy use and green technology. Until then? Enjoy your cheap gas and V8! Vroom...Vroom!
Most people will still buy cars on how cool they look not even caring about the EPA. Most people will still buy incandescent light bulbs. Most people will crank up the AC or Heaters not caring about power bills or how much damage they doing to the environment. Most people will drive even if the live walking distance to the store, most people will use a dryer instead of hanging cloths out to dry. Most people will choose LAZY over doing anything to protect the planet.
I see a lot of people throw out trash or won't even bother to pick up trash if they see it blowing up/down the street. Most people will wash their hands in super hot water or the dishes in hot water even tho it could have been done in cold water. Most people never even bother to check the thermostat on the hot water heater or the refrigerator.
Most people just don't care how many watts they are using... Or how much water they are wasting.
Global WARMING is just that!!! GLOBAL being the key word. Even if America STOPPED 80% of it's energy wasting and became totally green, you'd have to get china and India on board Plus Russia, Japan, BASICALLY it's a GLOBAL problem and I just don't see the ENTIRE WORLD caring much about it Esp, the biggest piglets of all the USA!
Sadly I think your wasting your time preaching to people on this board. Very few care, and the ones that do care are too lazy to give a shit anyway. Saving energy and going green is a personal choice and a personal commitment. It won't amount to anything until our government gets serious about 'regulating and mandating' energy use and green technology. Until then? Enjoy your cheap gas and V8! Vroom...Vroom!
Last edited:
manimal
Lifer
- Mar 30, 2007
- 13,559
- 8
- 0
Very cool stuff-
How does the sheer amount of peer reviewed data out there showing the effects of climate change affect how you look at it?
I am being humbly curious-
OT BTW I miss jerry....
monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
You can always join the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
http://www.vhemt.org/
Of course the founder of the movement is still alive.
http://www.vhemt.org/
Of course the founder of the movement is still alive.
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,137
- 225
- 106
It's funny, I've dated 15-20 woman (randomly off the internet) and each and EVERY one of them, I always USE cold water in summer time to rinse the dishes, but my it every time my sink faucet is always MAXED out to the Left (hot as possible)... And talk about running through paper towels and wearing something once and washing it.... Not one of them caring or even batting an eye over Hot water or wasting water in general. I think the human race especially woman just can't comprehend it or care to even think about it.
Oh well... I think the best part will be when it gets so bad that we will have to like generate power maybe 3 days out of week and watch these people not be able to JUST waste power ... Esp these LAZY, Rich fucking woman and kids. Not all of them mind you just most of them. Talk about wasting the resources. Might as well hook the hot water up to the toilet. Hell, might as well not even HAVE a COLD water line why bother?
Let's have a contest to see how COLD we can get the room then when we get too cold we can crank up the heat for a bit. Then after that we can play a game to see who can use up the most paper towels and toilet paper. Sheesh.... How much TP do you need to wipe ones ass? Is it necessary to run through a whole role of paper towels each day?
I just find woman to be the biggest wasters on the planet, and next come their kids from watching and setting even a bigger example.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter