joining together to fight global warming

[dean_r_koontz]

wait i'm too lazy to back that up more if i needed to

[<sp3]

Originally Posted by dean_r_koontz

...

it doesn't really matter. we still have extraordinary high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that have never been reached before.

i post this again

"Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree."

...

Yea, that is precisely my point.. warmest temperatures = highest concentration of CO2 levels.. that helps my argument

Originally Posted by dean_r_koontz

the talks in bali have apparently stranded because the us, japan, canada and australia are unwilling to set procentual goals for reducing emissions. it's a pretty sad state of affairs.

politics are ridiculous.. we need to stop bitching back and forth with other countries/global corporations and just lead the way. dont just tax people who burn hydrocarbons.. build new clean power plants, further research and development, and let the free market decide if it wants to spend 80 cents per kilowatt-hour for dirty power, or 5 cents per kilowatt-hour of clean energy.

we (the US) will never be the first ones to do it though.. as long as oil companies keep paying for our president's campaigns. Thats the shit that REALLY makes me mad..

Originally Posted by dean_r_koontz

we could not live on earth if we didn't have the greenhouse effect. you've gone so far as to question if the greenhouse effect exists, that's crackpot reasoning and i doubt that you can find many articles posted on that.

i had a feeling there would be someone who responded to my statement like that.. let me ask you a question, and i really am not trying to be a jerk or anything.. its a serious question.. Do you, personally, really understand the mechanics of how the greenhouse effect works?

dont be so quick to hit the "i believe" button that more CO2 = more heat on earth, always without exception. it is a lot more complicated than that.. the whole CO2=heat model is very one dimensional and ignores many many factors. i most certainly believe in the greenhouse effect, but to believe in an unbalanced system that has no regulation or negative feedback is foolishness.

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

And how can you say more CO2 doesn't necessarily mean more heat, when in the next breath you say there will be a greater convective heat transfer? The fact there's more heat to transfer kinda implies there's more heat, no? CO2 blocks outgoing energy from escaping except at the colder extremes of the atmosphere, where the lack of heat means less is emitted - to balance that, the entire atmosphere has to warm up until those cold extremes get hot enough to pump out enough energy into space and balance what's coming in, that's the whole problem. The planet is measurably absorbing more radiation than it's able to emit, that's why temperatures are rising (and why they'll continue to rise)

yea, i understand the basic idea.. what you say is true, but there are many other factors ignored when you only look at one gas, one method of heat transfer. i was merely saying that CO2's effect is not as strong as some other effects that counter act, and contribute to heating and cooling. And as soon as CO2 is not the dominant factor, its really hard for human-induced theories to have a leg to stand on.

Originally Posted by Debaser

good, now we're actually talking!

source link

ill talk as long as i have time for


but be careful.. that article reads very nicely and sounds very convincing.. but it is quite tactful in its choice of words because there is a large hole in the argument it is trying to make.

from the article:

"All the estimates show that the carbon content of the oceans is increasing by ~ 2±1 PgC every year"

tricks you into thinking that the concentration of gaseous CO2 in the ocean has been going up.. "carbons" in the ocean are different from gaseous CO2 in solution.. that concentration has most certainly gone down. (again, due to rising temperatures).

Its really hard to say for certain exactly how much is from us, and how much is from natural sources.. but the mere existence that it is a major, if not dominant contributer throws a gigantic wrench in human-induced arguments.

[dean_r_koontz]

"Yea, that is precisely my point.. warmest temperatures = highest concentration of CO2 levels.. that helps my argument"

you're missing one thing i posted. the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have NEVER been this high. it's a bit of a coincidence that the levels of CO2 are higher than they've ever been before just as the human species have begun to burn fossile fuels. you can see cyclical patterns of temperature and CO2 in the atmpsohere that suddenly go hawire just around the time that we start using fossile fuels. it's very strange.

[<sp3]

Originally Posted by dean_r_koontz

"Yea, that is precisely my point.. warmest temperatures = highest concentration of CO2 levels.. that helps my argument"

you're missing one thing i posted. the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have NEVER been this high. it's a bit of a coincidence that the levels of CO2 are higher than they've ever been before just as the human species have begun to burn fossile fuels. you can see cyclical patterns of temperature and CO2 in the atmpsohere that suddenly go hawire just around the time that we start using fossile fuels. it's very strange.

where are you getting your temperature data from if:

"reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s"

?

[dean_r_koontz]

well the CO2 meassurments can at least be tracked way back, and they are out of control.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by

yea, i understand the basic idea.. what you say is true, but there are many other factors ignored when you only look at one gas, one method of heat transfer. i was merely saying that CO2's effect is not as strong as some other effects that counter act, and contribute to heating and cooling. And as soon as CO2 is not the dominant factor, its really hard for human-induced theories to have a leg to stand on.

But we were talking about two methods of heat transfer (convection and radiation), and where are you getting this idea that CO2 isn't the greenhouse gas responsible for the trends we're seeing? Please don't say it's water vapor, because that isn't a forcing.

Just indulge me here - since you believe in the greenhouse effect, and you apparently realize that temperatures started to increase very rapidly in the 20th century, if CO2 forcing isn't the dominant factor in this additional warming then what is?

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by < sp3

but be careful.. that article reads very nicely and sounds very convincing.. but it is quite tactful in its choice of words because there is a large hole in the argument it is trying to make.

from the article:

"All the estimates show that the carbon content of the oceans is increasing by ~ 2±1 PgC every year"

tricks you into thinking that the concentration of gaseous CO2 in the ocean has been going up.. "carbons" in the ocean are different from gaseous CO2 in solution.. that concentration has most certainly gone down. (again, due to rising temperatures).

Then what do you make of this statement?
"The mass of carbon (carbon is the "C" in CO2) must be conserved. If the atmospheric CO2 increase was caused, even in part, by carbon emitted from the oceans or the land, we would measure a carbon decrease in these two reservoirs."

Originally Posted by < sp3

Its really hard to say for certain exactly how much is from us, and how much is from natural sources.. but the mere existence that it is a major, if not dominant contributer throws a gigantic wrench in human-induced arguments.

First off, I'm not sure I can buy your dismissal of the carbon measurements in the oceans without some scientific sources to read up on.

Second, that was not the only reason that scientists don't believe in the degassing of the oceans theory -- it was only the most simple one I could explain. DeviousJ touched on it before and its about the measurements of certain isotopes (the lack of) in our atmosphere to determine where the CO2 is coming from. I can't really explain it in any simpler terms so I'll post a letter from the same source I posted before, responding to your very notion:

I was puzzled when I read the ex- change of letters on global warming in the January 2005 issue of PHYSICS TODAY (page 13). George Smith suggested that the recent carbon dioxide increase could be the result of a century of global warming—in particular, by the degassing of the ocean. Spencer Weart answered (correctly, but see below) that scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have calculated the budget between the carbon input with the sinks in different reservoirs of the carbon cycle: ocean, forest, soil, and so forth

Besides technicalities implying that the global CO2 budget still has second-order uncertainties, I'm surprised Weart didn't cite first-order proofs demonstrating that the recent CO2 increase cannot be due to ocean warming. Those killing proofs are well-known in the climatology community—for example, in the IPCC—but it is crucial to emphasize them again for a wider audience.

The recent CO2 increase—280 to 380 parts per million by volume between 1800 and 2005—is accompanied by three phenomena that completely rule out ocean warming as the main cause:

* Parallel decline of the 14C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. Strictly speaking, this is the "Suess effect," first observed, and correctly interpreted, by Hans Suess of the University of California, San Diego, in the early 1950s. The Suess effect occurs because fossil fuels do not contain 14C precisely because they are fossil—much older than 10 half-lives of 14C.
* Parallel decline of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This phenomenon is linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon, which is strongly depleted in 13C.
* Parallel decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere, which is the inescapable signature of an oxidation of carbon. If ocean warming were responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2.

Nonspecialists will not easily be impressed by model calculations and complex budgets that contain often large uncertainties. Moreover, I have seen dishonest skeptics using "old hat" arguments such as ocean CO2 outgassing to refute the responsibility of human activities in the recent CO2 increase and the forthcoming large global warming.

One crucial note about the global budget of inputs and outputs that Weart should have stated: Known CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and deforestation largely exceed (by about a factor of two) what remains in the atmosphere. Hence, if warming were the cause of the CO2 increase, how would we account for the hundreds of gigatons of carbon generated by human activity?"

Edouard Bard
(bard@cerege.fr)
Collège de France
Aix-en-Provence

[<sp3]

Originally Posted by dean_r_koontz

well the CO2 meassurments can at least be tracked way back, and they are out of control.

my argument has been that CO2 levels are a direct result of temperature changes.. then you said that no.. they have tracked consistently with temperature until we started burning fossil fuels, and that the data looks great up until that point. but you also admit that we only have had reliable temperature measurements since "the last 1800's", which is conveniently when we started burning fossil fuels..

so the only timeframe too which you claim we have accurate, comparative data is also the timeframe when you claim everything "suddenly goes hawire"? hawire in comparison to what? the data that we didnt have before that? what are you basing that on?

not following you.

[<sp3]

good posts, good questions which i want to respond to however i dont have time to write what i want to say, but ill be back tomorrow. need to be at work for 5 am.

peace

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by bardy

I was just bored and googling random stuff, I am fairly indifferent about peolpe here agreeing with em

I would like to argue about why mayfuck thinks my company gets tax breaks for polluting the earth though

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."- Upton Sinclair


Since you've announced that you've closed your mind on the global warming discussion, I guess I'll ask if you'd like to respond and/or point out any falsehoods in this big article about how "clean coal" is a sham. I was curious too about what mayfuck said and I came across this today. I'm not endorsing these I'm just showing that they exist.






Big Coal's Dirty Plans for Our Energy Future (with shocking photos)
By Antrim Caskey, AlterNet. Posted December 14, 2007.
Big coal is hoping for government subsidies to replace oil. But its "clean coal" plan is an ecological nightmare for everyone.

Just as the American people and the world are beginning to recognize the necessity of shifting to renewable energies, Big Coal, in collusion with an out-of-step administration, is pushing their dirty fossil fuel as the solution to our nation's energy crisis.

Big Coal and its cohorts envision a "clean coal technology" future fueled by liquifying and gasifying coal, capturing the carbon emissions and injecting them underground. By 2030 the West Virginia Division of Energy -- a nascent state agency formed in July, 2007 -- wants to oust oil and exalt coal by displacing the 1.3 billion gallons of foreign oil the state currently imports every year.

The WVDoE believes "that higher energy prices are providing and will continue to provide market opportunities" for a variety of alternative coal technologies including "coal waste, coal fines and coal bed methane," according to a document released in December 2007 called, "A Blueprint for the Future."

But scientists and environmentalists say "clean coal" does not exist; it is a misnomer and an oxymoron. The National Resources Defense Council has said, using the term "clean coal" makes about as much sense as saying "safe cigarettes." The extraction and cleaning of coal inevitably decimate ecosystems and communities.

Citing abundant supplies of quality domestic coal, escalating oil prices that are hoving around $100 per barrel, and security concerns raised by dependence on foreign oil, the coal industry is chomping at the bit to secure their stake in the false pursuit of domestic energy independence through a federally assisted coal-based economy. But as the world wakes up to the climate crisis and people learn more about modern coal mining and the continuing exploitation of Appalachia, which has sickened entire communities, polluted the water and air, and condemned vast sections of an ecologically extraordinary land to death, the coal industry faces an increasingly uphill battle against growing public awareness and concern.

[continued...]

[Jonny5]

where's my ClimaCalm? this global warming's givin me anxiety

[sweetmusk]

so i hope everyone has bicycles and/or uses mass transit...

[Mayfuck]

Yes I ride my bicycle on the 105 every day

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

Yes I ride my bicycle on the 105 every day

on your way to sell oranges?

[<sp3]

Originally Posted by Debaser

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."- Upton Sinclair


Since you've announced that you've closed your mind on the global warming discussion, I guess I'll ask if you'd like to respond and/or point out any falsehoods in this big article about how "clean coal" is a sham. I was curious too about what mayfuck said and I came across this today. I'm not endorsing these I'm just showing that they exist.






Big Coal's Dirty Plans for Our Energy Future (with shocking photos)
By Antrim Caskey, AlterNet. Posted December 14, 2007.
Big coal is hoping for government subsidies to replace oil. But its "clean coal" plan is an ecological nightmare for everyone.

Just as the American people and the world are beginning to recognize the necessity of shifting to renewable energies, Big Coal, in collusion with an out-of-step administration, is pushing their dirty fossil fuel as the solution to our nation's energy crisis.

Big Coal and its cohorts envision a "clean coal technology" future fueled by liquifying and gasifying coal, capturing the carbon emissions and injecting them underground. By 2030 the West Virginia Division of Energy -- a nascent state agency formed in July, 2007 -- wants to oust oil and exalt coal by displacing the 1.3 billion gallons of foreign oil the state currently imports every year.

The WVDoE believes "that higher energy prices are providing and will continue to provide market opportunities" for a variety of alternative coal technologies including "coal waste, coal fines and coal bed methane," according to a document released in December 2007 called, "A Blueprint for the Future."

But scientists and environmentalists say "clean coal" does not exist; it is a misnomer and an oxymoron. The National Resources Defense Council has said, using the term "clean coal" makes about as much sense as saying "safe cigarettes." The extraction and cleaning of coal inevitably decimate ecosystems and communities.

Citing abundant supplies of quality domestic coal, escalating oil prices that are hoving around $100 per barrel, and security concerns raised by dependence on foreign oil, the coal industry is chomping at the bit to secure their stake in the false pursuit of domestic energy independence through a federally assisted coal-based economy. But as the world wakes up to the climate crisis and people learn more about modern coal mining and the continuing exploitation of Appalachia, which has sickened entire communities, polluted the water and air, and condemned vast sections of an ecologically extraordinary land to death, the coal industry faces an increasingly uphill battle against growing public awareness and concern.

[continued...]

no falsehoods there.. clean coal is a sham, and it sucks, in absolutely every way.


"that higher energy prices are providing and will continue to provide market opportunities"

- yea exactly.. at a dollar per kilowatt-hour you can do a lot of fancy stuff to hide the problems you are creating with ass backwards engineering.. but they arn't stopping pollution, they are just redirecting where it goes so that it slides through the silkscreen of government regulations. and it costs so damn much money, that if oil and natural gas prices continue to rise, and they will.. (esp natural gas), they can soon do it at a profit.

Nuclear, geothermal and hydrodynamic technologies can make the same electricity with nearly no environmental impact at 20 times less the cost.

[bardy]

you know that they have to get the nuclear stuff from the ground too right, I mean that what that article sounds like it's anti-making holes. I think they are whining about mountain top removal stuff. Which sucks but I mean... it's what's most economical right now so I don't really see it going away in the near future. In the long term future, sure. I am pro-nuclear and I think it's retarded we havent built a new power plant in like 25 years. I think coal is a political cluster fuck which is why I didn't go into that industry. I know more about aggregates. Which actually probably causes more visual pollution than coal simply because most of them are surface mines and tehy have to be near cities.

[Jonny5]

Colors magazine put out a fun issue based on global warming. Called "Your next sustainable holiday". It was the summer issue but it's up on their website's archive.