Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 52
Global warming + CO2. explain this thenPage 2 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Ever heard about 'disinformation'.

You mean like the disinformation about AGW being a decided issue, when in fact it was anything but?

Russia believes current rules are stacked against it, and has threatened to pull the plug on Copenhagen without concessions to Kremlin concerns.

Good for them! The western banking community has been playing geopolitical Chess with Russia for some years now. It has more players, and a lot of forces arrayed against it, but they never counted on Russia's skill at chess...especially the geopolitical kind.

At issue isn't who released the emails; at issue is that the emails revealed a pattern of lies, deception & unethical behaviour by scientists who ought to have known better.

n Russia? Where you get killed if you're to 'uncomfortable'?

Like Gary Webb was?

http://www.masterjules.net/webbdead.htm

...or how about getting "disappeared" if you cross the IRS?

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts13656229.aspx


Did you know that before we started our industrial era we were actually in a slowly cooling period on Earth?

What makes you think climate change isn't cyclical"? How much "warming" can be attributed to CO2? What percentage of "warming" can be attributed to human activity? Are you sure? What data & sources can you cite to support your assertion?

As the Co2 and H2O molecules drifts upward...

CO2 drifts upward? Are you sure? Source please.

And CO2 won’t fall out as water vapor does...

Probably because it won't "climb" that high to begin with.

All of this is facts, tested extensively amongst others by the US airforce who had an extesive interest in it due to 'starwars' and missiles.

Is it a matter of public record, or is it "top secret" disinformation?
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 53
view profile
History
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/12/2010 6:38:43 AM
My issue with the masses of information and followers of AGW is that any challenge, any question, any difference of opinion is "tainted" by capitalism, greed, ignorance, agenda to the supporters. There is no more science if people are labeled heretics if they disagree. The idea is a hypothesis is put forth, it is then challenged until no challenge remains. As it stands now, at least in the data i've read, there is definately some evidence that supports both AGW, and some that doesn't.

For me, the ability and data that refutes AGW, proves that we aren't there yet and that more research needs to be done before we come to conclusions. The believers in AGW do whatever possible to discredit differing opinions by attacking them personally instead of with data, and vice-versa. I'd just like to see a return to unbiased scientific study as opposed to agenda driven research.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 55
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/12/2010 6:56:58 AM

For me, the ability and data that refutes AGW, proves that we aren't there yet and that more research needs to be done before we come to conclusions.


You do realize that the ones who refute AGW are those who were paid to refute AGW, don't you?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 57
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/12/2010 7:52:17 AM
Hey, if you need to see an example of the efficacy of CO2 as a trap for heat, just look at Venus. The planet is hot enough to melt lead and yet its cloud deck reflect more than 70 per cent of the sunlight it receives. And yes, while it is closer to the sun than us, it's still got about 70 million miles of distance between it and the planet. Plus, again, it's very efficient at reflecting light.

Additionally, the temperature between its day and night side are roughly the same, despite the fact that it takes more than 220 days to rotate once on its axis.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 59
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/12/2010 8:15:12 AM
If you don't like Global Warming that's cool with me, never the less it's happening.

AGW is a hypothesis, nothing more, not now that the research has been shown to be tainted by unethical scientists and greedy, powermad politicians & bankers. So don't tell me "it's happening" without some factual data that confirms it. Blaming it on the Russians is just a cheap stab at diversion. IF they did anything, it was a public service to the worlds people to let some truth out of the bag.

I can give you links

Please do so. We're always happy to investigate allegations, but allegations of the anti AGW crowd having an agenda & putting up money are not really either surprising or newsworthy; we aren't that stupid.

I note you ignored my prior post and its questions; any particular reason to cherry-pick your responses? Did you gather data for the IPCC?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 64
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/12/2010 9:31:53 AM

could we really expect to pump millions of tonnes of crap into the atmosphere indefinitely ? Even if we aren't to blame , does it not make sense to clean up our act a little ?

With that I wholeheartedly agree. It has always been and remains my contention that we should live in a sustainable fashion & quit raping our planet. No doubt about it, there's a lot of work to be done and it's probably going to be expensive...tough, but we can take it.

What concerns me is that without careful analysis and a fairly unanimous decision regarding the science, the effort/money might be spent on the wrong things. I suspect, given the deceptive politically motivated history of recent climate "science" that AGW is not the primary cause of warming and may not be where the effort should be directed. For all I know, we might be better off building a sun shield to orbit the planet, or put a lot more carcinogenic aluminum in jet fuel. On the other hand, if the warming is cyclical, any such action will make a bad situation worse and we could well enter a protracted ice age. What do we do if it turns out the last ten years is the beginning of another ice age...build more coal plants?

I think we have to step back a bit from all the fearmongering, doomsday predictions and vested interests and take a good, close, truly scientific look at the situation BEFORE we do something expensive...and stupid.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 65
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/12/2010 9:33:40 AM
could we really expect to pump millions of tonnes of crap into the atmosphere indefinitely ? Even if we aren't to blame , does it not make sense to clean up our act a little ? Who cares about bankers and politicians ... for every one of them who wants to make a buck off of global warming there's another one who wants to make a buck denying it exists. I don't like or trust them any more than anybody else does but let's get real for a second here . "They" don't want to fry any more than any of us do.


Bang on! Thank you!


I think we have to step back a bit from all the fearmongering, doomsday predictions and vested interests and take a good, close, truly scientific look at the situation BEFORE we do something expensive


Kinda have to wonder what the point would be when there are already so many invested in their denial. Enough debate. Enough talk. It's time to act!
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 66
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/12/2010 9:40:44 AM

Enough debate. Enough talk. It's time to act!

OK...What's happening exactly? What's causing it? What do we do about it? What are the consequences if we're wrong?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 67
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/12/2010 10:14:04 AM

OK...What's happening exactly? What's causing it? What do we do about it? What are the consequences if we're wrong?


Which part exactly? So, if we agree that our current use of energy is unsustainable, then perhaps we actually work on other sources of energy including tidal electric, increased efficiency of hydrogen extraction, ethanol production from plant waste, etc. Might be important, if only for the fact that the oil is going to run out. Maybe not in our lifetimes but in our children's or our children's children's lifetimes. Never hurts to be prepared, non?

While we're at it, if we're agreed that the planet is warming somehow and this is having an effect on places like Greenland which has a giant sheet of ice on its surface that could melt and end up in the ocean...not to mention loss of the antarctic icesheet...maybe we need to start planning what to do about rehousing the millions who live near coastlines whose homes are going to be flooded. Then there are those who are displaced by increased desertification.

In the meantime, maybe we want to look at improving methods of food production. With changing temperature regimes comes changes in arability. So perhaps we need to get smarter with our food production. Look at alternative means other than putting seeds in a straight line in a field, perhaps.

Consequences? What are the consequences if we don't do anything? Seriously dukky, what do deniers offer other than their own intellectual superiority that they aren't the "sheeple" they accuse adherents of AGW to be?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 68
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/12/2010 10:19:00 AM
I have an idea that might do worlds of good! It'll reduce our carbon footprint & everything. Cut back on consumption. We could get a LOT of help in that regard if we outlaw commercial advertising. People will be far less inclined to go into debt to buy products they don't need but are "trained" to desire by advertising. The world would probably cut it's pollution & carbon output by at least 50%...maybe a lot more.

It makes a lot more sense to me than a stupid carbon tax or offset.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/12/2010 11:30:51 AM

You do realize that the ones who refute AGW are those who were paid to refute AGW, don't you?


I am, as I am also aware that those that support AGW are paid to do so. There is mud on both sides of this debate. The point of my post, is that unlike the rest of science, without an emergency, without danger, environmental and climate science has less value, so often a molehill will become a mountain to make sure the value is there to keep them employed.

Whatever happened to scientists accepting challenges to hypothesis without resorting to personal attack? Skeptics have tons of data, supporters have tons of data, seems an awful far reach from acceptance as sceintific law doesn't it?

But if you question AGW, the supporters of AGW will call you crazy and a heretic and compare your assertion to the world being flat.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 71
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/12/2010 12:04:34 PM

It makes a lot more sense to me than a stupid carbon tax or offset.


Yeah. Sure. Generate carbon, do something to offset that like plant trees.

Or pay a bit more for activities that generate more carbon.

You're right. Dumb ideas. BTW, that was sarcasm.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 72
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/12/2010 12:28:30 PM
The carbon tax offset was a ploy of powermad banking globalists and wouldn't have done diddleysquat with our carbon footprint except reduce it by economically forced reduction in consumption, by taking spending money from the common man and paying major corporations compensation for lost profits to produce less. It would mostly only serve to redistribute polluting industries more evenly over the globe.

Most of the carbon producing pollution is generated by shipping, industry and air travel. Why not simply tax the shit out of those corporations based on THEIR carbon footprints? The end result would be that they would try to pass the exhorbitant cost increases on to consumers, who for thew most part, would likely no longer care to pay such ridiculous prices. Net result?...The high shipping costs would result in countries reworking their own resources into finished products, rather than shipping their resources thousands of miles to be converted into products by cheap labour that ships them thousands of miles back to the origin. All of a sudden, the countries are internalizing their economies instead of globalizing them. All of a sudden people are finding jobs in their own country instead of losing them to underpaid peasants in another one. All of a sudden trade becomes what it used to be instead of regulated by an international and internationalist governing body. All of a sudden the world will benefit as the wealth of the planet is exploited locally, by need, rather than internationally, by the desire of profit mongering corporations. We could all still do our bit without having to take the blame, nor bear the burden for a problem that isn't really our fault to begin with.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 74
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/12/2010 2:03:51 PM
^^^^Or you could plant trees and everything would magically resolve itself.


There seems to be a lot of 'magical' thinking going on. Like believing that the release of billions of tons of carbon into the environment is going to just magically disappear. And yet, a butterfly can flap its wings in Beijing and affect weather in New York.

Obviously planting trees isn't the only solution. The point is that efforts to offset carbon generation aren't wasted efforts. Efforts such as planting trees actually contribute positive benefits such as the restoration of habitat and the generation of oxygen. And which, by the way, contributes to the sustainability of industries such as the wood and paper products industries.

Or would you prefer to wipe your a$$ with plastic?

If the issue is sustainability, then clearly what you take out needs to be balanced. Logical, no?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 75
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/12/2010 2:22:32 PM

If the issue is sustainability, then clearly what you take out needs to be balanced. Logical, no?

Yes, and it should be balanced out by the one doing the taking. All renewable resources ought to be taken sustainably and non-renewable ones only by necessity.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 76
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/12/2010 2:38:05 PM
And since everything requires energy, where do you propose we get that energy? What do you think is the effect of the generation of that energy if not the generation of byproducts like CO2. And if we can accept the premise that a butterfly's wings can influence weather on the other side of the planet, how can we deny the expulsion of billions of tons of CO2 as having an effect? CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas.

I've said it before...I'll say it again. It's about how we use energy. We have some tough choices to make. Or they'll be made for us, eventually.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 79
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/12/2010 5:20:27 PM
For informational purposes, many of you may not be aware of another similar thread over in the politics forum.

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/13465787datingPostpage6.aspx
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 81
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/24/2010 6:30:26 PM
Well, I wanted to post this to the other "science of global warming" post, but sadly I've reached my limit of posts in that website.

For context, someone posted this story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

...as proof of the "increase" of the Arctic ice sheet. Trouble is, the agency cited - specifically the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, really has this to say:






January 5, 2010
Extreme negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation yields a warm Arctic

Arctic sea ice extent at end of December 2009 remained below normal, primarily in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic. Average air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean were much higher than normal for the month, reflecting unusual atmospheric conditions. Finally, we provide a review of 2009 Arctic sea ice conditions.

Arctic sea ice extent averaged over December 2009 was 12.48 million square kilometers (4.82 million square miles). This was 920,000 square kilometers (350,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for December, but 210,000 square kilometers (81,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in December 2006. Ice extent was less than normal over much of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, including the Barents Sea, part of the East Greenland Sea, and in Davis Strait.

Conditions in context
During December 2009, ice extent grew at an average of 68,000 square kilometers (26,000 square miles) per day. Sea ice extent increased at a fairly steady rate throughout the month, staying slightly above the levels observed in December 2007.
Figure 3. Monthly December ice extent for 1979 to 2009 shows a decline of 3.3% per decade.

December 2009 had the fourth-lowest average ice extent for the month since the beginning of satellite records, falling just above the extent for 2007. The linear rate of decline for December is now 3.3% per decade.

Warm air keeps ice extent low
December air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean region, eastern Siberia, and northwestern North America were warmer than normal. In contrast, temperatures in Eurasia, the United States, and southwestern Canada were below average. The strongest anomalies (more than 7 degrees Celsius/13 degrees Fahrenheit) were over the Atlantic side of the Arctic, including Baffin Bay and Davis Strait, where ice extent was below average.

Negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation
These regional contrasts in temperature anomalies resulted from a strongly negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation (AO). The AO is a natural pattern of climate variability. It consists of opposing patterns of atmospheric pressure between the polar regions and middle latitudes. The positive phase of the AO exists when pressures are lower than normal over the Arctic, and higher than normal in middle latitude. In the negative phase, the opposite is true; pressures are higher than normal over the Arctic and lower than normal in middle latitudes. The negative and positive phases of the AO set up opposing temperature patterns. With the AO in its negative phase this season, the Arctic is warmer than average, while parts of the middle latitudes are colder than normal. The phase of the AO also affects patterns of precipitation, especially over Europe.

The phase of the AO is described in terms of an index value. In December 2009 the AO index value was -3.41, the most negative value since at least 1950, according to data from the NOAA Climate Prediction Center.

While a negative AO leads to warmer temperatures over the Arctic, it also tends to reduce the flow of sea ice out of the Arctic by affecting the winds that can export the ice to warmer waters, where it melts. In this way, a negative AO could help retain some the second- and third-year ice through the winter, and potentially rebuild some of the older, multiyear ice that has been lost over the past few years. However, we do not yet know if the strongly negative AO will persist through the winter, or what its net effect will be.

For more information on the AO, see the NSIDC Arctic Meteorology and Climatology Primer.

The minimum ice extent in September 2009 was greater than the past two Septembers, but again fell below the long-term average. The melt season began with a young, thin Arctic sea ice cover, suggesting that significant amounts of ice would be lost during the melt season. However, a cooler summer with favorable winds helped preserve the ice.
Despite the cool summer, the ice remained thin and vulnerable at the sea ice minimum, with little of the older, thicker ice that used to characterize much of the Arctic. Recently published research by Barber and colleagues shows that the ice cover was even more fragile at the end of the melt season than satellite data indicated, with regions of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas covered by small, rotten ice floes.

In the fall, the sea ice froze up in fits and starts. The Northern Sea Route opened in October, even after sea ice extent for the Arctic as a whole had begun to increase. The annual average extent for 2009 was 11.18 million square kilometers (4.32 million square miles), 970,000 square kilometers (375,000 square miles) or 8.0% below 1979 to 2000 average and 740,000 square kilometers (286,000 square miles) or 6.2% below the 1979 to 2008 average.
References

Barber, D. G., R. Galley, M. G. Asplin, R. De Abreu, K.- A. Warner, M. Pucko, M. Gupta, S. Prinsenberg, and S. Julien. 2009. Perennial pack ice in the southern Beaufort Sea was not as it appeared in the summer of 2009. Geophysical Research Letters 36, L24501, doi:10.1029/2009GL041434.



So denial really isn't just a river in Egypt, eh?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 84
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/29/2010 11:43:31 PM
I thought you guys'd all get a charge out of this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q20cnn8vOfg

 kissmyasthma
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 88
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/31/2010 8:42:04 AM
From what I have seen and read, the oceans do absorb much of the co2 and like someone else has stated it has been consistent according to most recent studies but what has to be of concern is the surface temperatures rise and the fresh waters from glaciers change the salt content the climate patterns will change also.

The reduction of forests isn't helping either plus with even the most recent changes you can see evidence that the cycles have begun to change. Trees are budding earlier and migratory patterns of birds and animals are changing also. The slight rise in temps have also caused more problems for trees in that certain insects are not being killed off in the winters further exasperating the problem.

A weather shift could happen more abruptly than anyone could imagine, most likely not as traumatic as "the day after tomorrow" but in the span as short as a decade could cause serious problems such as an increased rise in sea levels.
Katrina is an example of a combination of two factors. One was the destruction of the wetlands along the gulf coast, primarily done to enhance the oil industry and a increase in the velocity of recent hurricanes.

Cities that have no natural defenses like New Orleans once had are at the greatest risk, notably New York, London, Bangladesh - all of which would be greatly affected with a rise of just one meter.

Regardless of whether you wish to place blame or not on humans these coming changes are on the way and whatever slight mods we can make to slow it down a bit can only help. Our biggest concern should be in preparing for it.



All of this nay saying and denial is just so they can just keep doing whatever they are doing. We will negotiate our way through this. Unfortunately, when you keep this way of thought a new opponent will be chosen for you - reality.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 89
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 1/31/2010 9:27:38 AM
@ Erasersedge
The earth is a dynamic, highly interconnected web of life. The keyword there is dynamic. It changes.
We can either adapt to the changes, or spend massive effort (probably ultimately futile) trying to "freeze frame" it the way it is.
I'm all for sustainability (in fact deeply so) and I'm sure we must have had some small influence on the climate. That said, our efforts should be put to not polluting our planet and "putting back" wherever we can, what we take from earth through biodegradability and replanting, etc. What can't be put back (like oil) should be used minimally, extracting every bit of possible use through recycling.

We might be injecting too much CO2 into the atmosphere for a sustainable balance; we might not. I do know that deforestation HAS to have changed the climate and is probably responsible for much of the "surplus" CO2. It seems only logical then, that the most inexpensive and practical way of alleviating some of the problem lies in the planting of trees, as was suggested earlier.

The recent hyping of anthropic global warming (a questionable hypothesis) as some sort of emergency that will require drastic action such as global taxation through the UN, carbon credits to be bought & sold as securities and heaven knows what else, by an unelected governing body of globalist businessmen fairly wreaks of a con (for those who hate the word "conspiracy). It's one that I have never bought and one that was recently shown to exist. My advice is to always look for the money. It's always hiding behind the curtain, like a mugger waiting to pounce on his next victim.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 94
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/3/2010 10:01:47 AM
Yup, BT, Chris Horner. A lawyer. Not a climatologist. Or a naturalist.

What he doesn't state is that a past increase in polar bear populations was due to the stopping of the hunting of bears. However, the threat comes from the loss of sea ice, which has been recorded.

As for the rest of it, well, I can say "cooling Earth" proponents have been putting thermometers in their freezers. Doesn't mean a damn thing.
 ChrisPCritter
Joined: 7/8/2009
Msg: 97
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/4/2010 2:54:22 AM

The sun has a surface temperature of around 6,000 'C yet none of this radiates to earth,only light ? Is that what you're saying.I find that hard to believe


Heat, like sound, requires a medium through which to travel. So the sun's temperature could be a billion degrees, and if the light reaching Earth remained the same as it is now, we would be no hotter. The problem is in the conversion of light to radiant heat, which gets trapped in our atmosphere--the medium that also normally allows transmission of Earth's excess heat into space. But since CO2 absorbs heat, rising levels of this and other greenhouse gases are rapidly creating a "sauna effect" on a global scale, with much of the additional heat being stored in the waters of our oceans. Think of the vast amount of energy it takes to raise a planet's temperature by a couple degrees C in a hundred years. Trust me, it's beyond your imagination.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 98
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/4/2010 6:50:32 AM

Heat, like sound, requires a medium through which to travel. So the sun's temperature could be a billion degrees, and if the light reaching Earth remained the same as it is now, we would be no hotter.


Wow! that's not just 'wrong' that's amazingly wrong!

Heat is light. Open up a science book! Please! So the warmth I feel on my face on a sunny day is just...what? Illusion?

Oy!
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 101
Global warming + CO2. explain this then
Posted: 2/6/2010 5:43:07 PM


The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is continuing. New evidence from satellite observations also shows that the ice cap is thinning as well.


Global warming implies higher amounts of precipitation implies thicker ice. If the Arctic ice cap is thinning then the global warming hypothesis is in trouble.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >