This Is Why I Am Not An "Enviromentalist"

[reefraff]

Curbing the footprint is OK as long as it's done with a little common sense. There are some useful purposes for sequestered CO2 so encouraging that makes sense. Carbon credits are a joke even if you buy into global warming being a man made crisis, that is what amazes me. For all the beeching and moaning about evil cigarettes the government hasn't made a single move to limit its availability because they are making a fortune on the taxes they make off its production and use. I see the same damned thing happening with "carbon credits"

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3023222
If they would spend more time studying the issue rather than pushing a political agenda perhaps they could develop computer models that will accurately track historic weather patterns and explain why if CO2 causing warming why there are patterns of cooling at times when CO2 is rising and warming when CO2 was decreasing.
Spot on!
We've only been tracking temperatures accurately for about 150 years or so. Sure, we can glean climatological information from things such as tree rings and ice core samples, but those are educated guesses, not empirical data.
Additionally, overall Global Warming has the potential to cause local cooling due to shifts in the Jet and Gulf streams, El Niño, La Niña, etc.
Meantime, it's like 90° here today and my tank is pushing 84. That's all I care about at the moment...

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3015496
The rejection of that concept is a political decision reflecting personal biases, not science. On average it is getting warmer. The theory actually predicts that there will be greater extremes of environment (such as unusual cold spells)That's how science works - you use the best data available, and rethink your hypotheses as the data change. Anyone who expects more is full of crap.
Have you ever considered the acceptance of the man made global warming philosophy is a decision reflecting a political affiliation not science?
Statistically there is no way. Sample size is entirely too small and very inaccurate. We've been able to accurately measure via satellite the temperature of the earth as a whole for maybe 25 or 30 years? The previous 50 year's we've relied on minimum wage workers at thousands of airports collecting data. Then the previous 150 years of record keeping we've got data from a few hundred observation points. There is no way we can even come close to saying that, those samples of data is enough to extrapolate earth destroying trends in our environment? And how long do these same "scientists" claim the earth has been around with life on it. 8 billion years? 30 years of good data to determine trends of 8 billion years. Right
Originally Posted by Rslinger
http:///forum/post/3015565
Miles of reefs bleaching becasue the slight warming of the ocean, how can you not believe in that?
Now for all your folks reading this. I have a question.
Do you NOT see how this "proof" is the same as the "proof" proposed by the OP... And can't definitively prove it either way?
Seriously?
Originally Posted by kmart189
http:///forum/post/3015692
Yeah usually there is an underlying reason to reject it. I listened to a speaker talk about how he didn't believe that it was caused by human causes. Than even he had to admit he worked for an oil company. Real convincing

Seriously? I can go out and find 100 scientists who could say that they lost their funding due to findings opposing the global warming nuts. Being bought off by oil companies (who are honestly out for money) vs Al Gore buying you off (who is lying though his 10,000 sqft house) about not being out for money.
What is the difference the findings are still tainted...

 

[stdreb27]

2nd thought to consider...
How can something that 70% of life on earth require for survival be a pollutant? Especially the biggest bad boy...

 

[slf125]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3023777
2nd thought to consider...
How can something that 70% of life on earth require for survival be a pollutant? Especially the biggest bad boy...
we also require water to live and to much of it can give us water poisoning. Vitamin C is good for you but can also give you craps. Point is, just because something is required to live doesn't mean it can do no harm.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by SLF125
http:///forum/post/3024148
we also require water to live and to much of it can give us water poisoning. Vitamin C is good for you but can also give you craps. Point is, just because something is required to live doesn't mean it can do no harm.

Those aren't gases........there is a big difference.

 

[slf125]

the point remains the same however.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by SLF125
http:///forum/post/3024148
we also require water to live and to much of it can give us water poisoning. Vitamin C is good for you but can also give you craps. Point is, just because something is required to live doesn't mean it can do no harm.
But does that make water a pollutant?
You do realize the amount of CO2 pumped in the air by us is miniscule.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3024187
Those aren't gases........there is a big difference.
Oxygen, last time I checked, is a gas, and too much will kill ya!

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3024842
Oxygen, last time I checked, is a gas, and too much will kill ya!
This is kind of my point, using this same "reducing carbon" argument. We should be running around killing folliage and algae. After all they are pumping a gas into the air that to much of would kill you. It is highly corrosive. And toxic highly toxic in pure environments.

 

[reefraff]

Here's one for you,
CO2 from fossil fuel usage bad
CO2 from dying or dead trees good. The tree hugging dingbats oppose salvage logging burn areas or even removing trees infested with pine beetles saying allowing the decaying trees are important to the eco system. Guess they would rather see green healthy trees which actually remove CO2 killed rather than utilizing the dead or dying trees which emit CO2 as they decay

 

[slf125]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3024661
But does that make water a pollutant?
I suppose you have a point there. However, earth was doing fine until we started putting more co2 into the air.
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3024661
You do realize the amount of CO2 pumped in the air by us is miniscule.
I don't realise that. Mostly because the amount has tripled since preindustrial times. It is still considered a trace element but that doesn't mean it can't hurt. Technically salt is trace in ocean water ( well, you know , the compounds that make up our salt) but everything in the ocean would die without it or with too much of it.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by SLF125
http:///forum/post/3025039
I suppose you have a point there. However, earth was doing fine until we started putting more co2 into the air.
I don't realise that. Mostly because the amount has tripled since preindustrial times. It is still considered a trace element but that doesn't mean it can't hurt. Technically salt is trace in ocean water ( well, you know , the compounds that make up our salt) but everything in the ocean would die without it or with too much of it.
Who is to define what is fine? Seriously.
I've found fossilised Nautilus shells in my back yard in North West Fort Worth. We've had ice ages where there were glaciers down into the Midwest.
If the earth has been here for what is it 4 billion years. If you accept the statistics, (I don't) How can we define a temperature change of less than 1 degree celsius over a 100 year period as catastrophic?
Second, your "fact" is simply unfounded. There is strong evidence from actual air samples that the CO2 levels from the 1800's are statistically the same as levels today.

 

[uneverno]

CO2 is the most commonly refered to GHG, but it's far from the most potent. CH4 is 20x worse.
Natural sources of methane add ~270 million metric tons/year to the atmosphere as opposed to ~ 330 million tons/year from anthropogenic sources. I.e. humans are responsible for a little over half of global methane production.
After approximately 6.5 years, the CH4 breaks down into CO2 and water vapor, both of which are GHG's as well. (Note how it stays warm at night in a humid environment, whereas in an arid one, it does not.)
In addition I would also hardly describe an average of 20 tons of CO2 emitted, per person, per year, in the US alone, as miniscule. (China is worse, and has almost 4x our population.)
Earth will continue to do fine. There was ~ 1000 times more CH4 in the atmosphere 3.5 billion years ago than there is now.
At the current rate of increase, it may not work out so well for our species however.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3025090
CO2 is the most commonly refered to GHG, but it's far from the most potent. CH4 is 20x worse.
Natural sources of methane add ~270 million metric tons/year to the atmosphere as opposed to ~ 330 million tons/year from anthropogenic sources. I.e. humans are responsible for a little over half of global methane production.
After approximately 6.5 years, the CH4 breaks down into CO2 and water vapor, both of which are GHG's as well. (Note how it stays warm at night in a humid environment, whereas in an arid one, it does not.)
In addition I would also hardly describe an average of 20 tons of CO2 emitted, per person, per year, in the US alone, as miniscule. (China is worse, and has almost 4x our population.)
Earth will continue to do fine. There was ~ 1000 times more CH4 in the atmosphere 3.5 billion years ago than there is now.
At the current rate of increase, it may not work out so well for our species however.
This is kind of like Obama's budget cuts. 100 million out of 8 trillion.
The atmosphere weighs around 4.41 million billion tons.
vs the (if you accept the number from the tree huggers) 26.7 billion humans produce.
While we are at it. Why don't we stop water evaporation. That is the only statistically relavant gas imo.

 

[slf125]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3025078
Who is to define what is fine? Seriously.
I've found fossilised Nautilus shells in my back yard in North West Fort Worth. We've had ice ages where there were glaciers down into the Midwest.
If the earth has been here for what is it 4 billion years. If you accept the statistics, (I don't) How can we define a temperature change of less than 1 degree celsius over a 100 year period as catastrophic?
Second, your "fact" is simply unfounded. There is strong evidence from actual air samples that the CO2 levels from the 1800's are statistically the same as levels today.
It was fine by my definition. As in things grew and prospered without the need for extra Co2.
I will admit, my "fact" of tripled was wrong but Co2 has increased about 35%, from around 280ppm to around 380ppm between 1775-2007, so you can't say its about the same.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_01/
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science...rmings_impact/
Another thing I wish to say is that "The Solution to Pollution is Dilution" doesn't work. Like I said, just because there is, relatively, little Co2 in the atmosphere doesn't mean it can't propel global warming.
And yes, while methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Eg - CO2 levels are 380 ppm (parts per million) while methane levels are 1.75ppm. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is calculated at 28% of the warming CO2 contributes.

 

[slf125]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3025159
While we are at it. Why don't we stop water evaporation. That is the only statistically relavant gas imo.
we don't create water evaporation so we can't really stop it.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3025159
While we are at it. Why don't we stop water evaporation. That is the only statistically relavant gas imo.
What causes water evaporation?
Oh yeah - heat.
To say something is a small percentage of something else does not negate its impact. Additionally, if that percentage is increasing, then it would follow that so is its impact, and proportionally at that.
What the raw amount of pollutants is is irrelevant. What matters is the result. Back in the late 70's forrests in the Northeast were dying as a result of acid rain. This was largely a result of miniscule amounts of Nitrogenous compounds put into the atmosphere by car exhaust. So we put catalytic converters on cars which convert the N compounds to S compounds. Trouble is, those S compounds combine in the upper atmosphere with Ozone (among other things) to create CFC's. The CFC's are enough of an issue in and of themselves, but the other result is a depletion in the Ozone layer. Ozone blocks the sun's ultraviolet radiation, which is harmful on various levels to various lifeforms. Not to mention CFC's are toxic in very small amounts once they settle back down on terra firma.
And what does "Statistically at the same levels" mean? 280 parts per million (pre-industrial CO2 levels) vs. 385 parts per million (now) is an insignificant difference in aggregate, but it's still a 40ish% increase. That's huge.
There are lies, there are damn lies and there are statistics.
Mark Twain

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3025174
What causes water evaporation?
Oh yeah - heat.
To say something is a small percentage of something else does not negate its impact. Additionally, if that percentage is increasing, then it would follow that so is its impact, and proportionally at that.
What the raw amount of pollutants is is irrelevant. What matters is the result. Back in the late 70's forrests in the Northeast were dying as a result of acid rain. This was largely a result of miniscule amounts of Nitrogenous compounds put into the atmosphere by car exhaust. So we put catalytic converters on cars which convert the N compounds to S compounds. Trouble is, those S compounds combine in the upper atmosphere with Ozone (among other things) to create CFC's. The CFC's are enough of an issue in and of themselves, but the other result is a depletion in the Ozone layer. Ozone blocks the sun's ultraviolet radiation, which is harmful on various levels to various lifeforms. Not to mention CFC's are toxic in very small amounts once they settle back down on terra firma.
And what does "Statistically at the same levels" mean? 280 parts per million (pre-industrial CO2 levels) vs. 385 parts per million (now) is an insignificant difference in aggregate, but it's still a 40ish% increase. That's huge.
Mark Twain
Oh yeah, CFC's the molecule several times as heavy as air that somehow made it several miles in the air that had the ability to "dissolve" the ozone layer. That hole magically had nothing to do with the fact that the sun wasn't shining when that hole was forming. Then magically closed when the axis of the earth pointed those poles towards the sun again.
Slight note when thinking about heat, just something to consider. ...The sun...
Originally Posted by SLF125
http:///forum/post/3025172
It was fine by my definition. As in things grew and prospered without the need for extra Co2.
I will admit, my "fact" of tripled was wrong but Co2 has increased about 35%, from around 280ppm to around 380ppm between 1775-2007, so you can't say its about the same.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_01/
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science...rmings_impact/
Another thing I wish to say is that "The Solution to Pollution is Dilution" doesn't work. Like I said, just because there is, relatively, little Co2 in the atmosphere doesn't mean it can't propel global warming.
And yes, while methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Eg - CO2 levels are 380 ppm (parts per million) while methane levels are 1.75ppm. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is calculated at 28% of the warming CO2 contributes.
And I can go find reports where co2 levels are the same taken from actual air samples. The simple fact is as a whole we can't tell because we don't have large enough sample sizes. Which is my whole contention anyway.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3025396
Oh yeah, CFC's the molecule several times as heavy as air that somehow made it several miles in the air that had the ability to "dissolve" the ozone layer.
I'd ask you to please re-read my post. I never claimed that CFC's were what was spewed into the atmosphere initially. What I said was that the Sulphates created by catalytically converted car exhaust combined w/ Ozone and other compounds already extant in the upper atmosphere to create CFCs. The recombination creates the heavier than air CFC molecules, which then sink back to earth.
This is the same process that occurs during Volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes themselves do not produce CFC's, but reactions with both natural and man made chemicals in the the stratosphere/ionosphere do.
Slight note when thinking about heat, just something to consider. ...The sun...
Again, please go back and read my upthread posts. I have not then, nor do I now, discount the sun as a contributing factor. I have, in fact, posed the question what the extent of human influence is, given that Mars and Jupiter are also experiencing planetary warming despite human absence on those planets.
I contend that human influence is one of, but not the exclusive factor in the equation on this planet.
And I can go find reports where co2 levels are the same taken from actual air samples.
I'm sure you can. How many 200 year old air samples are you (or anyone else) in possession of?
The simple fact is as a whole we can't tell because we don't have large enough sample sizes. Which is my whole contention anyway.
In point of fact, we have no atmospheric samples at all.
Ice core samples however, provide reasonable, though not positive, data indicating what the current atmospheric content was. What I'm not convinced of is the dating process of those samples. I'm willing to concede a few thousand years one way or the other, however. Meanwhile, there is no debating what's contained within those samples.
Not to beat a dead horse but again, as I've stated upthread, I find the overall data to be inconclusive, but worthy of further investigation.