Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Invented problem of excess CO2"? Does that mean you deny the well known physics of atmospheric heat transfer and the greenhouse effect?
From a physicist
Quote:
And there you got a very strong feeling for how uncertain the whole business is, that the five reservoirs of carbon all are in close contact — the You can learn a lot from [models], but you cannot learn what’s going to happen 10 years from now.” atmosphere, the upper level of the ocean, the land vegetation, the topsoil, and the fossil fuels. They are all about equal in size. They all interact with each other strongly. So you can’t understand any of them unless you understand all of them. Essentially that was the conclusion. It’s a problem of very complicated ecology, and to isolate the atmosphere and the ocean just as a hydrodynamics problem makes no sense.
Quote:
Syukuro Manabe, right here in Princeton, was the first person who did climate models with enhanced carbon dioxide and they were excellent models. And he used to say very firmly that these models are very good tools for understanding climate, but they are not good tools for predicting climate. I think that’s absolutely right. They are models, but they don’t pretend to be the real world. They are purely fluid dynamics. You can learn a lot from them, but you cannot learn what’s going to happen 10 years from now.
What’s wrong with the models. I mean, I haven’t examined them in detail, (but) I know roughly what’s in them. And the basic problem is that in the case of climate, very small structures, like clouds, dominate. And you cannot model them in any realistic way. They are far too small and too diverse.
another reality he addresses
Quote:
I feel very strongly that China and India getting rich is the most important thing that’s going on in the world at present. That’s a real revolution, that the center of gravity of the whole population of the world would be middle class, and that’s a wonderful thing to happen. It would be a shame if we persuade them to stop that just for the sake of a problem that’s not that serious.
And I’m happy every time I see that the Chinese and Indians make a strong statement about going ahead with burning coal. Because that’s what it really depends on, is coal. They can’t do without coal. We could, but they certainly can’t.
My gosh, folks; there is still no global warming. The sun is still shining, the sky is still blue, and it's dang cold outside. Please, leftists, stop with the hallucinations.
My gosh, folks; there is still no global warming. The sun is still shining, the sky is still blue, and it's dang cold outside. Please, leftists, stop with the hallucinations.
Here's a link that you really need to read to understand the issue better:
"Professor Legalsea, when did this fraud about climate warming begin?"
"Well, young Jimmy, back in the 1820s. That is when the first scientist theorized that an overabundance of certain gases would cause the Earth's atmosphere to warm".
"Golly gee! You mean there were atheistic liberal scientists way back then?"
"Yes, young Jimmy, unfortunately, yes."
"How can I learn the truth, Professor Legalsea?"
"Search on Google. However, be very, very specific about the results you desire to find. Try "global warming is a fraud" as one suggestion. Note that the very best science is found on personal blogs written by non-scientist. Failing that, try Fox News, the leading scientific channel anywhere in the universe."
"Thanks, Professor Legalsea! Say, in what branch of learning are you a Professor?"
"Why, none, young Jimmy! You see, on anonymous boards you may be anything or anyone you want!"
"Gee, Professor Legalsea! I'm going to immediately adopt the persona of a well-educated, highly skilled worker who posts thousands of postings each year to prove how smart and hard-working I am!"
Yes mother nature balanced out our oceans and waterways just fine, we can dump as much as we want, same with our ground water it always balances out
Acidification of our oceans is a positive.
uhm ...what acidification??
The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid. In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0. According to Wikipedia “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.” At that rate, it will take another 3,500 years for the ocean to become even slightly acid.
but the facts are there is more "acidification" from "deficated waste" (sewage) being let lose in the oceans, than from air polution.....remember there are 7 billion people (and many more animals) that all have to deficate......but the fascist liberals want to talk cars/oil/air polution...why...to tax it
FACTS liberals dont want you to hear:
1. volcanoes make up 1% of ALL co2 produced....
2. and just humans breathing is around 10% of of all co2 prooduced
3. just cows contribute to 3% of all co2...and 26-28% of methane
4. in fact...Agriculture is responsible for an estimated 14 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. ......
5. A significant portion of these emissions come from methane, which, in terms of its contribution to global warming, is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.
The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid. In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0. According to Wikipedia “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.” At that rate, it will take another 3,500 years for the ocean to become even slightly acid.
This does indeed sound alarming, until you consider that corals became common in the oceans during the Ordovician Era – nearly 500 million years ago – when atmospheric CO2 levels were about 10X greater than they are today.
In 1954, the US detonated the world’s largest nuclear weapon at Bikini Island in the South Pacific. The bomb was equivalent to 30 billion pounds of TNT, vapourised three islands, and raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees. Yet half a century of rising CO2 later, the corals at Bikini are thriving. Another drop in pH of 0.075 will likely have less impact on the corals than a thermonuclear blast. The corals might even survive a rise in ocean temperatures of half a degree, since they flourished at times when the earth’s temperature was 10C higher than the present.
There seems to be no shortage of theories about how rising CO2 levels will destroy the planet, yet the geological record shows that life flourished for hundreds of millions of years with much higher CO2 levels and temperatures. This is a primary reason why there are so many skeptics in the geological community. At some point the theorists will have to start paying attention to empirical data.
early 2012, scientists at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography and other authors published a study showing how much the pH level (measuring alkalinity versus acidity) varies naturally between parts of the ocean and at different times of the day, month and year.
This adds to facts that the ocean-acidification problem has been exaggerated. For a start, the ocean is alkaline and in no danger of becoming acid
"On both a monthly and annual scale, even the most stable open ocean sites see pH changes many times larger than the annual rate of acidification," say the authors of the study, adding that because good instruments to measure ocean pH have only recently been deployed, "this variation has been under-appreciated." Over coral reefs, the pH decline between dusk and dawn is almost half as much as the decrease in average pH expected over the next 100 years. The noise is greater than the signal.
Another recent study, by scientists from the U.K., Hawaii and Massachusetts, concluded that "marine and freshwater assemblages have always experienced variable pH conditions," and that "in many freshwater lakes, pH changes that are orders of magnitude greater than those projected for the 22nd-century oceans can occur over periods of hours."
The central concern is that lower pH will make it harder for corals, clams and other "calcifier" creatures to make calcium carbonate skeletons and shells. Yet this concern also may be overstated. Off Papua New Guinea and the Italian island of Ischia, where natural carbon-dioxide bubbles from volcanic vents make the sea less alkaline, and off the Yucatan, where underwater springs make seawater actually acidic, studies have shown that at least some kinds of calcifiers still thrive—at least as far down as pH 7.8.
In a recent experiment in the Mediterranean, reported in Nature Climate Change, corals and mollusks were transplanted to lower pH sites, where they proved "able to calcify and grow at even faster than normal rates when exposed to the high [carbon-dioxide] levels projected for the next 300 years." In any case, freshwater mussels thrive in Scottish rivers, where the pH is as low as five
Yes, I'm familiar with what any of you will tell me.
This is right-wing conspiracy theory garbage and there's no reason to take it, or you, seriously. The science speaks for itself, you're just mad because it contradicts what you ideological masters tell you to believe. I don't know how you interpret my proving denialist talking points to be garbage as being contrived, self-serving, or screeching. You're probably confusing me with some imaginary boogieman you've been instructed to whine about by your silly right-wing friends. I see no scientific skepticism coming from you, just whining and crying about the left. Do you whine and cry because it makes you feel better about being proven wrong or something? The purpose of your whining escapes me.
Here is part of what you said, I have also made corrections:
This is left-wing conspiracy theory garbage and there's no reason to take it, or you, seriously.
The science lies for itself, you're just mad because it contradicts what your ideological masters tell you to believe.
"You're probably confusing me with some imaginary boogieman you've been instructed to whine about by your silly left-wing friends. I see no scientific skepticism coming from you, just whining and crying about the right. Do you whine and cry because it makes you feel better about being an environmental cry-baby? The purpose of your whining escapes me.
Just a brief primer to help people understand the warmists better:
Summer = Man-made climate change
Winter = Just weather
It's more like this:
If it's hot: proof of "climate change"
If it's cold: proof of "climate change"
If it snows: proof of "climate change"
If it doesn't snow: proof of "climate change"
If there's a hurricane: proof of "climate change"
If there isn't a hurricane: proof of "climate change"
Basically they're right, no matter what happens.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
