Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T - Archive
  All that effort to reduce Carbon emissions down the drain in 4 days... (Page 2)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version

This topic is 2 pages long:  1   2 
Previous Page | Next Page
All that effort to reduce Carbon emissions down the drain in 4 days... by Formula88
Started on: 08-10-2013 07:00 PM
Replies: 55
Last post by: rinselberg on 08-14-2013 09:37 PM
jmclemore
Member
Posts: 2395
From: Wichita Ks USA
Registered: Dec 2007


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post08-13-2013 01:32 AM Click Here to See the Profile for jmclemoreSend a Private Message to jmclemoreDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:

But you're saying anything "otherwise" doesn't agree with the 95%, so you ignore it.
So what it would really take is for all the Global Warming proponents to change THEIR minds, not another interpretation from anywhere else. You might as well be saying you'll vote Republican when the DNC endorses the GOP candidate.

Since most of the arguments made for Global Climate Change focus on
a consensus of experts, I assume those who are part of their chosen
consensus would have to refute their own claims before they change their
mind.

Never mind, I realize how stupid that sounds now that I've read it.

They'll instantly know we have tricked the Climatologist, because
everyone knows that a flat earther, 1 generation above a
knuckle dragging troglodyte has an unfair advantage over College
educated professionals that have been peer reviewed and published.
Just because conservatives confused the scientist doesn't mean it ain't real.......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The 1 problem I will always have (because no one has answered it) is, How?
how is that after all the time, money and energy we have use to fix, slow
or even change the condition, we are still being told it's worse not better.

I've been shown by many people (some here , others elsewhere) how much
greenhouse gases are present, how much it's changed, how man is contributing to
the problem and how we haven't done enough. What I have not heard or seen is a
solid answer to the question, How much is enough? What do we all
(everyone, world wide) have to do to fix it?


Coal
Oil
Petroleum
Gas
Agriculture
Planes Contrails
Tires
Internal Combustion Engines

Really, how much do we have to cross off the list
before we see a difference. Or at least hear anyone
say it's working and getting better instead of worse.

IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post08-13-2013 05:45 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by jmclemore:
How is it that after all the time, money and energy we have used to fix, slow or even change the condition, we are still being told it's worse not better.

I've been shown by many people (some here , others elsewhere) how much greenhouse gases are present, how much it's changed, how man is contributing to the problem and how we haven't done enough. What I have not heard or seen is a solid answer to the question, how much is enough? What do we all (everyone, world wide) have to do to fix it?

Coal
Oil
Petroleum
Gas
Agriculture
Planes Contrails
Tires
Internal Combustion Engines

Really, how much do we have to cross off the list before we see a difference? Or at least hear anyone say it's working and getting better instead of worse?

I am working with some numbers that I have from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007, since the Fifth Report has not been released yet.

The IPCC's gold standard for climate mitigation has always been 2 degrees (Celsius), meaning that with the required levels of GHG (greenhouse gas) reductions, the global climate would stabilize at just 2 degrees GMT (global mean temperature) above the pre-industrial baseline. By eyeballing a graph from zipcodezoo (approximate), I would say that we are right now (today) at about 1 degree above that pre-industrial baseline, so I would translate this IPCC gold standard to just 1 degree above current temperatures.

The gold standard is the best that could realistically be achieved (in the IPCC's perspective), without reversing the global economy all the way back to the Stone Age--or something like that. I think it's already academic, as I expect that no one seriously believes that this could still be achieved.

Taking the gold standard off of the table, I think that this IPCC future (V) is a more realistic scenario, which is projected to stabilize GMT at about 3.5 degrees (Celsius) above current GMT by 2100. In order to achieve it, global human CO2 emissions (measured in billions of tons per year) would have to stabilize at a ceiling by 2050 of about 55 percent above the amount of CO2 that was emitted in 2000. Since most of us are used to the Fahrenheit scale, that figure (3.5 degrees Celsius) converts to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit. That's where the climate would stabilize by 2100--about 6.3 degrees (F) warmer all around the globe (on average) than it is today. That's a pretty whopping increase.

Most continental coastlines and islands around the world will see, at the very least, a 1 meter or 3.3 foot increase above current sea levels by 2100. (Does that float your boat?)

Atmospheric CO2 would stabilize by 2100 at about 615 parts per million, or about 50 percent more than there is today.

Inertia or buffering effects in the climate system (you might call them time delays) mean that CO2 levels and surface temperatures will continue to increase for some time (until 2100) after human CO2 emissions have been capped at their maximum yearly amount in 2050.

These are just rough estimates on my part, but they perhaps give some kind of answer to these questions.

And how does the IPCC think this would happen? Through a global effort that achieves:
  • Increase forested acreage to absorb and sequester CO2 from the air via photosynthesis and soil absorption
  • Reduction of other human GHG emissions (methane, N2O, fluorinated gases)
  • More nuclear power
  • More bio-energy fuels
  • More wind and solar
  • Switch some processes to natural gas to curtail the increased use of coal
  • Increase the use of CO2 capture and storage from various processes
  • Improve energy efficiency across the boards in as many ways as possible



And how will you know that it's working?

Keep watching the skies at:
http://www.breathingearth.net


I also used this very readable reference as background for this post:

The 2 Degree (Celsius) Target
EU Climate Change Expert Group "EG Science"
9 July 2008
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/p...s/brochure_2c_en.pdf

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-13-2013).]

IP: Logged
Jonesy
Member
Posts: 4694
From: Bama
Registered: Oct 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 104
Rate this member

Report this Post08-13-2013 09:45 AM Click Here to See the Profile for JonesySend a Private Message to JonesyDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:

Our efforts to control the climate are little more than a fart in a hurricane.


I don't look at it as humans trying to "control" the climate.. But more reduce any harmful impact we may have on it. At least thats the way i look at it..

IP: Logged
Formula88
Member
Posts: 53788
From: Raleigh NC
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 554
Rate this member

Report this Post08-13-2013 10:13 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Formula88Send a Private Message to Formula88Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
The IPCC's gold standard for climate mitigation has always been 2 degrees (Celsius), meaning that with the required levels of GHG (greenhouse gas) reductions, the global climate would stabilize at just 2 degrees GMT (global mean temperature) above the pre-industrial baseline. By eyeballing a graph from zipcodezoo (approximate), I would say that we are right now (today) at about 1 degree above that pre-industrial baseline, so I would translate this IPCC gold standard to just 1 degree above current temperatures.


Historically the global mean temperature has varied much more than that. How can we tie a climate "fix" to a 2°C temperature change when it will vary more than that without any impact from humans?
IP: Logged
masospaghetti
Member
Posts: 2477
From: Charlotte, NC USA
Registered: Dec 2009


Feedback score:    (10)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post08-13-2013 11:06 AM Click Here to See the Profile for masospaghettiSend a Private Message to masospaghettiDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


Some greenhouse growers increase CO2 levels up to about 1,500 PPM, which increases plant growth. Current ambient levels are just under 400PPM.


Completely useless comparison. Nobody is debating that high CO2 levels cause increased plant growth.

 
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
If CO2 were pollution, we'd ideally want to limit it as much as possible. If we did that, we'd end up destroying all plant life on the planet.


You said here that:

 
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
Our efforts to control the climate are little more than a fart in a hurricane.


So which is it? Can we control CO2 levels, or can we not?

LIkewise, I still cannot figure out if fierobear disputes AGW completely, or just the extent of it. After 68 pages in his thread his position was still changing.
IP: Logged
FlyinFieros
Member
Posts: 1599
From: US
Registered: Oct 2012


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 63
User Banned

Report this Post08-13-2013 11:21 AM Click Here to See the Profile for FlyinFierosSend a Private Message to FlyinFierosDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

This is all so dumb and ignorant.

"In the modern era, emissions to the atmosphere from volcanoes are only about 1% of emissions from human sources." Source.

Volcanos have a COOLING effect on the atmosphere because the primary emission is sulfate aerosols. Look at Pinatubo mentioned above:

Source.

 
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
Obviously not a "valid" source since it doesn't support the Green Initiative™.
I blame Bush for volcanoes.

I blame people who don't fact check their political sources and just follow it like sheep.

You want to pretend you're questioning science for the sake of scientific pursuit, you're not. You just need your dose of political entertainment. I mean you ask a lot of silly questions about the science as if you're the first person to think of it. But a problem arises in that you can't research any of things you believe for validity because you'd be forced to change your mind. Consequently you'd have nothing to post about. Which is why you skip the research step in order to generate a political 'debate' in order to get your jollies off.

The right's crusade against the human role in climate change is only matched by the left's anti-vaccine nonsense. It's the same dumb nonsense.
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27083
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post08-14-2013 02:05 AM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearDirect Link to This Post
Lol global warming

OFA Gets Zero Attendance for Climate Change Rally
http://freebeacon.com/ofa-g...limate-change-rally/
IP: Logged
FlyinFieros
Member
Posts: 1599
From: US
Registered: Oct 2012


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 63
User Banned

Report this Post08-14-2013 07:44 AM Click Here to See the Profile for FlyinFierosSend a Private Message to FlyinFierosDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
Lol global warming


Even I wouldn't have attended an 8:00am event on a Tuesday concerning climate change. I have a job.

[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 08-14-2013).]

IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27083
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post08-14-2013 11:10 AM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:


Even I wouldn't have attended an 8:00am event on a Tuesday concerning climate change. I have a job.



Many leftists don't.
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27083
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post08-14-2013 11:22 AM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearDirect Link to This Post

fierobear

27083 posts
Member since Aug 2000
Meanwhile, the wheels continue to fall off the global warming wagon...

What Global Warming? 2012 Data Confirms Earth In Cooling Trend
http://www.cnsnews.com/news...-earth-cooling-trend


(CNSNews.com) – The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released its “State of the Climate in 2012” report, which states that “worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record.” But the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin.


“To no one’s surprise, the report gives the reader the impression that warming is galloping ahead out of control,” writes Gosselin. “But their data shows just the opposite.”

Although the NOAA report noted that in 2012, “the Arctic continues to warm” with “sea ice reaching record lows,” it also stated that the Antarctica sea ice “reached a record high of 7.51 million square miles” on Sept. 26, 2012.

And the latest figures for this year show that there’s been a slowdown of melting in the Arctic this summer as well, with temperatures at the North Pole well below normal for this time of year. Meteorologist Joe Bastardi calls it “the coldest ever recorded.”

The Associated Press had to retract a photo it released on July 27 with the caption, “The shallow meltwater lake is occurring due to an unusually warm period.”

“In fact, the water accumulates in this way every summer,” AP admitted in a note to editors, adding that the photo was doubly misleading because “the camera used by the North Pole Environment Observatory has drifted hundreds of miles from its original position, which was a few dozen miles from the pole.”
NOAA also reported that the “average lower strastospheric temperature, about six to ten miles above the Earth’s surface, for 2012 was record or near-record cold, depending on the dataset” even while the concentrations of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, continued to increase.

"Even with all this data manipulation, the trend is down as shown by this Hadley global plot," writes Joseph D'Aleo, former director of meteorology at The Weather Channel. (See D'Aleo - Real Story About Temps.pdf)


"Last year was the 8th warmest but 7th coldest since 1998. They explain it away with the predominance of La Ninas or a solar blip, but say it was the warmest decade nonetheless, so stop questioning us," he said.

On August 7th, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten quoted Irish solar expert Ian Elliott predicting that lower levels of sunspot activity over the next few years “indicates that we may be on the path to a new little ice age.”

“If you think scientists just couldn’t get any more incompetent, then think again. NOAA scientists even appear to believe that cold events are now signs of warming,” Gosselin points out.

“When one carefully reads the report, we find that the NOAA findings actually do confirm precisely what the skeptics have been claiming all along:

1. The Earth has stopped warming.

2. The climate models exaggerated future warming [caused by] CO2 climate sensitivity is much lower than we first thought.

“That’s the real issue at hand,” he added.
IP: Logged
ray b
Member
Posts: 13403
From: miami
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 325
Rate this member

Report this Post08-14-2013 12:43 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ray bSend a Private Message to ray bDirect Link to This Post
NO the real issue is who is paying for the DISINFORMATION that you parrot
oil-gas-coal industry barons who fear a slight drop in their billions
and are willing to lie cheat and smear anyone who wants to limit the warming
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
FlyinFieros
Member
Posts: 1599
From: US
Registered: Oct 2012


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 63
User Banned

Report this Post08-14-2013 12:57 PM Click Here to See the Profile for FlyinFierosSend a Private Message to FlyinFierosDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
Many leftists don't.

Many 'leftists' do have jobs.

You try to associate climate change with Democrats in order to dismiss the issue. Science doesn't have a political party. The depth of your logic is indeed shallow.

 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
But the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin.

See, these people who oppose climate change for political reasons cash in on the ignorance of the common man. Climate deniers depend on the widespread scientific ignorance (both in other people and in themselves) in order to manipulate the news and spread misinformation. This is a good example.

One year does not constitute a trend at all.

Edit note: Removed graphs that only applied to the USA when the context was global temperatures. I could make the same point globally but maso has already properly done so.

[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 08-14-2013).]

IP: Logged
masospaghetti
Member
Posts: 2477
From: Charlotte, NC USA
Registered: Dec 2009


Feedback score:    (10)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post08-14-2013 01:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for masospaghettiSend a Private Message to masospaghettiDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:

...The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released its “State of the Climate in 2012” report, which states that “worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record.” But the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend


Rinse, repeat...

YES, temperatures have flat lined over the past decade. It is perfectly compatible with long-term global warming trends. This so-called cooling "trend" is that tiny flatline at the very end of the graph.



Over a longer timescale, it looks even more ridiculous:



A 10-year window is not long enough to establish a "trend" as the author would like to believe. There are too many other cyclical factors that can skew short term data.

[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 08-14-2013).]

IP: Logged
Formula88
Member
Posts: 53788
From: Raleigh NC
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 554
Rate this member

Report this Post08-14-2013 08:39 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Formula88Send a Private Message to Formula88Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:

I blame people who don't fact check their political sources and just follow it like sheep.

You want to pretend you're questioning science for the sake of scientific pursuit, you're not. You just need your dose of political entertainment. I mean you ask a lot of silly questions about the science as if you're the first person to think of it. But a problem arises in that you can't research any of things you believe for validity because you'd be forced to change your mind. Consequently you'd have nothing to post about. Which is why you skip the research step in order to generate a political 'debate' in order to get your jollies off.

The right's crusade against the human role in climate change is only matched by the left's anti-vaccine nonsense. It's the same dumb nonsense.


Well, you've mastered the ad hominem.
IP: Logged
NoMoreRicers
Member
Posts: 2192
From: Spokane, WA
Registered: Mar 2009


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post08-14-2013 09:05 PM Click Here to See the Profile for NoMoreRicersSend a Private Message to NoMoreRicersDirect Link to This Post
I don't know why people fret over the existence or not of anthropogenic climate change. It's the so called 'solutions' that bother me.
IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post08-14-2013 09:37 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergDirect Link to This Post
There are two logical kinds of solutions to global warming. One is adaptation--learning to live in a globally warmer climate. The other is mitigation--reducing the amount of warming, either by reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, or otherwise removing carbon dioxide (the most talked about greenhouse gas) from the atmosphere.

But if you don't believe that carbon dioxide is the main cause of global warming, why would you want to consider any enterprise to remove any of it from the atmosphere? And if you don't believe the anthropogenic explanation for global warming--that the main cause is greenhouse gas emissions from human activities--why would you want to consider any policy changes or initiatives to reduce the amount of human greenhouse gas emissions?

If you want to restrict yourself to only the adaptation kinds of solutions, then I guess the science of global warming doesn't require much scrutiny--you just accept it and adapt to it, regardless of whether the cause is human or natural or some combination of both.
IP: Logged
Previous Page | Next Page

This topic is 2 pages long:  1   2 


All times are ET (US)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock