Study: NOAA-led study shows Alaska fisheries and communities at risk from ocean acidification "Many of Alaska’s nutritionally and economically valuable marine fisheries are located in waters that are already experiencing ocean acidification, and will see more in the near future, the study shows. Communities in southeast and southwest Alaska face the highest risk from ocean acidification because they rely heavily on fisheries that are expected to be most affected by ocean acidification, and have underlying factors that make those communities more vulnerable, such as lower incomes and fewer employment opportunities."
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 08-01-2014).]
Study: Impact of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Coral Communities Is Deeper and Broader than Predicted "The footprint of the impact of the spill on coral communities is both deeper and wider than previous data indicated," said Fisher. "This study very clearly shows that multiple coral communities, up to 22 kilometers from the spill site and at depths over 1800 meters, were impacted by the spill."
"CFL bulbs actually have fewer mercury concerns than incandescent lights, according to the California Energy Commission. Although the older bulbs contain no mercury, they're often powered by coal-fired electricity plants, which release mercury as a pollutant. The result is about 40% less mercury emissions per bulb with CFLs, according to Environmental Protection Agency figures."
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: rolleyes
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: For a guy who's demonstratively wrong constantly, you sure do act smug about it.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 08-01-2014).]
"CFL bulbs actually have fewer mercury concerns than incandescent lights, according to the California Energy Commission. Although the older bulbs contain no mercury, they're often powered by coal-fired electricity plants, which release mercury as a pollutant. The result is about 40% less mercury emissions per bulb with CFLs, according to Environmental Protection Agency figures."
...and apparently you skipped over the first part of the article - moron
"Energy-efficient CFLs are increasingly popular but few people recycle the bulbs. As a result, U.S. landfills are releasing more than 4 tons of mercury annually into the atmosphere and storm water runoff, a study says."
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:It doesn’t get overlooked. The mercury and lead used in some products is contained. It can be recycled and used again.
You said that mercury and lead used in the CFL's is "recycled and used again", I post an article saying that the reality is that are a whole lot of them are not. BUT THAT is ok, since it is using less power That is like putting out a house fire by pissing on it.
Had people ACTUALLY been concerned, they would solve the problem and NOT put a band-aid on top of it. Perhaps the power plants should be upgraded or replaced - but nooo it is easier to just ban the light bulb. Just like this carbon capture scheme - they have no idea what the long term effect is. But might as well pollute the ground since we are doing such a good job with the air.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: You know what also coincides with these changes? Mass extinction events.
Why are you scared??? If we are damaging the planet so much like you say - perhaps this is a good thing then?
In response to a graph I posted:
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:Where did you find this graph? William Ruddiman is listed as a source yet he endorses the human factor in climate change. One of his books is titled “Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate”
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:The time scale on this graph is very deceitful.
...so you are admitting that someone who "endorses the human factor in climate change" is "deceitful"... :shocked:
...and you sir are even more smug and cocky - just look at all the propaganda cartoons you are filling this thread with that have NO real discussion (too busy pointing the finger I suppose) on the topic. I suppose whatever turns your crank...
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Had people ACTUALLY been concerned, they would solve the problem and NOT put a band-aid on top of it. Perhaps the power plants should be upgraded or replaced - but nooo it is easier to just ban the light bulb. Just like this carbon capture scheme - they have no idea what the long term effect is. But might as well pollute the ground since we are doing such a good job with the air.
So, you think that massive industries like power generation and illumination products (CFLs, LEDs, etc.) can just change direction (or be steered in a new direction by government incentives, regulations and mandates) OVERNIGHT?
I don't know whether CFLs were a step forwards or a step backwards in terms of mercury emissions.
I do see the problem being worked.
quote
According to a 2012 study by the global consulting firm McKinsey & Company, between 2011 and 2012, the unit price of LEDs dropped from 13.36 to 10.55 euros, and is expected to tumble to as low as 2.81 by 2020. “In some countries, the price of LED lamps is expected to become competitive with CFLs as early as 2015, which will further speed up the transition from CFLs to LEDs,” asserts the report.
It also projects that by 2020 over 70 percent of homes will use LEDs for illumination, compared to 13 percent today, the market shares of CFLs and incandescent lights reducing from 27 and 22 percent in 2012, to 11 and 2 percent in 2020, respectively. With China and Japan taking the lead, Asian consumers will dominate the LED lighting market.
“Philips was a pioneer in mercury tubes and CFLs, but they have recently stopped research on CFLs and are only focusing on LEDs,” explains Diwakar Bista, assistant professor at Kathmandu University (KU), who is leading a research project on LED lighting in Nepal. “Most of the reputed institutions working on lighting see no scope anywhere except in LEDs.”
LEDs use almost half the energy of CFLs, last at least five times longer, and have the option of repair.
But more research and development to assess and reduce the environmental and health impacts of LEDs is required, reveals a study published in December 2012 in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. In it, scientists measure and compare the metal content of three bulbs—incandescent, CFL and LED—categorizing the former as non-hazardous and the latter two as hazardous.
CFLs and LEDs have higher amounts of metals like aluminum, copper, gold, lead, silver, and zinc, which can be toxic to humans. Some of these metals are only available in limited and fast-depleting reserves. The paper suggests, however, that “LED bulb technology is relatively new and can be expected to evolve, if properly guided, to be competitive in terms of resource and toxicity potential. In contrast, CFLs are less feasible as sustainable alternatives because of the considerably high resource depletion and toxicity potentials and more established development history.”
In terms of growing potential, LEDs are like the grandchildren of CFLs. Bista even ventures to bet that LEDs can be designed with no metal-containing components.
It is a busy time for the lighting industry. Technologies are evolving and improving rapidly, enabled by advances in electronics and materials, and driven by efficiency incentives and standards.
In particular, lamps using light-emitting diode (LED) technology are aggressively shouldering their way onto the shelves of retailers. LEDs offer marginally higher efficiencies than CFLs but significantly longer lifetimes. They now come in white, as well as a variety of colors, and some even offer features like integrated daylight and motion sensors. While LED lighting is higher-priced than its conventional counterparts, the cost is expected to decline rapidly with increased sales and production volumes, just as it did for CFLs.
According to a recent DOE report, LED lighting is expected to represent 36 percent of general illumination lumen-hour sales by 2020 and a whopping 74 percent by 2030. At that rate, LED lighting would save approximately 2,700 terrawatt-hours – worth about $250 billion at today’s energy prices – and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1,800 million metric tons between 2010 and 2030.22
Since 2003, the Department of Energy has worked with industry partners to research and develop solid-state lighting (SSL) that includes both LED and also organic light-emitting (OLED) technologies, although R&D progress has been slower than expected in the latter area. DOE established an unbiased product performance testing program called CALiPER (Commercially Available LED Product Evaluation and Reporting) that has become a worldwide standard. The program purchases LED lights without the knowledge of manufacturers, tests them and then posts the results on DOE’s Solid State Lighting Web site, a process that has become strong motivation for manufacturers to continue to improve their product.
In addition, DOE in 2008 launched a Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize (L Prize) competition to spur innovations in LED lighting. Last year, Philips Lighting North America became the first winner in the 60-watt replacement bulb category, earning a $10 million prize for developing an LED bulb that uses just one-sixth of the electricity of a standard incandescent, which will save consumers $145 at the national average electricity rate over the bulb’s lifetime. A growing number of utilities and environmental organizations, including NRDC, have signed on as L Prize partners to support the L Prize effort and promote the winning products.
Meantime, utility programs are moving on to the next phase of efficient illumination, cognizant that lighting still comprises a large fraction of electricity use. In California, the ‘‘Advanced Lighting’’ program is identifying promising energy-efficiency lighting technologies beyond the standard CFL and working to accelerate their development and market adoption. The state’s investor-owned utilities have directed over $82 million toward this initiative, more than half of the nearly $160 million committed to their lighting efficiency programs. In total, the Advanced Lighting program is expected to produce energy savings of over 500 GWh and peak demand reductions of over 60 MW,23 saving consumers nearly half of the cost of the increased electricity generation that would have otherwise been required between 2010 and 2012. The Upstream Lighting Program demonstrated once again that concerted, focused efficiency efforts can transform markets and save money just as the ‘‘Golden Carrot’’ refrigerator program did before it and the government’s Solid State Lighting Program is doing now. This continuous cycle of collaborative innovation, adoption and standardization has become the hallmark of state and federal energy efficiency policy.
It's an iterative process, not a single product or technology. Same thing with phasing out the refrigerants that have been degrading the high altitude ozone layer that shields the planet's surface from higher levels of UV radiation. New refrigerants are proposed as substitutes, and new regulations enacted. But the first time around, it doesn't work so well. So they keep working the problem. Looking more closely and comprehensively at the tradeoffs associated with new refrigerants vs refrigerants already in use, and collecting and analyzing data to evaluate the new regulations. Are there other chemicals or technologies to move to, beyond the initial changes? Are the regulations having the desired effect? Do the regulations have loopholes that are being exploited by people who are intent on "gaming" the system? So the regulations have to be continually evaluated and reviewed for changes.
It's an evolutionary process, not a revolutionary process.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-03-2014).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ...and apparently you skipped over the first part of the article - moron
"Energy-efficient CFLs are increasingly popular but few people recycle the bulbs. As a result, U.S. landfills are releasing more than 4 tons of mercury annually into the atmosphere and storm water runoff, a study says."
So CFLs aren't perfect, they are just better than the alternative (generating power using coal plants).
quote
You said that mercury and lead used in the CFL's is "recycled and used again", I post an article saying that the reality is that are a whole lot of them are not. BUT THAT is ok, since it is using less power That is like putting out a house fire by pissing on it.
They use so much less power than incandescents that their "net" release of mercury is lower. Also, i'd rather have mercury at a landfill then in the air. Your analogy is a failure.
quote
Had people ACTUALLY been concerned, they would solve the problem and NOT put a band-aid on top of it. Perhaps the power plants should be upgraded or replaced - but nooo it is easier to just ban the light bulb. Just like this carbon capture scheme - they have no idea what the long term effect is. But might as well pollute the ground since we are doing such a good job with the air.
The power plants ARE being upgraded and replaced, and you can still get incandescent light bulbs. They are just sold as "energy saving" halogen bulbs that are slightly more efficient, like these:
quote
Why are you scared??? If we are damaging the planet so much like you say - perhaps this is a good thing then?
Yeah, if we don't do anything about and continue to increase carbon emissions. This is the reason why global warming needs to be addressed.
Flyin it seems like you have a strong passion for global warming, or climate change, or climate disruption, or whatever the powers that be want to name it this year. Now Im not denying that there isnt more co2, because we have produced more co2. Be it not a lot compared to mother nature and spewing volcanoes, but we do produce some. Now they came out awhile back and some news articles surfaced that NASA and NOAA falsified documents (ill just leave this here) http://stevengoddard.wordpr...after-the-year-2000/ I remember last summer we had the coolest july on record since 1888 or something. Now this year we have only had 3 days over 100 degrees. Im not saying 2 years of temps is anything, maybe we are warming. But is warming really that bad?
Now the point that im getting at is this. The earth may or may not be warming. We really havent studied weather long enough to know. Back in the 70s they were screaming about global cooling and another impending ice age. Thats the real scare. Warming? No biggie, longer growing seasons, more food production, gotta feed 7 billion people somehow. Global cooling? Ice age? Let it happen, Id love to see NYC under 3000 feet of ice. Where will all the liberals move to? Not here, they dont have enough firepower.
[This message has been edited by fieroX (edited 08-05-2014).]
Originally posted by fieroX: Flyin it seems like you have a strong passion for global warming, or climate change, or climate disruption, or whatever the powers that be want to name it this year.
You’ll find I have a strong passion for the truth.
Just a tip, the “they changed the name” myth isn’t a good opener.
quote
Originally posted by fieroX: Now Im not denying that there isnt more co2, because we have produced more co2. Be it not a lot compared to mother nature and spewing volcanoes, but we do produce some.
“Emissions of CO2 by human activities are estimated to be 135 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes.” Source.
quote
Originally posted by fieroX: Now they came out awhile back and some news articles surfaced that NASA and NOAA falsified documents (ill just leave this here) http://stevengoddard.wordpr...after-the-year-2000/
Originally posted by fieroX: I remember last summer we had the coolest july on record since 1888 or something. Now this year we have only had 3 days over 100 degrees. Im not saying 2 years of temps is anything, maybe we are warming.
That’s weather not climate.
quote
Originally posted by fieroX: Now the point that im getting at is this.
Okay…
quote
Originally posted by fieroX: The earth may or may not be warming.
Originally posted by fieroX: We really havent studied weather long enough to know.
Says who?
quote
Originally posted by fieroX: Back in the 70s they were screaming about global cooling and another impending ice age. Thats the real scare.
“Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s… had little support in the scientific community” Source.
quote
Originally posted by fieroX: Warming? No biggie, longer growing seasons, more food production, gotta feed 7 billion people somehow. Global cooling? Ice age? Let it happen, Id love to see NYC under 3000 feet of ice. Where will all the liberals move to? Not here, they dont have enough firepower.
Interesting how you believe global cooling will have negative impacts but moving the same amount in the opposite direction will have beneficial consequences. Source.
Originally posted by fieroX: Now I'm not denying that there isn't more [carbon dioxide], because we have produced more [carbon dioxide]. Be it not a lot compared to Mother Nature and spewing volcanoes, but we do produce some.
It's refreshing when "new blood" takes part in this discussion, in contrast to the "same olds" (I am one of them) that have generated more than 90 percent (probably) of the posts in this gi-normous discussion. But there are not many scientists who would agree with that statement. This is some copy-and-paste that I lifted from a recap of "The World Set Free", Episode 12, Cosmos--A Spacetime Odyssey :
quote
Climate scientists have drilled ice cores from the glaciers in Greenland and Antartica. This ice has the gases of those ancient times trapped in them. We can read the unbroken diary of the Earth’s atmosphere for the past 800,000 years. In all that time, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air never rose to over .03 of 1%. That is, until the turn of the 20th century. It has been going up steadily and rapidly ever since.
The Industrial Revolution has seen a significant rise of greenhouse gases spewed into the atmosphere at rates faster than life can absorb it. This means the gases are building up in the atmosphere.
Maybe it’s those “damn volcanoes”, as Tyson puts it. He tells us that every few years Mt. Etna in Sicily blows its stack. Each big eruption sends millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
If we combine this with every large eruption on the planet, the largest scientific estimate would be 500 million tons of volcanic carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere every year. Sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? That isn’t even 2% of what our civilization cranks out every year. The measured increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere correlates to the amount of greenhouse gases we are pumping into the air every year.
Tyson is back at the White Cliffs of Dover as he tells us that volcanic carbon dioxide has a distinct signature. It is slightly heavier than the kind we produce by burning fossil fuels. Scientists can tell the difference between the two when they are studied at an atomic level. It has been concluded the extra carbon dioxide in the air is not the kind volcanoes make. This, coupled with the correlation between amount of fossil fuels burnt and the increase in the atmosphere, makes a pretty tight case for human caused global climate change.
How much is 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year? If you could compress it to solid form, it would take up the same amount of room as the White Cliffs of Dover. We are putting this much into the atmosphere every year relentlessly.
I think that's a fair representation of the scientific consensus about elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and the anthropogenic or human-controlled processes that are causing it. I have done enough reading and viewing to know that it's not just "Cosmos". So how do we arrive at solid conclusions by starting a chain of reasoning that is based on skewed and inaccurate observations? That's a rhetorical question.
Even if all human greenhouse gas emissions were magically eliminated overnight, there is built-in global warming from the gases that have already been released. Because the planetary system takes many years to arrive at a new equilibrium (higher temperatures), in response to a new input (more greenhouse gases).
That post was kind of "mellow" about the prospects of continued global warming--and we are already assured of that for many years in the future--but it's not just temperature changes. We are looking at higher sea levels, which presents adverse circumstances for populated coastal areas and island nations all around the world. We are also looking at higher levels of dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans and all lakes and rivers. It's expected to affect the balance of marine and freshwater species.
As far as the prospects of another Ice Age any time in the even remotely foreseeable future: I think that very few scientists accept that as a possibility. Even less than before, considering the recently elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-05-2014).]
Im a conservative/libertarian and actually have a job, so I have to get back to work to keep your people fed.
You posted over a half dozen discredited facts regarding global warming - you are told why they are easily discredited - and then you broadly insult everyone who presumably isn't a conservative and believes in science.
What did I miss? Are all scientists and researchers parasites too?
Why even bother posting in this thread if you aren't willing to have a decent discussion?
I forgot this morning when I posted my number 1 rule. I should of never posted in the first place. My number 1 rule is that you cant argue with a liberal, its like arguing with your dog as to why its not cool to eat cat sh8t. Sorry I came in.
[This message has been edited by fieroX (edited 08-05-2014).]
I forgot this morning when I posted my number 1 rule. I should of never posted in the first place. My number 1 rule is that you cant argue with a liberal, its like arguing with your dog as to why its not cool to eat cat sh8t. Sorry I came in.
Originally posted by rinselberg: If New York City is under 3000 feet of ice, I wonder what it's like in Wichita, Kansas.
Kansas had glaciers. "At its height, pre-Illinoian ice covered over one-third of North America and extended into northeastern Kansas." Source.
And roaming mammoths too. "Huge animals such as mammoth and mastodon roamed the area until a gradual warming trend brought an end to the Ice Age, and mass extinctions occurred around 10,000 years ago." Source.
But that's based off evidence and science - you know, liberial things, apparently.
Sarcasm aside, as a conservative, the currently comical but soon-to-be frightening rejection of science by the party is a worrysome trend. I worry what happened to Islam, the collapse of free thought, the rejection of science as 'the devil', is currently repeating itself in America. Musliums were pioneers of the scientific method, philosophy, medicine, astronomy and math. Now look what the Mid-East is. Now look what Muslims are 'known' for.
I'm aware there are some anti-science folks on the left as well. The anti-vaccine crowd is a perfect example. But the left has done well to avoid making these people a core phisolophy of the party. The right, not so much.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 08-06-2014).]
I think that what's going on here (in many cases) is that folks like FieroX think that anything that could possibly be done to try to achieve a cap or upper limit on Anthropogenic Global Warming (in terms of reducing human greenhouse gas emissions) is, by definition, or unavoidably, in conflict with conservative or libertarian principles.
Obviously, it would be difficult to formulate and implement a GHGE (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) tax that would be effective in reducing human GHGE and equitable to all stakeholders (worldwide). But if that could be done, where's the conflict with conservative or libertarian principles? Rationalize or "level" the playing field for all the different ways to produce energy, and let a free market find the optimal solutions.
Originally posted by rinselberg: I think that what's going on here (in many cases) is that folks like FieroX think that anything that could possibly be done to try to achieve a cap or upper limit on Anthropogenic Global Warming (in terms of reducing human greenhouse gas emissions) is, by definition, or unavoidably, in conflict with conservative or libertarian principles.
I disagree. I don't think they've developed an argument that sophsticated at all. I think a culture of doubt has been created for people like fieroX. The 'creators' have issues with social and economic consequences and have turned the scientific debate into a rhetorical entertainment device.
Take a look at the 'quality' of the arguments agianst the science. They actually believe NASA made everything up. They actually believe volcanos emit more than humans. They actually believe global cooling was a serious scientific concern in the 1970's. All of that has been proven a dozen times to be false. But in their culture of doubt, it's all true and I see it repeated everywhere. Even more, they want to continue believing it's all true when confronted with facts.
It's a culture they are part of. For them to reconcile the truth against their culture is to doubt some very fundamental parts of themselves and their friends, their family, people they really trust. That's really hard for most people. There are people on this forum that obviously believe in science, love guys like Neil deGrasse Tyson, yet troll this thread and attack the science with meaningless arguments. It's the culture. And it's the trend of this culture that worries me.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 08-06-2014).]
Fact: a frogs ears are in its hind legs... Experiments proved this fact, a clicker was clicked behind a frog, it jumped 10 feet. A hind leg was amputated, and then clicking repeated, The frog only jumped 5 feet. The second leg was amputated, they used the clicker again, the frog didn't move proving its ears are in its legs.
Do you believe based on current knowledge of historical climate data that global temps naturally stay balanced with little variation? Man made global warming theory is just as valid as the "fact" I posted first and is a money maker. Convince people the sky is falling and you have their attention.
When you treat scientific theory as religion you become ignorant, this world has to many sheep already, please stop adding to the numbers.
Originally posted by jmbishop: Wow, that's a completely convincing graph, all those years the data was collected through the same source and the earth has only been around how long?
What?
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop: I promise if we took a poll of pff member, me vs you, I would be taken more seriously.
"The existence of warmer and colder times in the distant past does not remove human fingerprints from the current global warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid."
Richard Alley, climate scientist and researcher
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-07-2014).]
Wow, that's a completely convincing graph, all those years the data was collected through the same source and the earth has only been around how long?
I promise if we took a poll of pff member, me vs you, I would be taken more seriously.
Polls by PFF members would demonstrate an outstanding majority conservative bias, and would prove nothing more than a most people who frequent this website think the same way.
I also think, if there was a comment section in that poll, you would read some interesting stuff about yourself ...and were I in your shoes I would not be so sure everyone here has your back, or even a "majority".
I never said everyone would agree and disprove global warming, just that I think a majority would take me seriously over him. FlyinFieros has made a fool of himself, at least in the little I've debated with him quoting incredibly unreliable sources and dodging a common sense question. Who quotes Wikipedia an when called out on it down understand why that wasn't the best choice? You'd be wrong in assuming I don't believe we could have some tiny effect in global temps but I don't believe it's a significant amout, tried to Co2 emmisions or out of control. Climate change is real but there is not enough supporting evidence for me to believe it's anything other than a natural cycle.
You can argue it all you want but only time will tell, Co2 emissions are not dropping and there is no sign of it happening anytime soon.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 08-08-2014).]
Originally posted by jmbishop: I never said everyone would agree and disprove global warming, just that I think a majority would take me seriously over him.
Uh huh..
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop: FlyinFieros has made a fool of himself
Let’s see what your metric is.
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop: at least in the little I've debated with him
First, talk about extrapolating from small sample size.
Second, what debate?
You declared anthropogenic global warming a false conclusion using a laughable strawman argument and called everyone who believes the mountain of scientific evidence ignorant. That's not a debate. That's you sharing your personal and unsubstantiated opinion.
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop: quoting incredibly unreliable sources
Of course the guy who has cited absolutely no one would complain about someone else’s sources.
What’s your frame of reference for reliable? What sources do you utilize, if any?
Further, it’s a fact there isn’t a single scientific organization of national or international standing that rejects anthropogenic global warming. Trying to dismiss that fact because Wikipedia informed you about it is kinda silly.
Not only do I have practically the entire scientific community in my corner, I’ve also got the private sector.
Insurance companies, who manage risk professionally, are worried about anthropogenic global warming. Here’s not one, but two examples.
What about ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Devon, Conoco Phillips, and TWO DOZEN other major American companies who "acknowledge the process of ongoing climate change - including extreme and unpredictable weather events - as a key relevant business factor for which they wish to be prepared." Source.
Or what about the United States commander of the Pacific forces, Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III who says climate change is the biggest threat in the Pacific?
So please, share with us your “more reliable” sources. I’ll bet it’s comedy gold.
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop: and dodging a common sense question.
Talk about feeling entitled.
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop: Who quotes Wikipedia an when called out on it down understand why that want the best choice?
What?
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop: You'd be wrong in assuming I don't believe we could have some tiny effect in global temps
Through what process do humans affect temperatures?
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop: but I don't believe it's a significant amout
Based on what evidence?
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop: , tried to Co2 emmisions
Greenhouse gases have been settled science for nearly 200 years.
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop: Climate change is real but there is not enough supporting evidence for me to believe it's anything other than a natural cycle.
Based on what evidence?
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop: You can argue it all you want but only time will tell, Co2 emissions are not dropping and there is no sign of it happening anytime soon.
Such a high level of chemical filtration might sound positive, but the unfortunate implication is that the river’s natural filtration systems for nitrates appear to be operating at or very close to full capacity. Although further research is needed, this would make it unlikely that natural systems can accommodate the high levels of nitrates that have made their way from farmland and other sources into the river network’s waterways."
Project: MedSeA "MedSeA assesses uncertainties, risks and thresholds related to Mediterranean acidification at organismal, ecosystem and economical scales. It also emphasizes conveying the acquired scientific knowledge to a wider audience of reference users, while suggesting policy measures for adaptation and mitigation that will vary from one region to another."
The fossil fuel company involved is appealing this decision. It sets a dangerous precedent of accountability for property and health damage.
Article: $3 million verdict for ‘first fracking trial’ "A Texas family has won a $2.925 million judgment against an energy corporation over damage to health and property caused by fracking operations."
"During the trial, Robert Parr testified that his family could no longer drink the water from their well and that his daughter sometimes woke up covered in blood thanks to debilitating nose bleeds."
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 08-08-2014).]
Oh the irony, scientists warn fracking expansion is outpacing research into environmental impacts.
Study: Biotic impacts of energy development from shale: research priorities and knowledge gaps "Although shale drilling operations for oil and natural gas have increased greatly in the past decade, few studies directly quantify the impacts of shale development on plants and wildlife. We evaluate knowledge gaps related to shale development and prioritize research needs using a quantitative framework that includes spatial and temporal extent, mitigation difficulty, and current level of understanding. Identified threats to biota from shale development include: surface and groundwater contamination; diminished stream flow; stream siltation; habitat loss and fragmentation; localized air, noise, and light pollution; climate change; and cumulative impacts. We find the highest research priorities to be probabilistic threats (underground chemical migration; contaminant release during storage, during disposal, or from accidents; and cumulative impacts), the study of which will require major scientific coordination among researchers, industry, and government decision makers. Taken together, our research prioritization outlines a way forward to better understand how energy development affects the natural world."
I'm pretty sure you bought what they where selling and it stinks. You still crack me up, I suspect you really know why quoting Wikipedia is ridiculous but your trying to save face by playing dumb.
That is like putting out a house fire by pissing on it.
