General discussion

Locked

So, not only are CO2 emissions actually contributing to climate change

By AnsuGisalas ·
Tags: Off Topic
And yes they really are...
But again, not only are they doing that, they're also increasing the acidity of the seas ... CO2 in aqueous dilution is H2CO3 : carbonic acid, like in your soda. Remember that scare experiment they showed you back in the day, where they left a milk tooth in a glass of soda overnight, and it was just gone the next day?
Turns out, same thing happens to the shells of many food-chain-starters in the seas. Entire food chains of marine life can be devastated.
Historically, when the oceans tank, they tank hard. It is well documented that marine mass extinctions can kill off almost all marine life, and have done so several times in the past.

But you know, if it's happened in the past with no human contribution, obviously we can find lots of reasons not to do anything about it now...

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

84 total posts (Page 7 of 9)   Prev   05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Maxwell "One such person"

by neilb@uk In reply to Do you believe that smoki ...

I refer you to my link.

I would never in any way discredit or dismiss the research of a scientist that believed in any deity as quite a number do believe. Although, for example, if an avowed creationist were to publish on evolution, then I might reserve the right to hold on to a pinch of salt

As for one on one debates, some are good at it and some aren't.

Edited to add: Between one and three percent of the US population is believed to be atheist so, by definition, the other ninety-plus percent believe in a deity or deities. I don't ever recollect disregarding the output of *all* US science.

I do, however, take on board the fact that over forty percent of the US population are delusional to the point that they believe in Biblical Creation. That does make me inclined to the idea that there isn't a lot of point in trying to get the US to do anything about their lifestyle. When something considerably larger than Sandy slaps you up the side of the head you (the US) will just put it down to God's Will and hunker down, waiting for Armageddon and the End Times.

Insha'Allah

Collapse -

Dr. Gray has an interesting paper

by AV . In reply to Do you believe that smoki ...

Go to - tropical dot atmos dot colostate dot edu slash forecasts slash. Under the news section, he has an excellent paper about Hurricane Sandy. He concludes that Hurricane Sandy was not caused by anthropogenic global warming, rather it was because of Thermohaline Circulation. There is a lot of historical hurricane data that is very interesting as well.

A storm like Hurricane Sandy is rare, but there have been several almost equally destructive hurricanes to hit New York City in the past such as the Hurricane of 1821. This is the link - history1800s dot about dot com slash od slash crimesanddisasters slash a slash Hurricane-of-1821 dot htm.

I don't think CO2 emissions were an issue then, yet that was quite a freak storm as well, though it hit at low tide. Hurricane Sandy hit at high tide and during a full moon making it the perfect storm.

My conclusion is that CO2 may not be the real culprit here. It may contribute to GW/CC in some way, but historical data suggests that storms like this occur whether you have CO2 present in the atmosphere or not.

AV

PS: Sorry about the crazy links. I can't seem to post this with them. There is no w w w in them.

Collapse -

And this is where the problems start

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Do you believe that smoki ...

A individual Storm or Weather Event as such can not be put down to Global Warming/Climate Change or whatever you prefer to call it, what Global Warming Theory says is that the Storms will get more intense but long before that starts the existing storms will become more frequent.

So what was a once in a 100 year storm or at least a Storm of the same intensity as a Once in a 100 Year Storm will happen more often. Storms of that Intensity will be more common and instead of once in 100 years they may develop to once in 50 years or depending on how much warmer the atmosphere gets more common.

Blizzards will also get more common and may even be colder as the Energy that drives the Weather has more energy so things get more intense.

For Instance in 1974 Brisbane Australia experienced a once in 100 year Weather Event which led to massive flooding. The previous event which actually was worse in the amount of water dropped and spread across the flood plain which is where Brisbane is located was more severe but had less of an impact on people simply because there where fewer of them directly impacted but it was severe enough to leave a Destroyer 300 feet away from the river when the waters receded and resulted in a massive engining project to return it to the water where it could be repaired. That occurred in 1893 so the 1974 floods where about due though a few years early to what statistics said could happen.

In 2011 Brisbane again experienced severe flooding despite massive Flood Mitigation work being done and the construction and subsequent enlargement of a new dam since 1974 to supposedly stop massive waves of water running down the Brisbane River from it's catchment.

In 1974 the flooding was relatively localized to the South Eastern Corner of Queensland and only adversely impacted on those communities on the Brisbane River Flood Plain.

In 2011 the flooding was no where near as severe in the depths of water involved but it was much more severe from the point of view that it was 90% of Queensland that was impacted by flooding not just the South Eastern Corner and the flood waters ranged all the way up the east coast and through most of the inland areas. That is something that has not happened in our Recorded History but that in itself doesn't mean a lot as Australia is a very young country with records not going back all that far mostly no more than 100 years or so. That gives you some idea of just how severe the 1893 Floods in Brisbane actually where to a relatively newly established settlement.

But the point is that the Trend is getting shorter 81 years between the 1893 to 1974 Flooding event and 37 years to the next major flood event in 2011.

That in itself may not be of any importance because there is not the Historical Records to tell us if this is a common event the flooding and that we have just been lucky or that it is getting to be a more common occurrence.

What we need to do is look at older parts of the world where Accurate Records have been kept for much longer periods of time and see if there is a correlation of these events getting closer and closer together. Of course depending on where that place is there may be more than just floods to take into account.

Things like areas in the Higher Latitudes could be subject to flooding and major snow falls which have to be taken together where as places in the Tropics and Sub Tropics are very unlikely to have any Snow Falls so flooding from Severe Storms is a more likely occurrence.

There has yet to be an Planet Scientist who has claimed that any storm is the result of Global Warming that is restricted to Politicians and Media who go for the easy answer and do not rely on Science to sprout their ramblings so every storm can be attributed to other naturally occurring events. For that matter every Severe and any other storm can be contributed to Natural Events in the Atmosphere generating that Severe Weather Event, so you do not look at the actual storms but the frequency of them and that unfortunately can only be done after the event so the only way to prove that Global Warming or whatever you chose to call it is happening is after it has occurred and the Higher Temps have been recorded for many years along with the frequency of Severe Weather Events.

This is not something that happens quickly as the Planet moves to a different Time to Humans and what to us is an extremely long time is nothing but the blink of an eye to the Planet. The entire history of Humanity is but a very short time to the Planet and currently our records are not nearly far enough back to provide the required proof that some people demand.

With all Science there are those who accept it and those who deny it. A very good example of that happened within the last year where a Group of Scientists who where terrified of the Hadron Collider tried to get a Court Injunction to prevent any experiment that may have produced mini Black Holes. They argued that any Mini Black Hole that may be produced would not blink out of existence but continue to grow till it ate the planet and solar system.

The same thing happened before the first Atomic Bomb Test where a group of Scientist who where more conservative than those working on the Manhattan Project tried to prevent the first test arguing that once the Reaction started it would continue and destroy the planet. They reasoned that once the Chain Reaction started it would be self perpetuating and could never run out of energy to cause it to cease happening.

Also some people reasoned that because Internal Combustion Engines where powered by Explosions that the Internal Combustion Engine was an inherently dangerous thing and would be exploding all over the place causing untold death and destruction.

None of those 3 examples where anywhere near as bad as some people claimed that they would be and the Mass Hysteria that they generated is still with us today and rears it's head more often than many people accept.

The bottom line is that all Science is the Observation and Recording of Events and that is all that Science can ever be.

Now for some indisputable Fact the World is going to end at 12.00 PM December 21 2012. That is the Belief of a very advanced race that Inhabited the Southern Americas and who simply disappeared. As it is on the Internet and I read it there it must be true because no one would place lies or untruths on the Internet would they?

But the real message here is it's not what one or some people believe will happen, means that it is going to happen just that they believe that it will.

Sometimes that's not a bad thing and sometimes it is a terrible thing. So we need to keep in mind that everything that we experience Good or Bad will only ever be proven after it is a Indisputable Fact.

Col

Collapse -

AV : that's a pretty classic straw man attack.

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Do you believe that smoki ...

Nobody is saying that GC causes weather.
Obviously, having an atmosphere + Eartch revolving around its axis + Earth orbiting the sun is what causes weather.
GC modifies weather.


So, you have to ask: why is Dr. Gray making a straw man attack?

Collapse -

Indisputable facts

by AV . In reply to Do you believe that smoki ...

Col, some people are more trusting of politicians and media than I am. I don't believe anything they say because their ultimate goal is to find a way to make money from it. If they can convince enough people that GW is man-made, and they have, it will justify a new Carbon Tax that everyone will happily pay for the rest of their lives or as long as they can keep the man-made GW story going.

There are still scientists on both sides of the GW acceleration issue, but nothing I've seen convinces me that man-made GW is an indisputable fact. What is indisputable is that politicians and the media will work together to achieve the ultimate goal, a Carbon Tax on everyone.

AV

Collapse -

AV, one small point

by neilb@uk In reply to Do you believe that smoki ...

What is going to make more money for your politicians in the short term. That you, the US, continues with your current lifestyle (which you won't, by the way) or that you all conserve a bit, recycle a bit and just use less without having to be coerced. God forbid that you should reduce your consumption of energy down to that of, say, the UK or Germany and have to face the lack, the squalor and barbarity of our lives. It would only be a small reduction - a paltry 50%. The latter would obviously make money for your politicians but I'm damned if I can work out how.

Collapse -

A rock and a hard place

by AV . In reply to Do you believe that smoki ...

Neil, the politicians will make money no matter what the American people do. If we continue on our current path of maximum consumption, short term they have Cap and Trade and possibly a Carbon Tax. If we cut down on use and move to the new *green* technologies, we will pay through the nose for those new technologies. Heck, maybe they'll create a new *Green tax*.

The thing to understand about America is we never cut down and politicians know that. Though there are some of us who use less because we're more prudent, most people will continue down their current path and just pay more. If by some chance we all did cut down and start conserving without adopting new technologies, no problem, they'll just raise the price. Politicians never lose.

AV

Collapse -

You're letting them live rent-free in your head, AV

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Do you believe that smoki ...

Don't bother what pollerticians say.
Look at the science in stead.
99.7 % of peer-reviewed articles support and corroborate AGCC.
There aren't people on both sides, you can't really say that.

Collapse -

Oh c'mon mate!

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to How can you be so SURE?

Now I know to most, The Guardian, sounds like a real London Newspaper but reeeeeaaaly? The Guardian? News? Granted it's better than The Daily Mirror (minus the page 3 boobies) but a "news"paper?

Guardian is always good for learning the latest gossip about the monarchy and unveiling the truth behind crooked politicians though.

LOL! That's like all the Americans who buy into Jerry Springer, Aliens and UFO's stored in Area51, The Enquirer etc.

Collapse -

Well to be fair

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Oh c'mon mate!

It's not News of the World.

The Guardian is slightly better than that now demised rag.

Col

Back to After Hours Forum
84 total posts (Page 7 of 9)   Prev   05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums