Climate Change Report

#528
#528
Grand Vol said:
Has plenty to do with this conversation...
Click to expand...
One of the findings was to get residents to convert to Natural Gas for a cleaner burn. Hog in fact recommended that same crazy idea here.

And the evil culprit here wasn’t that pesky carbon dioxide. It was the sulfur residue compounds reacting with the fog to suspend sulfuric acid in the air. Sun comes up, burns off large amount of fog, concentrates sulfuric acid in suspension, people breath sulfuric acid and have health problems or die.
 
#534
#534
luthervol said:
We should.
I love the argument, "they're not doing the right thing so neither will I".....maga
Click to expand...
Idiot. They consume about 25% of the worlds energy and it’s pretty much all hydrocarbons
China's energy consumption grew by 3.1% in 2017, increasing from 1.2% in 2016, but still falling short of the 10-year average of 4.4%. China remained the world's largest energy consumer, accounting for 23.2% of global energy consumption and contributing 33.6% of global energy demand growth in 2017.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, Orangeslice13 and AirVol
#536
#536
NorthDallas40 said:
Idiot. They consume about 25% of the worlds energy and it’s pretty much all hydrocarbons
Click to expand...
Swell facts there ND.

What does that have to do with us doing the right thing? I'll refrain from calling you an idiot and just stick with treefrog. It's funnier and you haven't a clue as to why.
I'm all for applying any reasonable pressure to encourage China to do better. You guys are the ones who would be crying about it hurting our immediate pocket book.
Your stance seems to be, if they ain't doing it, we ain't doing it; just make sure I still get my $ this year.
 
#537
#537
luthervol said:
Swell facts there ND.

What does that have to do with us doing the right thing? I'll refrain from calling you an idiot and just stick with treefrog. It's funnier and you haven't a clue as to why.
I'm all for applying any reasonable pressure to encourage China to do better. You guys are the ones who would be crying about it hurting our immediate pocket book.
Your stance seems to be, if they ain't doing it, we ain't doing it; just make sure I still get my $ this year.
Click to expand...
We’re already leading the world on this even with leaving the Paris Accord. That has been pointed out multiple times! But unless you get China on board nothing else we do will I’m fact matter while our cost basis for any further reduction will put us at further disadvantages to China! You moonbats cannot see the forest for the trees... and the CO2 TRACE GASES!
 
#539
#539
Mick said:
If you know that it is mostly true and nothing else, would you not use that information to find North? The best information available.
Click to expand...

No, I'm actually going to use another method to be positive I have the right direction I need to take.

Shadow-Stick-Method-I.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Orangeslice13, McDad and 1 other person
#541
#541
NorthDallas40 said:
You moonbats cannot see the forest for the trees... and the CO2 TRACE GASES!
Click to expand...
The argument in the article you posted seems to be something like "CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, so changing it will have no negative effects." Aside from intuition, what is this based on?

As an example: I work in the nuclear industry. What makes the nuclear chain reaction controllable is a tiny fraction of neutrons which are "born" delayed (rather than so-called prompt neutrons). Changing this "trace" amount of the total neutron poulation can have negative impacts on a nuclear reactor.
 
#542
#542
Wafflestomper said:
The argument in the article you posted seems to be something like "CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, so changing it will have no negative effects." Aside from intuition, what is this based on?

As an example: I work in the nuclear industry. What makes the nuclear chain reaction controllable is a tiny fraction of neutrons which are "born" delayed (rather than so-called prompt neutrons). Changing this "trace" amount of the total neutron poulation can have negative impacts on a nuclear reactor.
Click to expand...
If I interpreted it correctly the implication was it’s already a trace gas and even with all of our “human emissions” it’s percentage hasn’t moved appreciably or if at all from a measurable sense. (Correlate Falsehood One with Falsehood Two In the article for example)

Also I’d submit its present balance in solution isn’t necessarily as sensitive as the case you’re offering which is a balanced on a knife. And if it was that sensitive we should be able to find some historical record of its impact on percentage in solution moving up or down no? (Again FH1 with FH2)
 
Last edited:
#543
#543
luthervol said:
Ever heard of the Great Smog of London?
Click to expand...
Wonder what people thought when they first noticed smog?

History of Smog

1974
The nation’s last recorded Stage Three smog alert occurs in Upland. Ozone levels hit .51 parts per million. Gov. Ronald Reagan urges residents to “limit all but absolutely necessary auto travel” and recommends that people drive slower to reduce
emissions.
 
#544
#544
McDad said:
How does one differentiate between normal cycle and abnormal variable?
Click to expand...

It's pretty difficult when the measurement is a blip in the course of history. A fraction of a sinusoidal cycle could lead to very wild speculation, and regardless of the precision of the measurement be completely inaccurate and worthless as a predictor.
 
#547
#547
NorthDallas40 said:
If I interpreted it correctly the implication was it’s already a trace gas and even with all of our “human emissions” it’s percentage hasn’t moved appreciably or if at all from a measurable sense. (Correlate Falsehood One with Falsehood Two In the article for example)
Click to expand...

It hasn't moved appreciably from what reference? Isn't the typical claim by scientists that it has increased by 30+ percent in the last several decades?

NorthDallas40 said:
Also I’d submit its present balance in solution isn’t necessarily as sensitive as the case you’re offering which is a balanced on a knife. And if it was that sensitive we should be able to find some historical record of its impact on percentage in solution moving up or down no? (Again FH1 with FH2)
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be that sensitive though. The point of my example was only that the fact that CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere is, by itself, not sufficient to say that it can't have a significant effect on overall climate. What do you mean by "percentage in solution?"
 
#548
#548
AM64 said:
The people who declared the earth flat or the sun revolved around the earth were using the best they had at the time, too.
Click to expand...
Of course they were, and they were much smarter than the people who said the sun was pulled by a chariot and the earth was 100 years old and made of cheese.
There is no good alternative to using the best data available, to claim otherwise is just non-sense.
 
#549
#549
Wafflestomper said:
It hasn't moved appreciably from what reference? Isn't the typical claim by scientists that it has increased by 30+ percent in the last several decades?



It doesn't have to be that sensitive though. The point of my example was only that the fact that CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere is, by itself, not sufficient to say that it can't have a significant effect on overall climate. What do you mean by "percentage in solution?"
Click to expand...

I was stating if it had moved appreciably then we should be able to find evidence of such. Archeological investigating will have to be the discovery method due to the lack of recorded data relative to the age of the earth.

Percentage in solution was just referencing the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere relative to the other gases. That’s all.

I’ve seen no such typical claim as you asserted proven and definitely not tied directly to the results of human action. I think the whole point of conflict could be summed up as due to the timespan and time constants involved relative to the available historical measurements were all guessing what’s normal cyclical and what’s driven by the human forces. The one measurement method the blog did mention was satellite temperature data and that it did not correlate with model predictions nor did it actually show significant temperature change ( I think a tenth of a degree was referenced? )

I would say that the blog directly attacked the original post article claim that the global temperature is rising and pointed to actual satellite data as well as data homogenization techniques used by climatologists supporting their stance (no idea of the veracity there either...) One of them has to be incorrect.
 
Last edited:
#550
#550
Mick said:
Wonder what people thought when they first noticed smog?

History of Smog

1974
The nation’s last recorded Stage Three smog alert occurs in Upland. Ozone levels hit .51 parts per million. Gov. Ronald Reagan urges residents to “limit all but absolutely necessary auto travel” and recommends that people drive slower to reduce
emissions.
Click to expand...
Looked outside this morning and looked like LA. On top of that, backed out of the driveway and almost got side swiped by some idiot with their headlights off. Sorry, little off topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top