Can I start with something else? Synthetic insulin.
EPA admits CO2 is pollutant
- Thread starter xsited1
- Start date
Can I start with something else? Synthetic insulin.
Did people only find out later that napalm was killing them? I'd have thought the immense fireballs would have been a giveaway.
dilloduck
Diamond Member
oh I haven't even begun on the things science invents for the sole purpose of killing.
krotchdog
Rookie
- Apr 7, 2009
- 480
- 46
- 0
- Banned
- #24
Who said this does not matter but its revealing. The greenee meanees have no grasp of what is a "rapid increase", they cannot grasp how large the atmosphere is, so massive that all the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by all sources comes to about .03%. .01% or less of the .03% is man made. This explains why we have not seen a rapid increase of temperature, had we had a massive increase as those idiots claim, where is the destruction, why is the planet not dead.
What about water vapor, thats the biggest greenhouse gas, its ignored and taken out of the equation or weighted lightly as to no effect the greenee meanee's theory. But in order to sell windmills you need something more important than cost because windmills and solar are to expensive. Even Al Gore knows this, his EPRI report explains this. So to sell green energy which will make oil corporations and chemical corporations rich, you need value, value comes from saving the earth, value is more important than cost.
If the greenee meanees really cared, they would quit posting and never use computers, they would walk instead of buying a prius, nope, its more important and thier voice does more good than all the energy and co2 the needlessly waste.
I say, okay its a pollutant, and nothing creates more than the fab shops that make solar panels and nothing creats more than a blast funace the makes the e-glass which is fiberglass so the greenee meanee's solution is rapidly increasing the problem.
yes its a pollutant and the solution is killing us faster, poor polar bears
Tech_Esq
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Please stop adding to polluting my environment. You should not be able to live with yourself know that every minute of everyday you are actively killing yourself and everyone around you just by breathing. HOW DARE YOU!!
I can understand the so called deniers, but not you who know how dangerous your every breath is! There is only one thing to do, kill yourself immediately before it's too late.
Sometims KD you go off on these rather lunatic rants that I find amusing but rarely informative, but you are knocking on the very truth here!
Man-made CO2 is but a minority percentage of the naturally occuring CO2 production. One belch by Mother Earth and all the man made CO2 is dwarfed in comparison.
And yes, water vapor is far and away the greatest percentage of the greenhouse gasses, but the GO-GREEN industry skips over that fact for there is not tool of control and profit to be found with water vapor.
Informative post - thank you!
When CFC'c were banned there was a concern that there may be a delay in stopping the erosion of the ozone layer, luckily the hole in the ozone layer has not gotten worse (it has not cloed up either). Also luckily the hole in the ozone layer is over the south pole where little if any life exists because if that hole happened to be over habitated areas life would die.
The fact is that until the ozone layer built up in the atmosphere there was no life on land. Ozone filters out high levels of UV radiation. If the ozone layer disappeared tomorrow all life on land would be dead in weeks.
krotchdog
Rookie
- Apr 7, 2009
- 480
- 46
- 0
- Banned
- #28
Lunatics are the geniuses in the shadows.
Bill Wattenburg is a scientest that concedes to the greenee meanees. I listen to him on kgo 810 am, from 10-1:00am saturday and sunday evenings. The guy has worked with all the top scientists, nuclear scientists, weather scientists. He cuts right through the bullshit. He quit arguing with the greenee meanees, its pointless, the have endless sets of data that mean nothing and we all know that, Dr. Wattenburg just says fine, you are right, what are you going to do about it, and when they bring up solar, wind, geothermal, or hydrogen he than points out the hypocrisy. I wish I could claim original thought, I wish all I posted I came up on my own, but I have not. I get information from people whos career is in these fields, I regurgitate and put my own spin on things. So Dr. Wattenburg points out the only solution is NUCLEAR POWER.
The EPRI report I found on line by chance, what a great gem, you must read it. The study conducted during Al Gores rein as VP clearly states the up front costs of green power must largely be ignored and not counted in the final cost otherwise green energy is too expensive. Not only is it too expensive with the production costs eliminated, a heavy tax must be put on traditonal energy.
So lets make this clear, the only future in NUCLEAR POWER, without nuke no power for industry, without rebuilding our heavy industry we literally will give our prosperity to the rest of the world, we are giving our basic needs for life and liberty to the tyrants in which we fled, our grandparents fled.
The leftists, liberal, statist does not care, for they are the ones who are above us, they will rule, for look at thier wisdom you lousy extreme right wing conservative christians. Hail to the messiah and all who will rule us, for they are the enlightened class, only they can save us, just listen to them.
KGO AM 810 Newstalk Radio, San Francisco.
KittenKoder
Senior Member
After catching up .... I still fail to see your point. Everything has both good and bad results. Living by religion alone the people become stagnant and no less violent or brutal, we saw this in the Dark Ages, didn't work too well. Living by science alone makes ones life hollow and pointless, offering no goal or reason, though we don't have any historical evidence to support it I feel that it would be the case. But having a balance between the two seems to work just fine. Of course weapons will be created, it's human nature to find struggles where none exist, and to use these struggles to justify many things, but that doesn't change whether you have religion or not, there are wars fought only because of religion and those which are fully political. As for unintended consequences, that happens with everything. Even fire is dangerous, but who's stupid enough to touch that? If it's not food or intended for consumption, you just don't eat it, if it's not proven safe then just don't trust it if you don't want to. But without the bad there would also be no good, and right now science has created more good, safe, and useful tools, medicines, toys, etc. than bad. So your point falls flat.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Ozone depletion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Current events and future prospects of ozone depletion
Ozone-depleting gas trends.Since the adoption and strengthening of the Montreal Protocol has led to reductions in the emissions of CFCs, atmospheric concentrations of the most significant compounds have been declining. These substances are being gradually removed from the atmosphere. By 2015, the Antarctic ozone hole would have reduced by only 1 million km² out of 25 (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer will not occur until the year 2050 or later. Work has suggested that a detectable (and statistically significant) recovery will not occur until around 2024, with ozone levels recovering to 1980 levels by around 2068.[32]
dilloduck
Diamond Member
who cares ?---we're all gonna die from global warming by then.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | A Grist Special Series | Grist
Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
Objection: Climate scientists never talk about water vapor -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory.
Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.
If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.
This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.
CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.
An article from RealClimate -- "Water vapor: feedback or forcing?" -- has a good discussion of this subject
krotchdog
Rookie
- Apr 7, 2009
- 480
- 46
- 0
- Banned
- #33
tit for tat, tit fot tat, can the krotchdog bite back
Nitty Gritty Perspective on Global Warming—the CO2 Absorption Spectrum.
Nitty Gritty Perspective on Global Warming—the CO2 Absorption Spectrum.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Novak is a micro-biologist. And his paper is just plain wrong, proven wrong quite some time ago;
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
The early experiments that sent radiation through gases in a tube, measuring bands of the spectrum at sea-level pressure and temperature, had been misleading. The bands seen at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral lines, which in the primitive early instruments had been smeared out into broad bands. Improved physics theory and precise laboratory measurements in the 1940s and after encouraged a new way of looking at the absorption. Scientists were especially struck to find that at low pressure and temperature, each band resolved into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps between the lines where radiation would get through.(24) The most important CO2 absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines. Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines with spaces for radiation to slip through. So even if water vapor in the lower layers of the atmosphere did entirely block any radiation that could have been absorbed by CO2, that would not keep the gas from making a difference in the rarified and frigid upper layers. Those layers held very little water vapor anyway. And scientists were coming to see that you couldn't just calculate absorption for radiation passing through the atmosphere as a whole, you had to understand what happened in each layer — which was far harder to calculate.
<=External input
Digital computers were now at hand for such calculations. The theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan decided it was worth taking some time away from what seemed like more important matters to grind through extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he showed that in the upper atmosphere, adding more CO2 must change the balance of radiation significantly.(25)
<=>Radiation math
But would adding carbon dioxide in the upper layers of the air significantly change the surface temperature? Only detailed computations, point by point across the infrared spectrum and layer by layer up through the atmosphere, could answer that question. By 1956, such computations could be carried out thanks to the increasing power of digital computers. The physicist Gilbert N. Plass took up the challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere, nailing down the likelihood that adding more CO2 would increase the interference with infrared radiation.(26) Going beyond this qualitative result, Plass announced that human activity would raise the average global temperature "at the rate of 1.1 degree C per century."
The AIP is the American Institute of Physics. The site has real information from scientists that have done the actual work.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
The early experiments that sent radiation through gases in a tube, measuring bands of the spectrum at sea-level pressure and temperature, had been misleading. The bands seen at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral lines, which in the primitive early instruments had been smeared out into broad bands. Improved physics theory and precise laboratory measurements in the 1940s and after encouraged a new way of looking at the absorption. Scientists were especially struck to find that at low pressure and temperature, each band resolved into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps between the lines where radiation would get through.(24) The most important CO2 absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines. Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines with spaces for radiation to slip through. So even if water vapor in the lower layers of the atmosphere did entirely block any radiation that could have been absorbed by CO2, that would not keep the gas from making a difference in the rarified and frigid upper layers. Those layers held very little water vapor anyway. And scientists were coming to see that you couldn't just calculate absorption for radiation passing through the atmosphere as a whole, you had to understand what happened in each layer — which was far harder to calculate.
<=External input
Digital computers were now at hand for such calculations. The theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan decided it was worth taking some time away from what seemed like more important matters to grind through extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he showed that in the upper atmosphere, adding more CO2 must change the balance of radiation significantly.(25)
<=>Radiation math
But would adding carbon dioxide in the upper layers of the air significantly change the surface temperature? Only detailed computations, point by point across the infrared spectrum and layer by layer up through the atmosphere, could answer that question. By 1956, such computations could be carried out thanks to the increasing power of digital computers. The physicist Gilbert N. Plass took up the challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere, nailing down the likelihood that adding more CO2 would increase the interference with infrared radiation.(26) Going beyond this qualitative result, Plass announced that human activity would raise the average global temperature "at the rate of 1.1 degree C per century."
The AIP is the American Institute of Physics. The site has real information from scientists that have done the actual work.
KittenKoder
Senior Member
You know it's all guesstimates still. Meteorology is based on the same math yet proves to be right at best 50% of the time, and even then they only deal in chances. Do you want to risk being completely wrong when the chances are the same either way?
krotchdog
Rookie
- Apr 7, 2009
- 480
- 46
- 0
- Banned
- #36
Its pretty simple, 3 molecules for every 100,000. So as the infrared radiation spread into the atmosphere its energy is only absorbed from 3 in every 100,000. Once absorbed the infrared radiation is to be radiated back, of course the radiation does not have the same amount of energy, the heat gets much weaker, considering the CO2 molecule can at best under perfect conditions absorb 8% of the amount of radiation that by chance hits the molecule its going to return much less, maybe at best 1%.
Old rock, I am not going to go tit for tat posting endless useless pieces of data, what I will do is return to my old reply which shows how you willingly posted data you knew to be false.
This is a fools game, I can post a top scientest and than old rock will post and then I, a fools game. Nothing more.
Old rock, all you prove is you have not a lick of intellect, you simply post data and false data at that, care for me to provide the proof.
Everyone knows that Dr. Hansen is the leading expert on global warming and he uses false data so if the leading scientest uses false date what do the rest of the cronies use?
Upper atmosphere is freezing cold.
Lower atmosphere is all that counts, and water vapor is what all the computer models ignore.
Mr. Novak's response to old rock
http://nov55.com/abt.html
Old rock, I am not going to go tit for tat posting endless useless pieces of data, what I will do is return to my old reply which shows how you willingly posted data you knew to be false.
This is a fools game, I can post a top scientest and than old rock will post and then I, a fools game. Nothing more.
Old rock, all you prove is you have not a lick of intellect, you simply post data and false data at that, care for me to provide the proof.
Everyone knows that Dr. Hansen is the leading expert on global warming and he uses false data so if the leading scientest uses false date what do the rest of the cronies use?
Upper atmosphere is freezing cold.
Lower atmosphere is all that counts, and water vapor is what all the computer models ignore.
Mr. Novak's response to old rock
http://nov55.com/abt.html
Last edited:
krotchdog
Rookie
- Apr 7, 2009
- 480
- 46
- 0
- Banned
- #37
Nothing is proven, a theory is not fact.
So old rocks you are telling me a man with a PHD is not qualified to make a determination proving global warming by analyzing the data and evaluating the vast amount of information on global warming, obviously even a PHD in micro biology requires mathamatical skills, analytical ability, the ability to reason.
I take your word for this the man is unqualified to interpet the data and evaluate scientists for accuracy or to make a determination if thier results are correct.
Old Rock is right again, but than, how is Old Rock able to look at the same data and present it as factual with less education than a man with a PHD who incidently gets his papers published in scientific journals.
I am tired, did I word that right, let me try again
Old Rock tells us to discount a paper by a man with a PHD because his education is not sufficient, yet Old Rock is able to study the same data with less education and Old Rock knows if what is presented is accurate or false, old rock knows if the data is pertinet.
This is why I want to harp on the fact that so many people are just posting data.
It is an idiotic arguement. It is exactly what both sides want, a scientist is no smarter than an average man. He may have more education but that does not make them smart.
Posting data back and forth shows both sides are not thinking the idea through. Data is not going to determine who is right or wrong. Not in our lifetime.
Global warming is about control, making things expensive. Making corporations rich.
Anyone who thinks either side of our political parties does anything for any other reason than power and money is a fool, a moron, a useful idiot.
JohnStOnge
Member
- Jul 8, 2005
- 321
- 43
- 16
I went to that site looking for specific "stock" arguments and I got specific "stock" arguments. Here is quote expressing the classic "uncertainty" red herring:
"Answer: Probability is the language of science. There is no proof; there are no absolute certainties. Scientists are always aware that new data may overturn old theories and that human knowledge is constantly evolving. Consequently, it is viewed as unjustifiable hubris to ever claim one's findings as unassailable."
By convention, when you are dealing with statistical data and a statistical experiment, there is a standard by which one declares "There is sufficient evidence to conclude that (insert factor) has (insert effect)." And there are, as a practical matter, absolute certainties.
Right now, with climate change, we have not reached the common standard of "sufficient evidence" even is we assume that some kind of meaningful confidence level has been established. That's because the common minimum standard for inferring cause and effect is the 95% confidence level and the IPCC makes no claim of being 95% "certain" about humanity as cause of temperature increases.
Go to the 2007 IPCC Physical Science Basis report Summary for Policymaker at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf . On page 10, you will see this statement:
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Now, go to the footnotes at the bottom of page 3 and you will see this:
"In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to
indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or
a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely >
95%, Very likely > 90%...
There are two things to note about that statement. First, the use of "probability" language is misleading because what they're really talking about is "expert judgement." Second, even if you assume that they're talking about something like a controlled experiment with a real quantitative confidence level, "very likely" does not meet the standard for declaring "sufficient evidence." Let's say a drug company thinks it has a drug that will cure some cancer. There is no way it would be allowed to market that drug and make the claim that it would cure that cancer based on the level of certainty claimed by the IPCC when it uses the terminology "very likely." Even if the drug company had completed randomized controlled experiments, a 90% confidence level would not consitute "sufficient evidence to conclude" that a cause and effect relationship exists.
I would not be surprised if, in a few years, the IPCC moves its claimed certainty level on that matter to "Extremely Likely." But if and when that happens we'll be back to the problem of that being "expert judgement" based on observational data in the absence of a controlled experiment that would be necessary to actually establish a quantitative "cause and effect" confidence level.
Last edited:
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Well, the experiment is being made, in a very uncontrolled environment. And we are some of the subjects of that experiment.
Here is the crux of all the arguements. You say that the warming is natural, some now say with a solar minimum, and a lingering La Nina, that we will be cooling. Even if the minimum continues, I say, from the evidence that I see presented by scientists, that we will continue to warm, and see some record years in the next five years. We will see who is correct.
Here is the crux of all the arguements. You say that the warming is natural, some now say with a solar minimum, and a lingering La Nina, that we will be cooling. Even if the minimum continues, I say, from the evidence that I see presented by scientists, that we will continue to warm, and see some record years in the next five years. We will see who is correct.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Ol' Dawg, having a problem when someone presents data from the actual scientists working in the field? Well, you will see me continue to present such data.
Hansen is the leading climate scientist in the US, some say in the world. His credentials are in first order. And the sniping of the know-nothings of the far wingnut side of the political spectrum cannot change that. He has earned the worlds respect, you have earned derision.
Hansen is the leading climate scientist in the US, some say in the world. His credentials are in first order. And the sniping of the know-nothings of the far wingnut side of the political spectrum cannot change that. He has earned the worlds respect, you have earned derision.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Navarro and Musk fight in public while Democrats complain ironically complain about Authoritarian administration- Started by Mr. Friscus
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
