Earth Has Its Warmest May on Record Globally

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Environmental Beauty!

Fire%20Wood.JPG


Five Cords of FireWood Cut Split and stacked.
 
PapaG said:
I also wonder who says humans can't pollute a river? Anybody who says that isn't worthy of any consideration on this topic.
Click to expand...

So you do think we can pollute a river?

What about an ocean?

Do you think we polluted those things intentionally for our benefit?

Correct me if I'm wrong but you taking issue with the river part means that you believe that we can negatively affect some parts of our environment but not others. Humans can negatively affect land, sea and air but it's impossible to think that we can negatively affect climate? It's a complete impossibility for us to do that?
 
barfo said:
Sure. How fast do you think evolution works? How many generations will it take for humans to develop those CO2 lungs and sweat glands? Now how fast is the earth warming?



Let's do.

barfo
Click to expand...

We cant know for certain. But what we do know for certain is there is no god /science
 
We know god doesnt exist because we cant see him

How do we know global warming exists if we cant see it starring us in the face?
 
If global warming really exists why doesnt it just make a sign in the sky that says im global warming and I exist.

You guys are so gullible, I bet you'd believe in a flying spaghetti monster if I told you there was one

And dont get me started on your tv evangelists that tell me if I buy carbon credits ill be blessed.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
So you do think we can pollute a river?

What about an ocean?

Do you think we polluted those things intentionally for our benefit?

Correct me if I'm wrong but you taking issue with the river part means that you believe that we can negatively affect some parts of our environment but not others. Humans can negatively affect land, sea and air but it's impossible to think that we can negatively affect climate? It's a complete impossibility for us to do that?
Click to expand...

The science says humans do pollute rivers and lakes by dumping chemicals in them. None of that has anything to do with CO2 emissions, though, and the effect on temperature. Are you sure you're in the right thread? Humans polluting rivers has as much to do with AGW as me whistling a song right now. Both are provable facts; no maybes are involved in either case. CO2 is a naturally occurring "poison." Dumping lead into a river is not natural.
 
Last edited:
barfo said:
No offense taken.



maybe, but what we should do is a different question than what are the current facts. I was addressing the latter, not the former.



Ok, explain how this quote is about the survey results:



It sounds to me like he is acknowledging that there IS a consensus, and furthermore saying that he agrees with it. How is that a statement about the survey results?

It is true that he has some quibbles with the survey - he thinks the number is in the high 90's, but maybe not 97%. If it's 95% instead of 97%, is that supportive of your denial?

barfo
Click to expand...

That quote is lifted from a critique he wrote criticizing the bogus math ideology used to come up with the consensus figure. I have no doubt that 97% of the papers filtered through biased reviewers say there's global warming (I agree there is), a lesser number that say man is contributing to it, and an even lesser number that say it is something to be alarmed about.

It is no AHA moment as you feel it is.

The whole point us politics and it is a form of terrorism - destroy our economy or else fire and brimstone.

When does that start anyway?
 
SlyPokerDog said:
So you do think we can pollute a river?

What about an ocean?

Correct me if I'm wrong but you taking issue with the river part means that you believe that we can negatively affect some parts of our environment but not others. Humans can negatively affect land, sea and air but it's impossible to think that we can negatively affect climate? It's a Do you think we polluted those things intentionally for our benefit?
complete impossibility for us to do that?
Click to expand...

Did you get a new Job Sly? Perhaps you are working with Sly Gore?
 
PapaG said:
The science says humans do pollute rivers and lakes by dumping chemicals in them. None of that has anything to do with CO2 emissions, though, and the effect on temperature. Are you sure you're in the right thread? Humans polluting rivers has as much to do with AGW as me whistling a song right now. Both are provable facts; no maybes are involved in either case.
Click to expand...

Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[2] An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[3][4] To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean "acidity" (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[5] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[6][7] Earth System Models project that within the last decade ocean acidity exceeded historical analogs [8] and in combination with other ocean biogeochemical changes could undermine the functioning of marine ecosystems and many ocean goods and services.[9]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[2] An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[3][4] To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean "acidity" (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[5] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[6][7] Earth System Models project that within the last decade ocean acidity exceeded historical analogs [8] and in combination with other ocean biogeochemical changes could undermine the functioning of marine ecosystems and many ocean goods and services.[9]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Click to expand...

What's your point? Wiki says humans can pollute water? I'm not denying it. Weird tangent, and disappointing because I've long considered you to be a reasonable person open to admitting we can't as humans know the solution to everything. Shutting down coal and oil will have a big impact. Millions will die while waiting for unicorns who fart free electricity.
 
I don't believe in god, and I don't believe in AGW. This is based on the data available to me. Yes, I think I'm more intelligent than the extremists on either side. I can't disprove god, and I can't disprove AGW. I'm agnostic on both religions.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[2] An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[3][4] To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean "acidity" (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[5] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[6][7] Earth System Models project that within the last decade ocean acidity exceeded historical analogs [8] and in combination with other ocean biogeochemical changes could undermine the functioning of marine ecosystems and many ocean goods and services.[9]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Click to expand...


690px-Carbon_cycle.jpg


And we here in the US can change that red +2 in what way?
 
MarAzul said:
Did you get a new Job Sly? Perhaps you are working with Sly Gore?
Click to expand...

Not at all, being more efficient with resources is good business. Being more efficient means less waste. Less is waste is less cost.
 
PapaG said:
What's your point? Wiki says humans can pollute water? I'm not denying it. Weird tangent, and disappointing because I've long considered you to be a reasonable person open to admitting we can't as humans know the solution to everything. Shutting down coal and oil will have a big impact. Millions will die while waiting for unicorns who fart free electricity.
Click to expand...

You said what does CO2 have to do with lakes and rivers. I showed you it has a lot to do with it. CO2 is poisonous for us to breath, it's poisonous for water but it has no affect on climate?

And never did I say to stop using coal and oil.

Honestly, oil is one of the most magical substances on earth. We can't live without petroleum based products. Oil is so important to biomedical and material science. It's actually a waste a burn it up. That is not the best use for that resource.

I'm actually very in favor of this for the energy needs in this country - http://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeappene/v_3a67_3ay_3a2000_3ai_3a4_3ap_3a395-406.htm

Abstract: Utilization of nuclear energy is an effective way of solving the global warming resulting from CO2 emissions. Thermal energy accounts for more than two thirds of total energy utilization at present and therefore it is significant to extend the utilization of nuclear heat for the effective reduction of CO2 emissions in the world. This paper describes a coal gasification system using HTGR nuclear heat in an ammonia production plant in terms of industrial utilization of the nuclear heat. The system uses the nuclear heat directly in addition to generating electricity. A steam reforming method using a two-stage coal gasifier is employed: it improves the heat utilization efficiency of the secondary helium gas from the HTGR. Finally, the paper clarifies that the nuclear gasification system can reduce CO2 emissions by about five hundred thousand tons per year from that of a conventional system using fossil fuel.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
You said what does CO2 have to do with lakes and rivers. I showed you it has a lot to do with it. CO2 is poisonous for us to breath, it's poisonous for water but it has no affect on climate?

And never did I say to stop using coal and oil.

Honestly, oil is one of the most magical substances on earth. We can't live without petroleum based products. Oil is so important to biomedical and material science. It's actually a waste a burn it up. That is not the best use for that resource.

I'm actually very in favor of this for the energy needs in this country - http://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeappene/v_3a67_3ay_3a2000_3ai_3a4_3ap_3a395-406.htm

Abstract: Utilization of nuclear energy is an effective way of solving the global warming resulting from CO2 emissions. Thermal energy accounts for more than two thirds of total energy utilization at present and therefore it is significant to extend the utilization of nuclear heat for the effective reduction of CO2 emissions in the world. This paper describes a coal gasification system using HTGR nuclear heat in an ammonia production plant in terms of industrial utilization of the nuclear heat. The system uses the nuclear heat directly in addition to generating electricity. A steam reforming method using a two-stage coal gasifier is employed: it improves the heat utilization efficiency of the secondary helium gas from the HTGR. Finally, the paper clarifies that the nuclear gasification system can reduce CO2 emissions by about five hundred thousand tons per year from that of a conventional system using fossil fuel.
Click to expand...

Yes Sir! It's damn near criminal that we are not producing enough Nuclear energy to run everything. Leave the oil for lube , Poly-carbons and fertilizer. I guess we can blame Nuclear
Jane, for shutting down that progress. Funny she tauted herself as a progressive too.
 
MarAzul said:
Yes Sir! It's damn near criminal that we are not producing enough Nuclear energy to run everything. Leave the oil for lube , Poly-carbons and fertilizer. I guess we can blame Nuclear
Jane, for shutting down that progress. Funny she tauted herself as a progressive too.
Click to expand...

I would like to see all current US nuke plants shut down. Those are very old facilities based on very outdated technology. Many of them are located near large population areas. I would like to see them replaced with a new generation of pellet based nuke plants that are located a government protected areas in Utah, New Mexico or Arizona. They should be privately owned but secured by military personal instead of minimum wage paid security guards. Combining nuke plants with coal gasification is also a sound economical plan. Currently we are exporting raw coal to China when we could be exporting a refined product at a higher profit.

Also use the nuke plants as a hub for a new national power grid. Our current grid is very old, outdated and inefficient.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Like I said, the planet will go on existing. Life will find a way. The earth is a life factory. But will life that "rapidly evolves" be edible for humans? Some life forms will be able to change their PH but we are not one of them.
Click to expand...

What is the pH of the oceans? What is the pH of fresh water?

How do you think the acidity affects life even though there's such a huge disparity?
 
What I really want to know is since the sea is rising so fast that it will chase man out of his favorite haunts, and this is due to Ice melting. Does this not mitigate the PH change from acid (carbon)?

Which is going to do us in first, the acidic ocean or the ocean too high? Or are these independent studies that disregard the other?
 
I'm a better Weatherman than Denny. Here is proof of Global Warming.

1000_Jahr_Temperaturen-Vergleich.png
 
This one goes back 2000 years. What would Jesus do?

2000_Jahre_Temperaturen-Vergleich.png
 
I am sick and tired of Denny winning just because he has more pictures.

65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
 
Does he think we don't know weather science?

595px-Atmospheric_TransmissionPL.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top