No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Also, it's hot in the summer. And water is wet, and puppies are cute.

barfo
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Also, it's hot in the summer. And water is wet, and puppies are cute.

barfo

For some very strange reason, your comments reminded of this song. Nothing personal, though. ;)

[video=youtube;65AuuFpNFxY]
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Higher pH is alakine

The oceans are alkaline, not acidic

if the oceans become more acidic, the pH would lower.
You're right on this point
If you're really interested, the great barrier reef has done better and better as the climate has warmed.
I've seen conflicting info on whether warm water is good for reefs but ocean acidification is definitely not good for them.
mainstream article
technical article
Thanks for the link.

I think there are more authoritative figures on the subject.
My name is Dave Middleton. I have been a geoscientist in the evil oil industry for almost 30 years. I have a BS in Earth Science (Geology concentration) from Southern Connecticut State University and I minored in Mathematics.
He would have more credibility if his background wasn't in the industry that has the largest vested interest in debunking climate change, ocean acidification, etc... He can't be considered an objective person on the subjects.

His concentration is in geology yet the subject draws on disciplines from biology, physics and chemistry. He does a good job using his background to argue his point but he misses the whole picture.

I like how he uses facts and articles to support his point and not anecdotal evidence. I tried to look into the paper he cites the most (Pelejero et al., 2005) but it's not freely available on the net so I couldn't really fact check it.
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

You're right on this point

I've seen conflicting info on whether warm water is good for reefs but ocean acidification is definitely not good for them.
mainstream article
technical article

Thanks for the link.

I think there are more authoritative figures on the subject.

He would have more credibility if his background wasn't in the industry that has the largest vested interest in debunking climate change, ocean acidification, etc... He can't be considered an objective person on the subjects.

His concentration is in geology yet the subject draws on disciplines from biology, physics and chemistry. He does a good job using his background to argue his point but he misses the whole picture.

I like how he uses facts and articles to support his point and not anecdotal evidence. I tried to look into the paper he cites the most (Pelejero et al., 2005) but it's not freely available on the net so I couldn't really fact check it.

There's nothing in the guy's background that disqualifies him from being an expert and having a valid case to make, perfectly supported by the chicken little crowd's data.

The sorry thing is that it's a political argument and the science isn't really considered. Why not disqualify all the academics, because they're supported by govt. grants and have those at risk if their scam is even further debunked. Further, meaning, see the emails between them made public recently.

It's hard to believe that every scientist employed in the private sector would be willing to sacrifice the planet for some short term payola.
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

There's nothing in the guy's background that disqualifies him from being an expert
There's also nothing in his background that qualifies him to be an expert.
-He only has a Bachelors (30 years ago?)
-His concentration is geology, arguably not the best discipline to discuss ocean acidification
-He's not published on the subject
-He doesn't even do research on the subject (aside from probably reading other papers)
... and having a valid case to make, perfectly supported by the chicken little crowd's data.

The sorry thing is that it's a political argument and the science isn't really considered. Why not disqualify all the academics, because they're supported by govt. grants and have those at risk if their scam is even further debunked. Further, meaning, see the emails between them made public recently.
Like I said before, He makes logical arguments but I couldn't fact check because all the cited articles are only available for paying members.

My beef is that he says all of global warming and ocean acidification is junk science by finding different conclusions to data found in a handful of published papers. You could do the same with medical journals, find conflicting reports on a variety of subjects. Can you call
cancer research junk science?
It's hard to believe that every scientist employed in the private sector would be willing to sacrifice the planet for some short term payola.
You could argue that same for scientists working in the public and academic sectors. A minority argue against thousands of scientists and suddenly global warming and ocean acidification is "debunked"!?!?! I think it's good to have opposing voices but to say it's all a fraud or whatever is disingenuous
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

There's also nothing in his background that qualifies him to be an expert.
-He only has a Bachelors (30 years ago?)
-His concentration is geology, arguably not the best discipline to discuss ocean acidification
-He's not published on the subject
-He doesn't even do research on the subject (aside from probably reading other papers)

Like I said before, He makes logical arguments but I couldn't fact check because all the cited articles are only available for paying members.

My beef is that he says all of global warming and ocean acidification is junk science by finding different conclusions to data found in a handful of published papers. You could do the same with medical journals, find conflicting reports on a variety of subjects. Can you call
cancer research junk science?

You could argue that same for scientists working in the public and academic sectors. A minority argue against thousands of scientists and suddenly global warming and ocean acidification is "debunked"!?!?! I think it's good to have opposing voices but to say it's all a fraud or whatever is disingenuous

All fine and good, but we've seen from the published emails that the pro-anthropologic warming scientists collaborated to skew the data. My belief is that we're being hoodwinked by these guys and that anyone who's good enough to plot the actual data and debunk the claims is doing us all a big favor.
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

There's a 99% chance aliens won't attack earth, but we may as well build massive defenses against an invasion.

We did. It was called "Star Wars". You did not really think it was against the Russians, did you? :devilwink:
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

We did. It was called "Star Wars". You did not really think it was against the Russians, did you? :devilwink:

:lol:

Star Wars had several spin off technologies that have benefited us all. Like cheaper earth to space payloads (90% cheaper). And if we ever have to defend ourselves against an asteroid or comet impact, it'll be star wars technology that has the chance to save us all.
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Star Wars had several spin off technologies that have benefited us all. Like cheaper earth to space payloads (90% cheaper). And if we ever have to defend ourselves against an asteroid or comet impact, it'll be star wars technology that has the chance to save us all.

I am not really against Star Wars, or, to be honest, many Govt. sponsored "technology/science" projects.

This is an area where Govt. funding with long-term implication actually makes sense, imho - some things just do not fair well in the US's quarter to quarter what have you done for me business climate - and the "spend money because we will need it and gain long-term advantages from it" is what makes a country successful long term.

That, btw, is a reason I love the idea of Govt. funded alternative fuel solutions - Not because of the entire climate change stuff (which I do not think we can measure with a high level of confidence at this point) - but because this eliminates dependency and will have long-term advantages we are yet to see because of the knowledge/technology that will be gained.
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

I am not really against Star Wars, or, to be honest, many Govt. sponsored "technology/science" projects.

This is an area where Govt. funding with long-term implication actually makes sense, imho - some things just do not fair well in the US's quarter to quarter what have you done for me business climate - and the "spend money because we will need it and gain long-term advantages from it" is what makes a country successful long term.

That, btw, is a reason I love the idea of Govt. funded alternative fuel solutions - Not because of the entire climate change stuff (which I do not think we can measure with a high level of confidence at this point) - but because this eliminates dependency and will have long-term advantages we are yet to see because of the knowledge/technology that will be gained.


Obama kills Bush fuel cell plan
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi


That is probably not a bad idea, Fuel Cells strike me as a pretty stupid idea - the need to generate the electricity from raw material on-board is just silly when you think about this country's well developed grid, and many different types of alternative energy sources you will not be able to utilize with fuel cells. It made a lot of sense in the 19th century (when the automobile really started) - with limited grid and bad storage technology - but today?

The future for transportation sources would really look a lot better when utilizing centralized production facilities that are not limited to Hydrogen - but can work with Solar, Wind, Algae and god knows what else they come with (Switchgrass?) - and work on better storage mechanism for this electricity (be it battery technology) or update the infrastructure for battery exchange (instead of gas pumps) - as Shai Agassi's Better Place start-up suggests.

Fuel-Cells remind me of Ethanol. It's looking for the lost penny under the street light - because there is light there. There is no need for raw-material conversion for energy production with the infrastructure we have - it just makes no sense. It's the power of momentum - we always generated the energy from on-board raw material in the past - so let's do it going forward. There is no need for it.
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

That is probably not a bad idea, Fuel Cells strike me as a pretty stupid idea - the need to generate the electricity from raw material on-board is just silly when you think about this country's well developed grid, and many different types of alternative energy sources you will not be able to utilize with fuel cells. It made a lot of sense in the 19th century (when the automobile really started) - with limited grid and bad storage technology - but today?

The future for transportation sources would really look a lot better when utilizing centralized production facilities that are not limited to Hydrogen - but can work with Solar, Wind, Algae and god knows what else they come with (Switchgrass?) - and work on better storage mechanism for this electricity (be it battery technology) or update the infrastructure for battery exchange (instead of gas pumps) - as Shai Agassi's Better Place start-up suggests.

Fuel-Cells remind me of Ethanol. It's looking for the lost penny under the street light - because there is light there. There is no need for raw-material conversion for energy production with the infrastructure we have - it just makes no sense. It's the power of momentum - we always generated the energy from on-board raw material in the past - so let's do it going forward. There is no need for it.

Well, it does take power to create the hydrogen for the fuel cells, but that's what the power grid would be for. The vehicles go a lot further than electric cars without a refill/recharge, which is the appeal, as well as the fact they don't pollute.
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Well, it does take power to create the hydrogen for the fuel cells, but that's what the power grid would be for. The vehicles go a lot further than electric cars without a refill/recharge, which is the appeal, as well as the fact they don't pollute.

Distributing the hydrogen will require an infrastructure upgrade as well - so there is very little difference between that and a battery exchange infrastructure upgrade, and there is no need to "create" the energy from raw-on-board material with electric vehicles.

The real problem with fuel-cells is that currently, they are not very efficient, you currently have a 50% energy conversion rate for even low voltage output, with the hydrogen already on-board. When you add the costs of making it available at the pumps - the efficiency drops significantly - even fossil fuel powerplants (which are not the most efficient compared to natural resources (water) and nuclear plants are much more efficient.

In other words - there is really no real advantage for fuel cells compared to strictly electric vehicles when you figure the distribution infrastructure upgrades. Heck, a simple solution like the one offered by the Chevy Volt (electric motors for the drivetrain, with a normal gasoline engine for recharging it on the fly when it goes beyond the grid-charge range) makes a lot more sense. You get a much higher return on investment this way - you can use the current fossil fuel infrastructure with no changes while tapping into the pre-existing grid for 80% of the commute needs of most Americans.
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Distributing the hydrogen will require an infrastructure upgrade as well - so there is very little difference between that and a battery exchange infrastructure upgrade, and there is no need to "create" the energy from raw-on-board material with electric vehicles.

The real problem with fuel-cells is that currently, they are not very efficient, you currently have a 50% energy conversion rate for even low voltage output, with the hydrogen already on-board. When you add the costs of making it available at the pumps - the efficiency drops significantly - even fossil fuel powerplants (which are not the most efficient compared to natural resources (water) and nuclear plants are much more efficient.

In other words - there is really no real advantage for fuel cells compared to strictly electric vehicles when you figure the distribution infrastructure upgrades. Heck, a simple solution like the one offered by the Chevy Volt (electric motors for the drivetrain, with a normal gasoline engine for recharging it on the fly when it goes beyond the grid-charge range) makes a lot more sense. You get a much higher return on investment this way - you can use the current fossil fuel infrastructure with no changes while tapping into the pre-existing grid for 80% of the commute needs of most Americans.

Sounds a lot like the Prius.
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Sounds a lot like the Prius.

The Prius (at least now) can not be recharged from the grid and it has a more complicated drivetrain - given that both the electric motor and the gasoline motor can power the wheels.

The Prius, even if many car enthusiasts disdain it - is a brilliant piece of engineering and proved that we can have modern vehicles with alternative fuel delivery. It was (and still is) a great stepping stone and will be remembered as a very important vehicle - but, in a way, it is a little bit like the Mini was in the 60s - it showed us some of the way, but the final solution is different from what it was.

(For the record, the Mini was the first popular small car that used the traverse engine layout in a FWD application - which is the most popular form of modern car, but - now the engine does not sit on top of the transmission as it did in the Mini and the form is much improved by the incorporation of a hatchback to properly utilize the space efficiency that the FWD layout provided).
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

A few points.

There are hack kits to make the Prius a pluggable vehicle.

The Prius uses the gas motor to charge the battery. The brakes, too.

It's designed for aerodynamics (unlike other hybrids), and lots of other features make it efficient.

It works great with the existing gas distribution ingrastructure we have.

It produces very low emissions. Though the upstream costs to make the car negate most if not all of this.

The major benefit I see in it is that it uses about 25% less gasoline than most other cars, which would make 300 years of oil reserves last another 75 years.
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

A few points.

There are hack kits to make the Prius a pluggable vehicle.

Sure, but there are also all electric Fiat Spiders out there...

The Prius uses the gas motor to charge the battery. The brakes, too.

True.

It's designed for aerodynamics (unlike other hybrids), and lots of other features make it efficient.

I am pretty sure other hybrids are designed for aerodynamic as well. Remember that the first generation Prius looked like a normal car, the 2nd generation (the one that was the big seller) looked a lot more like the first generation Honda Insight.

It works great with the existing gas distribution ingrastructure we have.

Sure.

The major benefit I see in it is that it uses about 25% less gasoline than most other cars, which would make 300 years of oil reserves last another 75 years.

Sure. The nice thing about a full electric with a small gas engine like the Volt is that based on the daily commute of most Americans - it would use a lot less gasoline - simply because most people will just recharge it and tap very little into the gasoline use.
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

http://newsminer.com/pages/full_sto...e+debate &id=5444000&instance=home_lead_story

‘Frozen Gore’ sculpture returns in Fairbanks to fuel climate change debate

FAIRBANKS - In what might become an annual tradition, an ice sculpture of former Vice President Al Gore has taken its place in front of Thrifty Liquor along Airport Way.

The two-ton “Frozen Gore” sculpture isn’t exactly a tribute. It’s a tongue-in-cheek critique of Gore’s vocal belief in man-made climate change, complete with hot air pouring out of his mouth.

Local businessmen Craig Compeau and Rudy Gavora contracted the piece from award-winning sculptor Steve Dean and say they’ll keep erecting one each winter until Gore accepts an invitation to discuss the global warming issue in Fairbanks.

“We do want to invite debate,” Compeau said. “We don’t agree with his theories — we’re suspicious of the financial motivation behind them.”

This year’s version includes special effects, thanks to a system that pipes the exhaust from a Ford F-350 out of Gore’s open mouth. Compeau will fire up the truck periodically this winter to create the “hot air” effect.

With temperatures in the single digits, about 10 people laughed as smoke poured out of the sculpture as it was unveiled Tuesday morning. An excerpt of a recent Gore speech on climate change played over a loudspeaker.

Compeau said the sculpture is inspiring a contest, in which the winner will receive winter gear and an Al Gore bobblehead doll.

He’s asking people to guess how long an F-350 would need to run to match the emissions of a Lear jet flight from Gore’s home in Tennessee to Copenhagen, the site of a recent international climate change summit.

In an e-mail, a Gore spokeswoman said the former vice president doesn’t own a Lear jet and flew to and from Copenhagen aboard commercial flights.

Compeau said he’ll change the wording so his Web site doesn’t claim Gore took a private jet but said the contest will remain the same. He said Gore has been guilty of hypocrisy in the past on the climate change issue.

“I know he’s gone out of his way to be seen flying commercial, but in the past, he’s flown on a Lear jet,” he said.

Last year’s inaugural Gore ice sculpture got national attention, including mentions on The Drudge Report, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. Compeau said his Web site, which included photos and information about the sculpture and contest, attracted 1.7 million visitors.

Compeau said he was swamped with feedback, including hundreds, if not thousands, of e-mails. He said only a few were negative and that most people found the sculpture entertaining.

Compeau said he’s not denying that human activities might play a role in global warming but he’s skeptical of political solutions that Gore and others are advocating. He said huge sums of government money are unlikely to solve the problem.

“Before we start carbon taxing … let’s try and educate ourselves,” he said.

Climate change scientists say Alaska has warmed by 3 degrees Fahrenheit during the past

50 years. The average temperature for 2009 was 27.8 degrees in Fairbanks, about one degree warmer than normal, said Rick Thoman, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service.

Last winter, however, was unusually cold in Fairbanks. Temperatures in the winter months of

2008-09 were about 4 degrees below normal, according to National Weather Service figures.

A video of the sculpture and contest entry forms are available at www.frozengore.com.

Contact staff writer Jeff Richardson at 459-7518.
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

One can fly commerical and still fly a Lear jet. You know he chartered a flight to Dopenhagen.
 
Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

I just wonder where they found enough ice in Alaska to make a sculpture so big.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top