|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 7:37:23 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
In trying to find out more about this issue, most of the results I got were on the same skeptical web site. This one https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...-the-ipcc-ar5/ has the writer admit he is a "climate heretic" - he believes there are natural processes that cool the planet when it's too warm, and warm it when it's too cool. He's right! Look at all the excess carbon dioxide that got dissolved in the ocean, and is therefore just making it acidic and killing the Great Barrier Reef, instead of contributing to global warming. The ocean is not "acidic." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater "Seawater pH is typically limited to a range between 7.5 and 8.4" Less than 7 is acidic. But it IS a concern; however, there are more CO2 sinks than the ocean. Vegetation, soils and detritus contain twice as much CO2 than the ocean surface. The deeper ocean, OTOH, contains 38x the amount in the surface ocean. However, sometimes those natural processes *take a while*. Look at how long the last ice age lasted. The transfer of CO2 from surface ocean to deep ocean appears to occur because of death of marine life. Plus, when you put _human technology_ into the mix, something utterly unprecedented in the history of life on Earth... well, you really don't want to try to see just how far you can push those natural restorative processes until they break. John Savard These are concerns, and we don't know where the breaking point is, if there is one. Fortunately, we have time to learn as well as to control our CO2 emissions. It is estimated that our civilization is producing CO2 at a rate that it would increase atmospheric CO2 levels by 7 ppm/year IF it all went into the atmosphere, but the atmospheric CO2 increases only at a 2 ppm/year rate. Evidence says most of the difference is going into vegetation, soils and detritus: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/0...limate-change/ "soils remove about 25 percent of the world’s fossil fuel emissions each year." So that's about the same amount that's going into the atmosphere. Just another 3 ppm/year to account for. Could this be it: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/c...reenerfor-now/ Apparently, vegetation has increased by 11% since 1982. All those fires in California may be reversing that? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 18:37:21 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote: On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 7:29:11 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote: But I would have thought that what _matters_, if one is concerned about the ultimate consequence of reaching a certain carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, is the *equilibrium* forcing, not the instantaneous forcing. Which is much higher. In trying to find out more about this issue, most of the results I got were on the same skeptical web site. This one https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...-the-ipcc-ar5/ The site is not run by a credible or qualified expert. It is the Breitbart of science denialism. If you see that site referenced, you can disregard the source completely. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On 28/11/2018 01:10, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 3:42:50 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: And YOU are a climate groupie who doen't understand the first thing about the models but arrogantly denounces anyone who questions the Climate Gods whom you worship with YOUR dogmatism. He certainly doesn't help matters by coming across as someone who plans to line you up against the wall when the revolution comes. However, by continuing to defend the false, and well-known to be false, proposition that AGW is not based on genuine and valid science, and that opposition to it is worth taking seriously, the only people you will manage to impress are the ignorant. There are dishonest people, many of them in the pay of oil companies, who don't mind that, because - as the current inhabitant of the White House proves - ignorant people can vote too. Ignorant white (sic. fake tan orange except for the goggles) racists can also get elected as President of the United States endorsed by the KKK. While science is not infallible, and so there is a need for vigilance against mistakes, in the case of global warming, the science _is_ sufficiently well established that categorizing its opponents as either deliberately dishonest on the one hand, or stupid or at least ignorant on the other... however impolite it may seem, is basically an accurate characterization of the actual situation. The lying dittoheads and prostitute scientists working for ultra right wing think tanks are a serious problem. In the USA it has become a party political issue where Republicans think that trashing the planet for short term profit is OK. Whatever happened to the old idea of good stewardship - leaving the planet in a fit state for the next generation? Sure, citing facts and figures is a better mode of argument than name-calling. But sometimes it's not worth the time and effort. Especially when facts and figures *are* put forward, and they don't seem to have an effect. When they are lying dittoheads and science deniers it is appropriate to call a spade a bloody shovel sometimes. The learned societies are all far too genteel when debating with the purveyors of anti-science. We need more people like Sir Paul Nurse to shaft the purveyors of anti-science good and proper. Same applies to the MMR vaccine fiasco. He did a very good job on that creep Delingpole who loves to dish it out by impugning the integrity of professional scientists but is *VERY* thin skinned when the extent of his lies are exposed by a good debater. https://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-tv-interview -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On 29/11/2018 02:21, Quadibloc wrote:
Looking for more information on this, I found the following page: https://www.science.org.au/curious/e...enhouse-effect Intended as a layman's introduction to global warming, it says that only 1% of the Earth's atmosphere consists of natural greenhouse gases. They are probably including water vapour and have used the nominal value at sea level as opposed to for the entire atmosphere (about 0.4%) In that case, *argon* must be a greenhouse gas, and clearly carbon dioxide emissions aren't enough to make a difference. To be a greenhouse gas it has to be polyatomic. SF6 is about the most effective of the common industrial chemicals. (If you were going to terraform Mars it would be the first choice) -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:42:29 AM UTC-7, Martin Brown wrote:
In the USA it has become a party political issue where Republicans think that trashing the planet for short term profit is OK. That may well be, but the only way to quickly make progress on stopping global warming is to avoid making it a divisive political issue. Instead, it needs to be something everyone can agree on. Hence, I think our best hope is nuclear power: abundant energy in unlimited quantities for a strong and prosperous America! John Savard |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 10:59:39 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:42:29 AM UTC-7, Martin Brown wrote: In the USA it has become a party political issue where Republicans think that trashing the planet for short term profit is OK. That may well be, but the only way to quickly make progress on stopping global warming is to avoid making it a divisive political issue. I think the situation is far worse than just being a divisive political issue. I think the reality is that AGW, for most nations, is so far down on their list of their "immediate" needs and priorities that we are far more likely to experince another world war, than to see any genuine, unified, action towards addressing AGW. Even with progress on alternative energies, ALL my hopes for the future are based on the "hope" that reality turns out to be much milder than the worst forcasts. Instead, it needs to be something everyone can agree on. Hence, I think our best hope is nuclear power: abundant energy in unlimited quantities for a strong and prosperous America! John Savard I think that's a more realistic goal to hope for - but, I have my doubts if we'll get there. We want energy - but people always want nukes to be located in someone else's neck of the woods. In my state, there were reactors under construction (on and off) for almost two decades. They were over 80% complete when the project was cancelled. :-( -- Email address is a Spam trap. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 10:59:39 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote: On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:42:29 AM UTC-7, Martin Brown wrote: In the USA it has become a party political issue where Republicans think that trashing the planet for short term profit is OK. That may well be, but the only way to quickly make progress on stopping global warming is to avoid making it a divisive political issue. Instead, it needs to be something everyone can agree on. Hence, I think our best hope is nuclear power: abundant energy in unlimited quantities for a strong and prosperous America! Nuclear isn't going to happen. It's too politically unpopular, too expensive, too problematic in terms of the damage incurred both by mining uranium and storing waste. And it's too dangerous in the sense that while the actual risks are low, a single serious accident is devastating at the level of national economies (witness Fukushima). There's a reason that nuclear plants are being shut down around the world faster than new ones are coming on line. A trend that is very unlikely to change. For a fraction of the price we can greatly expand renewables. That's technology that is moving ahead very quickly. In ten years we'll have PV panels so cheap they're basically free, and we'll have robust storage systems. In 20 years we'll be producing hydrocarbon and alcohol liquid fuels directly from sunlight. It takes 10-20 years to permit, fund, and construct a single nuclear power plant. And that's if there's the political will to allow it, which there isn't. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Here it is: the real impact of global warming
On 29/11/2018 18:59, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:42:29 AM UTC-7, Martin Brown wrote: In the USA it has become a party political issue where Republicans think that trashing the planet for short term profit is OK. That may well be, but the only way to quickly make progress on stopping global warming is to avoid making it a divisive political issue. It is already a massively devisive political issue at least in the USA. Fat ugly Americans for a dead planet voted Trump into the Whitehouse. I note that he isn't meeting his Russian handler this time in Argentina. A nation of people who mostly CBA to look after their own bodies can hardly be expected to care about looking after the planet. Instead, it needs to be something everyone can agree on. Hence, I think our best hope is nuclear power: abundant energy in unlimited quantities for a strong and prosperous America! Nuclear power is a possiblity - more so if we can harness fusion but for the moment all the no regrets energy saving measures should be the first step rather than profligate fuel consumption just for the hell of it. We tried harder during the 1970's OPEC oil crisis than we are doing now. The UK nuclear program is in complete disarray since no-one wants to pay for it and a lead contractor has just effectively gone bust. https://www.theguardian.com/business...ge-of-collapse I could have picked several others also on the verge of going under after multiple delays, budget and schedule overruns. This one is just the most recent high profile nuclear power MFU in the UK. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Global Warming Live in real time | Arc Michael | Misc | 0 | October 10th 14 02:30 AM |
Yet another real Scientist debunks Global Warming ... | Hägar | Misc | 6 | May 3rd 14 11:57 PM |
Some real facts about Global Warming ... | Hägar | Misc | 7 | December 19th 13 10:16 PM |
Major analysis confirms global warming is real | Mike Collins[_4_] | Amateur Astronomy | 559 | January 20th 12 12:45 AM |
NASA to Earth: Global Warming Is for Real, Folks! | Sam Wormley[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | February 27th 10 04:27 AM |