Climate change - an oil based question.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yet we've increased the concentration of an atmospheric gas by over 50%, simply by our actions...

How the heck did we do that if we are so insignificant ?


According to who? What part did volcanic activity play in the time period?
I love the numbers game but most are false or ginned up. NASA themselves now admit Co2 is nothing to worry about.
 
Argue with NASA not me. Nice how the fringe is hanging on to this tripe by the fingernails.
It has been legitimately debunked! Its high time for these frauds to either quit and crawl under some rock or go to prison IMHO.

http://principia-scientific.org/supportn...atmosphere.html

http://principia-scientific.org/supportn...s-key-role.html

BTW look at the credentials of these so called 97% many are not even climate scientist.
The same guy who invented the internet?
crazy2.gif
crackmeup2.gif


http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
 
Originally Posted By: sleddriver
Carbon Dioxide 0.031% 310ppm.
.
.
.
.
Methane 0.0002% 2ppm

Facts are stubborn things and indeed inconvenient truths to those who would distort them for their own political agenda.


Yep, stubborn little things they are...CO2 reached 400ppm in 2013...demonstrating that we have increased it's concentration by 50% (that's a lot) since we started our "little" experiment.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: sleddriver
Carbon Dioxide 0.031% 310ppm.
.
.
.
.
Methane 0.0002% 2ppm

Facts are stubborn things and indeed inconvenient truths to those who would distort them for their own political agenda.


Yep, stubborn little things they are...CO2 reached 400ppm in 2013...demonstrating that we have increased it's concentration by 50% (that's a lot) since we started our "little" experiment.


For the number to be of any significance one has to accept that CO2 causes man made warming.
Now it it has come out that CO2 actually cools the planet not warms it.
It may in fact be preventing natural warming due to increased solar activity.

Now they don't have this to use in their junk science arsenal anymore they are ginning up warming of the waters.
No point in posting in this thread any more. Even when the liars that ginned up the whole farce come right out and admit (or get caught) their dirty deeds and skulduggery some people still need to believe, its like a religion.
 
The football field analogy was entertaining, but I don't see how it applies. Perhaps he wanted us to look at it this way:

The ball is already almost on the goal line, it won't take much to score.

Citing numbers without context or understanding allows for distortion of the general public's perception of the situation. If you had a choice of tossing a lit match into a container of vaporized gasoline mixed with air, what % gasoline would you feel safest with?
a)2%
b)4%
c)6%
d)8%

People use the excuse that a human is so small against nature that we can't have any impact. Even if you compared us to a grain of sand, when added up over 7 billion grains of sand can have a huge impact...
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yet we've increased the concentration of an atmospheric gas by over 50%, simply by our actions...

How the heck did we do that if we are so insignificant ?

Who is this "we", this "our"? Further, how do you know "we" is the cause, much less the sole cause?

Who says? According to who? Where is this written? And what do they stand to gain? Whose best interests are they backing?

What a vain, narcissistic age we live in....
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
...
For the number to be of any significance one has to accept that CO2 causes man made warming.
Now it it has come out that CO2 actually cools the planet not warms it.
It may in fact be preventing natural warming due to increased solar activity.
...


Um, where did that "come out" of?
 
I found this on NASA's website:

Quote:
A layer of greenhouse gases – primarily water vapor, and including much smaller amounts of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – act as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing heat and warming the surface to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius).
...

Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yep, stubborn little things they are...CO2 reached 400ppm in 2013...demonstrating that we have increased it's concentration by 50% (that's a lot) since we started our "little" experiment.

According to who? Care to back that up with a reputable source? My data is taken from Chemistry: The Central Science by Brown & LeMay, jr., pg. 128.

A 50% increase in a gas that's only 310ppm to begin with is a lot? Further 50% of 310ppm is 155ppm. The sum is 465ppm. But you said it was (only) 400ppm. Well, that can't be right, can it?

So let's use your number of 400ppm and work backwards. What number increased by 50% equals 400? That would be 267. That's 13.9% lower than the number quoted above from Brown & LeMay. Again, which one is it?

Clearly your statement doesn't hold CO2...or even H20.

Yeah, facts are stubborn things, even down-under, eh?
 
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
The football field analogy was entertaining, but I don't see how it applies.

It wasn't meant to be entertaining. It was meant to be informative, educational and to put it in a larger perspective. Obviously, it's lost on you...


Originally Posted By: Coprolite
Perhaps he wanted us to look at it this way:

The ball is already almost on the goal line, it won't take much to score.

No. That's your own bias. Denial of the facts is...just denial. And displays a certain pride and arrogrance in such.

Originally Posted By: Coprolite
Citing numbers without context or understanding allows for distortion of the general public's perception of the situation.
But Creighton's numbers and analogy were based on fact and understanding. Just like the numbers I quoted from Brown & LeMay,jr. Facts.

"Citing numbers without context or understanding allows for distorsion..." is exactly what the media, politicians and the consensus of True Believers have done for over a decade now with this entire subject. They actually believe that magic carpet ride from the 60's will actually fly! No it won't. They're dellusional and now proven corrupt. Welcome to the new consensus!

Originally Posted By: Coprolite
If you had a choice of tossing a lit match into a container of vaporized gasoline mixed with air, what % gasoline would you feel safest with?
a)2%
b)4%
c)6%
d)8%
So you're comparing vaporized gas, an explosive mixture, to.....what? CO2? Talking about distorsion, not to mention going waaay off the subject and using a very flimsy point to support your argument.

Originally Posted By: Coprolite
People use the excuse that a human is so small against nature that we can't have any impact. Even if you compared us to a grain of sand, when added up over 7 billion grains of sand can have a huge impact...

Oh sure humans can have an impact. No doubt. You can pollute your yard, your body, your water well, even a river if you get enough people to dump enough bad stuff in it, over enough time. How long it remains that way though...that depends.

Sand is silicon dioxide. Pretty inert. A key component in glass and silicon ingots. It's very, very old and very plentiful as it comprises much of terra-firma's crust. You want to compare humans to sand? There is far more sand than people.

Further, you've just loosened the lug nuts on your own argument that humans CAN have an impact and are NOT miniscule compared to nature, by comparing them to something as inert as sand.

I agree! Seven billions humans, as inert as sand, in one place, can be an ecological & environmental disaster, not to mention a huge drag on the local economy....
 
Originally Posted By: sleddriver
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yep, stubborn little things they are...CO2 reached 400ppm in 2013...demonstrating that we have increased it's concentration by 50% (that's a lot) since we started our "little" experiment.

According to who? Care to back that up with a reputable source? My data is taken from Chemistry: The Central Science by Brown & LeMay, jr., pg. 128.

A 50% increase in a gas that's only 310ppm to begin with is a lot? Further 50% of 310ppm is 155ppm. The sum is 465ppm. But you said it was (only) 400ppm. Well, that can't be right, can it?

So let's use your number of 400ppm and work backwards. What number increased by 50% equals 400? That would be 267. That's 13.9% lower than the number quoted above from Brown & LeMay. Again, which one is it?

Clearly your statement doesn't hold CO2...or even H20.

Yeah, facts are stubborn things, even down-under, eh?


Your 310 was already part way through the equation...

Pre-industrial CO2 levels were 260-280PPM. Add 50%, and there's your 400.

Honestly, if you don't see that our actions changing the composition of a gas in the atmosphere by 50% "could" be significant, you are purposely, and actively in denial.

There are natural processes at work, both historically and today, but to the best of my knowledge, at no point in history has a species dug up and burned stored carbon at an exponential rate...which is why I say it's an experiment, as no historical observations can have included that issue.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Pre-industrial CO2 levels were 260-280PPM. Add 50%, and there's your 400.

Honestly, if you don't see that our actions changing the composition of a gas in the atmosphere by 50% "could" be significant, you are purposely, and actively in denial.

There are natural processes at work, both historically and today, but to the best of my knowledge, at no point in history has a species dug up and burned stored carbon at an exponential rate...which is why I say it's an experiment, as no historical observations can have included that issue.

What's your time frame for 'pre-industrial'? How far back do you want to go? Long before steam & boilers, man was burning wood & coal for heat & cooking. Do you realize you're going back to a time that no longer exists? And never will again?

It is also possible to go back far enough where the concentration of atmospheric CO2 was FAR HIGHER than it has ever been recently. And yet, here we are.

Instead of exclusively focusing on 'our' actions you ought to look up Krakatoa, Tambora, Pompei, and Pinatubo to start.

No sir, I'm not in denial, nor a denier, nor much of a gambler. However, I do realize that engaging in a very-high-stakes game of ring toss from 80 feet is for fools. To quote PT Barnum "There's a sucker born every minute". Such hyper-ventilating over 310ppm of CO2 is not only for fools, but non-sense.

What a vain, narcissistic age we live in...
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yet we've increased the concentration of an atmospheric gas by over 50%, simply by our actions...

How the heck did we do that if we are so insignificant ?


According to who? What part did volcanic activity play in the time period?
I love the numbers game but most are false or ginned up. NASA themselves now admit Co2 is nothing to worry about.


Given that we have a fair idea about how much stuff that we are burning (you keep track of your fuel burn, I'm sure), we know how much we are burning at the current time...that's part of the "who".

Human activity, as I've said before is an addition on top of any natural process, and is therefore unexplored activity.

"we didn't do it"..."prove we did"..."well even if we did, it wouldn't be a problem"..."it's beneficial"...isn't science.

To say it's beneficial is then acknowledging that we can cause change.
 
When the glaciers recede, why are we finding warm and cold blooded animal bones? Wild guess here.. It was warmer than it is now? Why? Dinosaurs and Wooly Mammoths passing gas? Its all hogwash created by extremists pushing their ideals on the rest of us. If it were humans and cars, we would find them under the glaciers too, no?
 
Sled,

The comparison was to highlight the distortion and the fact that the highest concentration in the example is the safest concentration. With respect to Greenhouse effects, Nitrogen is irrelevant, so should not be part of the equation, but it plays heavily in the football field analogy.

Sand might be chemically inert, but that wasn't the reason I pointed out the numbers. It was chosen earlier in the thread to point out that humans are minute, just like a grain of sand. Many rocks that have been eroded over the millenia by sand and water. Sand is actually a grain size, so there is not even a guarantee that it is inert. Claiming that something being chemically inert as support to an argument is weak.

I'd go as far to endorse that humans are about as active and destructive as almost any commonly occurring substance, even more so...

Originally Posted By: sleddriver
So you're comparing vaporized gas, an explosive mixture, to.....what? CO2? Talking about distorsion, not to mention going waaay off the subject and using a very flimsy point to support your argument.

Originally Posted By: Coprolite
People use the excuse that a human is so small against nature that we can't have any impact. Even if you compared us to a grain of sand, when added up over 7 billion grains of sand can have a huge impact...

Oh sure humans can have an impact. No doubt. You can pollute your yard, your body, your water well, even a river if you get enough people to dump enough bad stuff in it, over enough time. How long it remains that way though...that depends.

Sand is silicon dioxide. Pretty inert. A key component in glass and silicon ingots. It's very, very old and very plentiful as it comprises much of terra-firma's crust. You want to compare humans to sand? There is far more sand than people.

Further, you've just loosened the lug nuts on your own argument that humans CAN have an impact and are NOT miniscule compared to nature, by comparing them to something as inert as sand.

I agree! Seven billions humans, as inert as sand, in one place, can be an ecological & environmental disaster, not to mention a huge drag on the local economy....
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: sleddriver
Carbon Dioxide 0.031% 310ppm.
.
.
.
.
Methane 0.0002% 2ppm

Facts are stubborn things and indeed inconvenient truths to those who would distort them for their own political agenda.


Yep, stubborn little things they are...CO2 reached 400ppm in 2013...demonstrating that we have increased it's concentration by 50% (that's a lot) since we started our "little" experiment.


For the number to be of any significance one has to accept that CO2 causes man made warming.
Now it it has come out that CO2 actually cools the planet not warms it.
It may in fact be preventing natural warming due to increased solar activity.

Now they don't have this to use in their junk science arsenal anymore they are ginning up warming of the waters.
No point in posting in this thread any more. Even when the liars that ginned up the whole farce come right out and admit (or get caught) their dirty deeds and skulduggery some people still need to believe, its like a religion.


Trav, I think you hold onto one 'fact' way too much. I had to google it, as I had my doubts about the 'NASA study of CO2 cooling.' It mentioned upper atmosphere and solar flares reflecting energy. As I thought, not really the One True Fact that you have been purporting over and over throughout this thread. Just one that has been hung on to by certain people and treated as a 'fact'.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-...ing-the-rounds/
 
Has anyone brought up the fact yet that the most abundant greenhouse gas by far in the atmosphere is water vapor? That is always good for some comments.
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Has anyone brought up the fact yet that the most abundant greenhouse gas by far in the atmosphere is water vapor? That is always good for some comments.


And the warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold and the warmer it can get and the more...
 
Quote:
"we didn't do it"..."prove we did"..."well even if we did, it wouldn't be a problem"..."it's beneficial"...isn't science.

Then what is? Just because we have increased CO2 doesn't mean that it is bad. So far, even with the increase in concentrations, there have been ZERO repercussions...other than increased plant growth.

Mount Pinatubo erupted and, according to the "experts", caused global cooling for about 2 years. This single natural event overshadowed anything man was doing that supposedly increased temps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Global Climate Change scam
2
Replies
37
Views
8K
Dan4510
A
  • Locked
This is amusing Europeans screwed themselves
Replies
3
Views
884
JohnnyO
G
  • Locked
Creation of oil - a question
2
Replies
24
Views
6K
GreeCguy
G
  • Locked
SHELL BP Going into Wind Generation
Replies
7
Views
1K
Pablo
N
  • Locked
Potentially "habitable" super earth, discovered
2 3
Replies
40
Views
13K
Astro14
Back
Top Bottom