| Pages:
1
2
3
4
..
9 |
John Harper
Super Nomad
Posts: 2289
Registered: 3-9-2017
Location: SoCal
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by David K  |
One volcano eruption can do a whole lot more polluting than all of man's polluting since time began. Are you going to tax the volcano, sell it carbon
units, stop it from erupting? Oh, and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is a natural gas that without it, all air-breathing plants would die.
|
How much CO2 have we sent into the air versus this volcano eruption? Since volcanoes emit massive amounts of gases and you admit can affect things,
why not similar amounts of CO2 produced by man?
Let's see what the research says:
"According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide
(CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide."
Hmmm.... 120 times more than ALL volcanoes, PER YEAR!!! No effect?
Also, CO2 is a poisonous gas (and a greenhouse gas) to humans, no matter what plants do with it. Did you see where those two women (1 died) were
overcome last week by dry ice that was gassing off in their car? It did not take much concentration to be deadly.
BTW, I think we all just want to help out a misguided, but beloved member on this board. The beacon of knowledge cannot be extinguished!
John
[Edited on 8-6-2018 by John Harper]
|
|
|
Timinator
Nomad
Posts: 242
Registered: 6-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Sorry people, but David K is right. Calling him names is the liberal way of arguing when you have no argument.
Let's be clear; there is no ground or satellite data that's been taken in any of our lifetimes that shows the earth or the oceans are heating or
cooling that doesn't fall into the instruments percentage of uncertainty. That means that, with certainty, your argument is solely based on political
talking points. Unlike us, politicians are legally able to lie about anything they want for financial gains and power. If there wasn't both involved
in GW, or Climate Change, or whatever they need to call it this year to keep the money flowing, they wouldn't be involved in it either.
In addition, all the temperature data that was used by all the contractors who worked on the government contracts to develop the climate models used
forged data to predict climate change. The original data that was collected was both incomplete and didn't meet the QA/QC standards, so it was
manipulated to get the numbers they wanted. Then, ALL the original data was destroyed. Every bit of data is gone so the original data can't be
checked or verified. That's why NOTHING has happened that was predicted 25+ years ago. Polar ice caps are still there, polar bears are more
prolific than before, Florida sea level hasn't moved a cm much less the state being under 3' of water. It's a lie.
More records are being broken because they measure everything at more places. Speaking of measuring data. Anybody know of a meteorological station
that's had no change in the topography around it for the last 100 years? It's kind of no win question, but that's the problem with trying to measure
temperature over time with absolute precision. It can't be done. Everything that can absorb, reflect or re-radiate light/temperature has to stay
constant. And it doesn't. It can't. Plants and trees grow, areas are deforested, crops changes, asphalt and cement happens, etc. Any roads,
fields, buildings, etc been built in the last 100 years? Every time they do, it changes the areas temperature a bit. It doesn't make it hotter, it
just makes it impossible to measure 1/10 of degree change over time. That's the kicker.
So, David K is more right than he even knows. You were and are being lied to to separate you from more of your money and freedoms. Since you have no
argument that can be backed up with scientific data, you are just regurgitating political lies. Any yes, I am an Atmospheric Scientist.
[Edited on 8-6-2018 by Timinator]
|
|
|
lewmt
Junior Nomad
Posts: 79
Registered: 4-12-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
"Also, CO2 is a poisonous gas (and a greenhouse gas) to humans, no matter what plants do with it. Did you see where those two women (1 died) were
overcome last week by dry ice that was gassing off in their car? It did not take much concentration to be deadly."
So - what is the substance you exhale with every breath? There's 7+ billion humans on the earth how many tons/day do humans expectorate every minute?
Which has a greater greenhouse effect CO2 or H20 vapor? Which is more prevalent in the atmosphere?
If there is so much concern for CO2 emissions why are the biggest pimps for climate change jetting and yachting around the world to give talks on its
evil? Shouldn't they instead utilize the technology available(video conferencing, etc) to show dedication to their cause?
Why are all the climate change solutions oriented towards more Gov't control of your daily life, higher taxes of individuals & corporations or
blatant scams like purchasing carbon offsets?
|
|
|
PaulW
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3015
Registered: 5-21-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
|
|
|
chuckie
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6082
Registered: 2-20-2012
Location: Kansas Prairies
Member Is Offline
Mood: Weary
|
|
wow....what a relief!
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64526
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
|
|
|
John Harper
Super Nomad
Posts: 2289
Registered: 3-9-2017
Location: SoCal
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by lewmt | Why are all the climate change solutions oriented towards more Gov't control of your daily life, higher taxes of individuals & corporations or
blatant scams like purchasing carbon offsets?
|
What we have now is a "government" controlled solution. Ignoring the external costs of burning fossil fuels and not pricing it into the cost of those
fuels. That's basically a subsidy to the oil companies. Like drilling rights at bargain prices, oil leases, etc. All "government" control
solutions, no?
If the market actually reflected the real costs of fossil fuels, prices would be much higher and make alternative fuels that much more attractive.
That's just basic economics, not atmospheric science.
Yes, we do exhale CO2, and if I put you in a big sealed bag, your own exhaled gases will soon kill you. Ever see the movie "Apollo 13", the scene
where the astronauts observe the CO2 levels in the spacecraft rising? Were they worried?
Oh, I forgot. The moon landing never happened and the Apollo 13 mission was just a movie.
TIminator: Please post up some links to your published research. If you are an atmospheric scientist, you must have published some peer reviewed
work?
John
[Edited on 8-6-2018 by John Harper]
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64526
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
The air is mostly nitrogen... If a car (or space capsule) has too much of any gas except oxygen, it will harm us. Becuase CO2 or Nitrogen is poisonous
to us in too high a concentration does not make it unnatural or a pollutant. Apollo 13 was a great movie... shows that we Americans don't give up so
easily.
Have a great day!
[Edited on 8-6-2018 by David K]
|
|
|
BajaNaranja
Nomad
Posts: 148
Registered: 9-10-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
At least let's agree to put the "volcanos produce more C02 than humans" bunk to rest - read this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcan...
|
|
|
John Harper
Super Nomad
Posts: 2289
Registered: 3-9-2017
Location: SoCal
Member Is Offline
|
|
Exactly. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but certainly not our own facts.
John
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64526
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Agree!
Let's correct it even more by saying NATURE puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans...
Volcanos are just one source, but not the only source and humans are NOT the major source, as the above link wants you to believe.
Here you go, from the United States Government, Cabon Dioxide 101: https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon...
|
|
|
BajaNaranja
Nomad
Posts: 148
Registered: 9-10-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
David, kudos to you for absorbing new info about volcanic vs. man made C02 emissions, and adjusting your personal fact set. Respect!
I took another look at the Scientific American article, I don't see where it seems to want the reader to believe that humans are the major source vs.
nature, I see it simply trying to set the record staight regarding this specific mis-information...
Saludos, amigo!
|
|
|
AKgringo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5831
Registered: 9-20-2014
Location: Anchorage, AK (no mas!)
Member Is Offline
Mood: Retireded
|
|
A point of order, carbon monoxide is toxic, carbon dioxide is not! Elevated carbon dioxide levels should be read
as depleted oxygen levels, which can be fatal!
A point of curiosity, I wonder where this years wild fires in California compare to what is being spewed out our tailpipes? No point being made, just
honest curiosity.
If you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much space!
"Could do better if he tried!" Report card comments from most of my grade school teachers. Sadly, still true!
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6944
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Online
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by AKgringo |
A point of curiosity, I wonder where this years wild fires in California compare to what is being spewed out our tailpipes? No point being made, just
honest curiosity. |
Interesting question. Here are the conclusions from a highly cited study performed by researchers at the Univ. of Colorado and the National Center for
Atmospheric Research:
"In some Western US states, such as Alaska and Idaho, the annual emission of CO2 from wildfire in some years equals or exceeds the emissions from
fossil fuel combustion. Even in states with large FFB CO2 sources, such as California, fires can be a significant annual and highly significant
seasonal component to the regional C budget.
The long-term impacts of CO2 emissions from fire are considerably different than from fossil fuel burning emissions because fire emissions are at
least partially balanced over decades by forest regrowth and terrestrial C sequestration."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2203970/
[Edited on 8-6-2018 by SFandH]
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64526
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by BajaNaranja | David, kudos to you for absorbing new info about volcanic vs. man made C02 emissions, and adjusting your personal fact set. Respect!
I took another look at the Scientific American article, I don't see where it seems to want the reader to believe that humans are the major source vs.
nature, I see it simply trying to set the record staight regarding this specific mis-information...
Saludos, amigo! |
You bet!
How Scientific American article wants to push a blame human agenda (seems to me) is by not disclosing the very easy to understand fact that Nature
(other than volcanos) pumps out more CO2 than human activity.
Good to see all sides of an issue if you can, right?
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64526
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Nope... it will be glorious when new technology replaces that.
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 999
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Timinator | Sorry people, but David K is right. Calling him names is the liberal way of arguing when you have no argument.
Let's be clear; there is no ground or satellite data that's been taken in any of our lifetimes that shows the earth or the oceans are heating or
cooling that doesn't fall into the instruments percentage of uncertainty.
absolutely incorrect, please get your facts straight before just spewing made up nonsence!
That means that, with certainty, your argument is solely based on political talking points.
since your original statement is compoletely wrong - that makes this a clear example of you trying to make political talking
points - based on demonstrably incorrect "facts" nice try!
Unlike us, politicians are legally able to lie about anything they want for financial gains and power. If there wasn't both involved in GW, or
Climate Change, or whatever they need to call it this year to keep the money flowing, they wouldn't be involved in it either.
rightwing clap trap - no data no facts, just a bunch of blogging parrots sitting in an echo chamber trying to make enough
noise to obtusificate the truth!
In addition, all the temperature data that was used by all the contractors who worked on the government contracts to develop the climate models used
forged data to predict climate change. The original data that was collected was both incomplete and didn't meet the QA/QC standards, so it was
manipulated to get the numbers they wanted. Then, ALL the original data was destroyed. Every bit of data is gone so the original data can't be
checked or verified. That's why NOTHING has happened that was predicted 25+ years ago. Polar ice caps are still there, polar bears are more
prolific than before, Florida sea level hasn't moved a cm much less the state being under 3' of water. It's a lie.
again a completely made up story repeated ad infinitum by political hacks witrh no knowledge or understanding of datsa
collection, analysis etc - would you care to cite a source for All of the original data destroyed? and if that were the case - where is your data
coming from? and go do a bit of historical research on those predictions bucko - no scientific predictions predicted Fla underwater in 25 years -
regardless of what your blogsites spew! where are you getting polar bear reproductive and populations numbers from , i would be very interested in
those data, and are you saying polar icecaps are binary? either they are present, or gone?
thats a very convienient way to ignore the overwhelming amounts of data from both poles showing rapid loss if ice, but I guess in your mind an ice
cube floating on the arctic ocean would be the ice cap - so obviuously no global warming?
More records are being broken because they measure everything at more places. Speaking of measuring data. Anybody know of a meteorological station
that's had no change in the topography around it for the last 100 years? It's kind of no win question, but that's the problem with trying to measure
temperature over time with absolute precision. It can't be done. Everything that can absorb, reflect or re-radiate light/temperature has to stay
constant. And it doesn't. It can't. Plants and trees grow, areas are deforested, crops changes, asphalt and cement happens, etc. Any roads,
fields, buildings, etc been built in the last 100 years? Every time they do, it changes the areas temperature a bit. It doesn't make it hotter, it
just makes it impossible to measure 1/10 of degree change over time. That's the kicker.
So, David K is more right than he even knows. You were and are being lied to to separate you from more of your money and freedoms. Since you have no
argument that can be backed up with scientific data, you are just regurgitating political lies. Any yes, I am an Atmospheric Scientist.
care to state where you degrees are from - and who you work for?
[Edited on 8-6-2018 by Timinator] |
[Edited on 8-6-2018 by caj13]
|
|
|
Timinator
Nomad
Posts: 242
Registered: 6-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: |
Timinator wrote" I am an Atmospheric Scientist."
Yeah, right, if that was true, you would be on the payroll of Exxon, or some other polluting corporation, that paid you to confuse the issue, so the
polluters could continue making money polluting the enviroment.
|
I was! Not working for them specifically, but worked on projects/policies to comply with California's various air pollution control districts and EPA
standards. Including NOAA studies and the largest EPA study on climate every funded and completed in the United States (that's where the funny
business happened). Actually the Degree was in Satellite Imagery and Remote Sensing Techniques which is every Under/Graduate Class in Meteorology,
Atmospheric Science and Climatology plus everything they'll tell us about satellites without clearance. SDSU and I've been retired since I was 41.
I'm 60 now. Have a nice day.
[Edited on 8-6-2018 by Timinator]
[Edited on 8-16-2018 by BajaNomad]
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 999
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Timinator | [/rquote]
Timinator wrote" I am an Atmospheric Scientist."
Yeah, right, if that was true, you would be on the payroll of Exxon, or some other polluting corporation, that paid you to confuse the issue, so the
polluters could continue making money polluting the enviroment.
[/rquote]
I was! Not working for them specifically, but worked on projects/policies to comply with California's various air pollution control districts and EPA
standards. Including NOAA studies and the largest EPA study on climate every funded and completed in the United States (that's where the funny
business happened). Actually the Degree was in Satellite Imagery and Remote Sensing Techniques which is every Under/Graduate Class in Meteorology,
Atmospheric Science and Climatology plus everything they'll tell us about satellites without clearance. SDSU and I've been retired since I was 41.
I'm 60 now. Have a nice day.
[Edited on 8-6-2018 by Timinator] |
so your not an atmospheric scientist at all - you were remote sensing? weird how that remote sensing technology and capabilities have remained the
same for the last 20 years eah? no change, no improvement?
your training was to look at satelite photos and interprit them - thats a bit of a stretch from that to self declared atmospheric scientist! degree
wise - BA? BS? any statistical analysis - or simply classification stuff?
|
|
|
Timinator
Nomad
Posts: 242
Registered: 6-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by caj13 | | Quote: Originally posted by Timinator | [/rquote]
Timinator wrote" I am an Atmospheric Scientist."
Yeah, right, if that was true, you would be on the payroll of Exxon, or some other polluting corporation, that paid you to confuse the issue, so the
polluters could continue making money polluting the enviroment.
[/rquote]
I was! Not working for them specifically, but worked on projects/policies to comply with California's various air pollution control districts and EPA
standards. Including NOAA studies and the largest EPA study on climate every funded and completed in the United States (that's where the funny
business happened). Actually the Degree was in Satellite Imagery and Remote Sensing Techniques which is every Under/Graduate Class in Meteorology,
Atmospheric Science and Climatology plus everything they'll tell us about satellites without clearance. SDSU and I've been retired since I was 41.
I'm 60 now. Have a nice day.
[Edited on 8-6-2018 by Timinator] |
so your not an atmospheric scientist at all - you were remote sensing? weird how that remote sensing technology and capabilities have remained the
same for the last 20 years eah? no change, no improvement?
your training was to look at satelite photos and interprit them - thats a bit of a stretch from that to self declared atmospheric scientist! degree
wise - BA? BS? any statistical analysis - or simply classification stuff? |
I'm sorry, was this degree not adequate for you? Did you miss the every Meteorology class (every one), every Climatology class (every one) and every
Atmospheric Science class (every one), both Under grad, and Grad class offered. Satellite imagery isn't reading or analyzing photo's it's the
science of imaging through, and making mathematical corrections for every atmospheric condition going on in earth optical air mass and getting the
image right. It takes way more than a degree in Meteorology or Climatology, you have to know all that as a precursor to understanding how light and
20 or so different imaging waves change when traveling to and from a satellite. I also designed atmospheric studies, tracer studies, dispersion
studies, and wrote drivers and software to make things talk to each other that weren't designed to, I wrote software for airborne meteorological
devices, and even major Doppler sites. As well as audited every EPA funded Atmospheric Station in the United States for several years. How's
calling me out working for you? BTW, degrees don't mean crap or amount to crap, it's the work you do over your lifetime that counts.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
..
9 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
