Impact of climate change may be underestimated - Article worth reading

by cantleave 90 Replies latest social current

• 

  mP

  Sweet:

  MP: Strange wiki says 30B and your scientist says 35B tonnes of CO..... your quotes are off by almost 15% from my source in wiki.

  "My scientist" says... haha... The information I shared: Friedlingstein et al. projected that humans would be responsible for producing 35B tonnes of CO2 (FTR, CO is carbon monoxide) in 2010. The actual estimate of C02 produced in 2010, according to the same Wiki entry, is shown to be 33.5B tonnes worldwide. [EDIT: I've pasted a screenshot a couple of posts below.]

  MP

  I assumed that your post had an error and actually meant CO2 and CO1. Im sure we both agree that burning fossil fuels produces a lot more Co2 by weight than CO1 by a significant factor.

  I did a quick search of

  > Friedlingstein <

  andmost articles seem to have him mentioning CO2 measurements.
• 

  mP

  Sweet:

  Your biggest problem is you cant prove to me that its not a business about taxing citizens. Nowhere is there simple chart or article that shows the gov is spending all received incomes on programs to counter this percieved problem.

  As with all things follow the money. Its always about money or power, honesty is almost never a factor.
• 

  mP

  Sweet

  Whatever stats you quote about Carbon Monoxide are irrelevant, wiki states most CO is natural and not from man.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide

  Worldwide, the largest source of carbon monoxide is natural in origin, due to photochemical reactions in the troposphere that generate about 5 x 10 12 kilograms per year. [3] Other natural sources of CO include volcanoes, forest fires, and other forms of combustion.

  I guess i was right after all.
• 

  talesin

  I just thought it was interesting, that's all.

  You're right, I'm wrong. There - all is happy now.

  I still believe the consensus of scientists I've read, and understand that you don't.

  have a good one.

  tal
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  MP: Whatever stats you quote about Carbon Monoxide are irrelevant, wiki states most CO is natural and not from man.

  Are you even reading the same thread? Re-read what you wrote, chief. I specifically brought up carbon monoxide (CO) to point out that you mistakenly used CO where you should've used CO2:

  SBC: (FTR, CO is carbon monoxide)

  It's all in the above posts. Go find the first instance of CO and you'll see that it's YOU who wrote it, not me. I just corrected you because you seemed to not realize we were discussing CO2, not CO, and there's a big difference.

  MP: I guess i was right after all.

  I couldn't find a bigger facepalm...

  Doesn't know CO from CO2 and wants to debate the science supporting AGW.

  Do you see what's wrong with this picture? I'm not trying to insult you here. I want to know if you're really unaware of how incompetent you are to challenge the consensus of scientists who agree that mankind is affecting our climate.

  Egos aside, I'm doing what I can to educate myself and my kids on the science behind it. I think all responsible citizens of this planet should be doing their homework.

  MP: We have already established that your primary support for this sort of policy is particularly biased because you have a business interest.

  You, sir, are as willfully ignorant as any JW I've ever debated. It's not that you can't read - though that could be debatable - it's that you're so caught up in being right that you can't be bothered to read anything that contradicts your conspiracy, even if I'm sitting here explaining the facts about my current situation. Not opinions, not personal viewpoints - facts. I have ZERO vested business interest in enviromental conscious policies. Green govt regulations, to my knowledge, will have no impact on my wallet in the foreseeable future. In fact, I'm trying to break away from my current job and go into an entirely new field that has NOTHING to do with industrial process/power. But, hey, you've formed your viewpoint and now nothing will change it, not science, not reason, nothing.

  “The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.” Arthur Schopenhauer

  If legit discoveries are made and AGW turns out to be bogus, I'll have no reason to stubbornly hang on to it. Humble pie for me. Same goes for the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity.

  MP: For example why doesnt the US gov simply ban 4wd, pickup trucks and other large vehicles.

  So this is how you know AGW is a hoax - because the US hasn't banned 4WD gas-guzzling pickups? Wow.
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  Here's the breakdown on the atmosphere of Venus, since you brought it up:

  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/AtmosphereofVenus.svg

  MP: Im not denying CO2 isnt a greenhouse gas, but to say it is the only important factor is overly simplistic. Venus has lots of CO2, but sulfur and its compounds are very much part of the cycle that creates the greenhouse effect there.

  Do you see the chart above?

  I mentioned the reduced summers and harsh winters of Europe and NA, these facts seem to contradict the green house effect. Are we to believe the earth is heating up and that causes winters to be colder, does that make sense ?

  Harsh winters are not evidence AGAINST anthropogenic climate change anymore than the last record hot/dry summer in Texas is directly & solely attributable to it. Crocoducks. It's an argument that people who don't bother educating themselves on evolution use to debate it.

  At no stage have you attempted to show that my assertions that the earth was warming up before the Industrial revolution to be wrong, the graphs are tehre in b&w.

  I'm sorry, I couldn't even find the point you were trying to make.

  Im not sure why you posted the stats about CO2 emissions,

  Because, while you may have missed it, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are associated with rising global temperatures. And you made some comment about volcanos dwarfing man's contributions to atmospheric gases. I was refuting your claim with facts about the primary greenhouse gas (excepting water vapor), CO2.
• 

  biometrics

  I think I've seen enough climate change witnessing for one day. Some of the same people that were suckered into the JW cult, are now being suckerd into the phoney climate change cult. It's sad to see.

  The only good thing about it was when I heard Climate Change propaganda (then called Global Warming) at a Sunday talk. It was the start of my a wakening. I still remember thinking "He shouldn't use the platform to promote Global Warming", then shortly after there was a magazine about it which had a fairly neutral viewpoint (as they mostly do).
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  biometrics: I think I've seen enough climate change witnessing for one day. Some of the same people that were suckered into the JW cult, are now being suckerd into the phoney climate change cult. It's sad to see.

  This from the guy who still believes in demunz:

  biometrics (different thread): It's an easy topic to dismiss if you've never had dealings with demons. And if you're the type looking for a scientific experiment to proove it, you'll never find one. ...... So, yes. In my opinion they do exist.

  JWN desperately needs some Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
• 

  biometrics

  @Sweet

  You got it. I believe that demons exist, and that Global Warming (aka Climate Change) is just another method for control / taxation. But I don't believe the two have anything in common.
• 

  SweetBabyCheezits

  bio: I believe that demons exist, and that Global Warming (aka Climate Change) is just another method for control / taxation. But I don't believe the two have anything in common.

  No, they don't. The only common thread is their fundamental lack of regard for science. Thank you for being so bold in stating those two views, though.

  I especially liked the ending you chose in post 150: "...suckerd into the phoney climate change cult. It's sad to see."

  EDIT: As I understand it from your own post 147 (different thread), your belief in demons comes from an anecdotal account - a perception of an old memory experienced by a 14 year old girl. Do you have a better basis for calling climate change "phoney" and a "cult" or did you consult a similar expert for that as well?