It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alleged Man-made Climate Change Exemplifies What's Wrong with Science

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: deloprator20000
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Computer models aren't perfect, but neither are they useless. Though they cannot predict Exactly what the temperature or weather will be, they can give tightly controlled ranges of what is possible.

In any case the argument over global climate change may be a moot point. Given the finite amount of oil in the earth and the finite amount of production, eventually we will have to move away from massive oil consumption anyway.


Oil's OK, costs will self-limit. There is enough economically recoverable coal, however, to completely screw up the climate.




posted on May, 15 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
aThose models are built by programmers feeding in the data that they HAVE, they do not account for every variable in the climate of the planet, and are constantly wrong. They are the same models that tell you it's going to be sunny on days that you need an umbrella, and that's just for a day or two out. They admit that once you go beyond a week, the models fall apart.... WHY IS THAT?? Because it's impossible to predict the weather more than a week out, yet, you believe that the same types of models, and the same people who create them, are going to get the weather right for the entire planet, for the next 100+ years?


You are profoundly ignorant on this subject.

Predicting weather means "what's the value of the temperature and and wind pressure and precipitation at a given lat + long at T+10 days." Predicting climate means "what's the mean + distribution of temperature and pressure and precipitation over a stationary ergodic ensemble of weather trajectories holding external parameters constant."

Can you predict the weather in Miami in one year? No, not for any useful value of weather prediction. North Dakota? No.

But you can predict that the likelihood that Miami will be warmer in January than North Dakota, i.e. climate, with extremely high confidence, and that's climate. Now physically, why is that the case? The primary reason is that there is more electromagnetic radiation hitting the ground in Miami than in North Dakota in January. Increase in greenhouse effect means that more electromagnetic radiation hits the ground. This is measured fact, not theory. It's going to be warmer, and a bunch weirder.


edit on 15-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed




Will you deny there is a "greenhouse effect" basically over all major urban centers today, in the US as well as in China or Europe...where cities are literally choking under a cover a smog...caused by....well you guessed it...EMISSIONS and mainly Co2.


You're ignorance is showing.


The chemical makeup of smog is:

- Nitrogen oxides
- Sulfur dioxide
- Carbon monoxide
- Hydrocarbons
- various VOCs (volatile organic compounds)

THAT is what's choking us to death.

Smog occurs most commonly in warmer climates (ie: summer time) due to the photochemical reaction from the high intensity of sunshine, which then produces airborne particulates.



CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

You're confusing actual manmade pollution with Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Two completely different things.


edit on 15-5-2014 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

Sorry to have to correct you here. In the US, by law, vehicles must be fitted with catalytic converters which convert Carbon Monoxide (CO) to Carbon Dioxide (CO2), which contributes to Anthropogenic Global Warming.

CO2 became a pollutant when we started producing it in mass quantities from every vehicle to the point it can kill us and the environment.

edit on 15-5-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MarlinGrace

The government did not increase fuel prices. Federal fuel taxes have not changed since 1993. Oil markets determine fuel prices.


Last year we burned 6% less than the all time record.
But we drove about the same distance. A decline of about 2% in vehicle miles from 2007. Interesting that it's been pretty steady since the recession but, as you point out, fuel consumption has declined.
www.fhwa.dot.gov...


I checked with the wife a CFO for a petroleum distributor and Federal taxes haven't gone up but states have. But I don't believe I mentioned anything about taxes. Certainly you admit the useless Obummer energy policy has cost increases in fuel prices, after all he did warn he was going to do it. Oil markets are only part of the equation, reducing drilling permits, stopping drilling in the gulf and giving 2 Billion to Brazil to drill in the same gulf and then telling them we would be their largest customer. No pipe line from Canada but truck it across the border, no construction on refineries, EPA restrictions, all has an effect on fuel prices.

Whether it's the state reaching into my right pocket or the fed reaching into my left for taxes on fuel, all the whining about oil companies means nothing when taxes add up to on average 50 cents per gallon for gas and 55 for diesel. Last year they sold roughly 134 billion gallons of gas. US Energy Administration Thats 67 Billion Dollars collected in taxes. Diesel on the other hand accounted for about 36 billion gallons or 18 billion dollars in taxes for a combined total of 85 Billion dollars.

Big oil companies total profits were about 80 billion combined last year but obviously they have an overhead so in the pocket spending money is hugely less. According to BP financials they paid over 4B in taxes on top of what the government collected at the pump and had an EBITDA of about 22B for example. Of course our overspending government did nothing but stick their hand out. And at this point we could disappear in Americas potholes.

So I would say they have much to do with fuel prices, as well as they are the biggest earners on fuel prices.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAre0ne

CO2 is not a pollutant! Atmospheric CO2 has killed no one and is a fertilizer for plant life.

Name 1 person who was killed by CO2?

I can personally name many who have dies of CO

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: CranialSponge

Sorry to have to correct you here. In the US, by law, vehicles must be fitted with catalytic converters which convert Carbon Monoxide (CO) to Carbon Dioxide (CO2), which contributes to Anthropogenic Global Warming.

CO2 became a pollutant when we started producing it in mass quantities from every vehicle to the point it can kill us and the environment.



You just contradicted yourself.

Catalytic converters reduce toxic emissions into the lesser toxic emissions: Carbon dioxide and water.

So since that's the case, then there is MORE carbon dioxide being produced by vehicles now, NOT less.

Again, CO2 is not a pollutant... you just proved it. Otherwise, why the hell would the EPA legislate something to be produced even more ?!



Nor does this mean that carbon monoxide has been completely omitted from the smog problem because of catalytic converters.

FYI: The most problematic aspect of smog is, specifically, nitrogen oxides and VOC's due to their photochemical reaction. They convert to highly toxic airborne particulates.


Again.... yet another person confusing our pollution problem with Anthropogenic Global Warming.
edit on 15-5-2014 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-5-2014 by CranialSponge because: to correct typos



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
For those who label CO2 as a toxic pollutant, answer me this:

Why then, don't all the people sitting in an auditorium watching a basketball game start dropping like flies when the CO2 levels increase to 3000-4000 ppm on average during a regular game ?



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
For those who label CO2 as a toxic pollutant, answer me this:

Why then, don't all the people sitting in an auditorium watching a basketball game start dropping like flies when the CO2 levels increase to 3000-4000 ppm on average during a regular game ?


For the same reason they don't breath water, human beings require oxygen, this doesn't make water a toxic pollutant, just not breathable for humans.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

But I don't have to prove anything to you. I can't, I'm not a scientist, I have other areas of expertise. However, Scientists have done everything you've mentioned. Scientists have reproduced experiments that show convincing evidence that humans are the cause. That's about as close as you can get for science. Ask a scientist to prove gravity to you and you'll get the same kinds of answers. They can't show you absolute proof.

Scientists have shown repeatable experiments that have been verified by independent bodys of scientists and even amateurs, where the scientific process has been used. This has been done thousands of times depending on what area of climate science you are talking about.

Better yet, as I've mentioned already, there are thousands of examples of the scientific method being followed for global climate change (or as I like to correctly call it, Man Made Global Warming) and they have shown the contribution human's have made to it.

Google it. It's called Science. It's good stuff.
edit on 15-5-2014 by amazing because: clarity



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: CranialSponge

Sorry to have to correct you here. In the US, by law, vehicles must be fitted with catalytic converters which convert Carbon Monoxide (CO) to Carbon Dioxide (CO2), which contributes to Anthropogenic Global Warming.

CO2 became a pollutant when we started producing it in mass quantities from every vehicle to the point it can kill us and the environment.



You just contradicted yourself.

Catalytic converters reduce toxic emissions into the lesser toxic emissions: Carbon dioxide and water.

So since that's the case, then there is MORE carbon dioxide being produced by vehicles now, NOT less.

Again, CO2 is not a pollutant... you just proved it. Otherwise, why the hell would the EPA legislate something to be produced even more ?!



Nor does this mean that carbon monoxide has been completely omitted from the smog problem because of catalytic converters.

FYI: The most problematic aspect of smog is, specifically, nitrogen oxides and VOC's due to their photochemical reaction. They convert to highly toxic airborne particulates.


Again.... yet another person confusing our pollution problem with Anthropogenic Global Warming.



Every car guy knows removing the smog device increases fuel mileage, so riddle me this, what benefit is there in cleaning the air when it takes fuel just to drive the smog device in a vehicle? For example the smog pump (Air Injection Pump) requires about 2 HP in good condition. Never mind the cost of said smog equipment, of course the citizens bear that expense.

Just asking not trying to throw fireballs. It never made sense to install a device to clean air that produces dirty air on it's own during the cleaning process.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
aThose models are built by programmers feeding in the data that they HAVE, they do not account for every variable in the climate of the planet, and are constantly wrong. They are the same models that tell you it's going to be sunny on days that you need an umbrella, and that's just for a day or two out. They admit that once you go beyond a week, the models fall apart.... WHY IS THAT?? Because it's impossible to predict the weather more than a week out, yet, you believe that the same types of models, and the same people who create them, are going to get the weather right for the entire planet, for the next 100+ years?


You are profoundly ignorant on this subject.

Predicting weather means "what's the value of the temperature and and wind pressure and precipitation at a given lat + long at T+10 days." Predicting climate means "what's the mean + distribution of temperature and pressure and precipitation over a stationary ergodic ensemble of weather trajectories holding external parameters constant."

Can you predict the weather in Miami in one year? No, not for any useful value of weather prediction. North Dakota? No.

But you can predict that the likelihood that Miami will be warmer in January than North Dakota, i.e. climate, with extremely high confidence, and that's climate. Now physically, why is that the case? The primary reason is that there is more electromagnetic radiation hitting the ground in Miami than in North Dakota in January. Increase in greenhouse effect means that more electromagnetic radiation hits the ground. This is measured fact, not theory. It's going to be warmer, and a bunch weirder.



So, I guess you are the pot meeting the kettle then? If I'm profoundly ignorant, you are exceptionally arrogant, and it shows.

Aside from your obnoxious rant on the difference of weather versus climate, the rest of your post is idiotic. Being able to predict that it will be warm in summer and cold in winter based on recent history has nothing to do with climate over hundreds or thousands of years.

You know nothing about computer models, but I will tell you FIRST HAND, they are used for predicting both weather locally, hurricanes and global climate. They are ALL consistently wrong. Why do models "have to agree" with hurricane tracks? Because they have different variables and algorithms written into each model, and NONE of them are "truly" right unless all of the variables are the same and they "agree". Models are based on math. All a climate model is, is a long range weather forecast. The same math is used, and models are combined to create larger models for global climate. If you'd like to get into specifics of how the models work, I'm happy to enlighten you, as I wrote the code for a few of them.

Oh, and just to punctuate your ignorance....

The primary reason it is warmer in Miami than in North Dakota in January is from it being winter, which is due to the tilt of the planet. That has absolutely nothing to do with greenhouse gases. That is a fact as opposed to your ridiculous theory, and we don't need computer models to predict it because we know the earth tilts, as opposed to knowing how the climate works.

~Namaste
edit on 15-5-2014 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   

edit on 15-5-2014 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace


Tell me about it.

Maybe catalytic converters was a smoke and mirrors fiasco to make people feel all warm and fuzzy about reducing pollution while their vehicles are actually sucking way more gasoline.... so that the pollution-causing oil companies can rake in the, even better, profits from it.... and dig for even more fossil fuel burning resources.

Pfft.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

But I don't have to prove anything to you. I can't, I'm not a scientist, I have other areas of expertise. However, Scientists have done everything you've mentioned. Scientists have reproduced experiments that show convincing evidence that humans are the cause. That's about as close as you can get for science. Ask a scientist to prove gravity to you and you'll get the same kinds of answers. They can't show you absolute proof.


That is why it is still called the Theory of Gravity. I have not seen any scientists produce an experiment that directly links humans, it would be the end-all-be-all of discoveries if that were true, so I disagree with you and again, if you make a claim, be prepared to provide evidence of it. Something is "proven" right up until it is disproven. It has been shown already that the climate changes dramatically without human intervention. That disproves that humans alone have contributed to the climate changing. It has been shown that methane contributes to climate change more than CO2 and that there are methane vents all over the ocean floors that contribute to warming. There have been dozens of other causes linked to climate change and global warming, but nothing that proves that the current warming is directly attributed to us. It is still a THEORY, I don't know why that's so hard to understand.



Scientists have shown repeatable experiments that have been verified by independent bodys of scientists and even amateurs, where the scientific process has been used. This has been done thousands of times depending on what area of climate science you are talking about.


I already mentioned this earlier. I support individual verifiable experiments that help pave the way to a better understanding, but it's still not proven. For every paper and experiment you post, I can post one that contradicts it. For every scientist you cite as credible, I can find others that will say otherwise. Like I said, it's a dead end discussion.



Better yet, as I've mentioned already, there are thousands of examples of the scientific method being followed for global climate change (or as I like to correctly call it, Man Made Global Warming) and they have shown the contribution human's have made to it.

Google it. It's called Science. It's good stuff.


Take some of your own advice and try to take a look at the other side. When you Google something, Google the opposing point of view while you're at it. It's called being unbiased. It's good stuff.

~Namaste



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I apologize deeply to the OP for having positive intent on the subject, but it being derailed into a rabbit hole of senseless debate.

Arguing with a fool only proves there is two.

Therefore, I respectfully bow out of this discussion, you all are welcome to flame away, I will have no part in it or further derail the OPs post.

~Namaste
edit on 15-5-2014 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
CO2 is not a pollutant! Atmospheric CO2 has killed no one and is a fertilizer for plant life.


pol·lu·tant
noun
1. something that pollutes.
2. any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

CO2 certainly is a pollutant.

1: Are you familiar with carbonic acid? Carbon dioxide dissolves in water such as the ocean, and streams, and rivers, and creates carbonic acid. Rain water is also slightly acidic because it reacts with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and forms carbonic acid. If you increase the amount of CO2 that is in the atmosphere, you will increase the amount of carbonic acid that is created, and reduce the pH balance of large bodies of water so that they are more acidic. Acidification of water kills plants and animals and microorganisms. They simply can't live in an acidic environment. If you own a fish tank, you will know the importance of pH levels in the water, or your fish will die.

Even humans must worry about their acid-base homeostasis or they will become sick and die.

Ocean acidification is harmful to the environment. Hence, CO2 is a pollutant by definition.

en.wikipedia.org...

2: Humans exhale CO2 for a very good reason. Or bodies need to get rid of it, it's waste. If the atmosphere is rich with CO2, our bodies will have a much more difficult time getting rid of the CO2, and have more trouble getting oxygen. That is because the hemoglobin in your blood is supposed to transport oxygen to your body, however, CO2 binds to hemoglobin to form carbaminohemoglobin and reduces your bloods ability to transport oxygen. A CO2 rich environment can cause problems... drowsiness, shortness of breath, increased heart rate, vision problems, the worst of which is suffocation / death.

On top of that, human red blood cells catalyze the dissolving of carbon dioxide to form carbonic acid directly in the blood, increasing blood acid levels. Again, high blood acid levels is harmful and even deadly.

3: Global Warming... we all know the story. Increasing CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect, which will increase temperatures, which will release more greenhouse gases, and raise the temperature more, creating a positive feedback loop, which can possibly cause a runaway greenhouse effect. The resulting heat can cause droughts, kill plants, insects, and animal life, and in turn humans.

4: Carbon dioxide buildup in the soil will kill trees...



Although leaves of plants produce oxygen (O2) from CO2 during photosynthesis, their roots need to absorb O2 directly. The high CO2 concentrations in the soil on Mammoth Mountain are killing trees by denying their roots O2 and by interfering with nutrient uptake.


pubs.usgs.gov...

By all definitions CO2 is a pollutant.


originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
Name 1 person who was killed by CO2?


Even though CO2 is mildly toxic, death by CO2 mostly occurs because of suffocation, because CO2 displaces oxygen.

Have you ever heard of the 1986 Lake Nyos disaster? In one night 1,746 people (and thousands of cattle) in a 12 mile radius were killed when carbon dioxide trapped in a lake was released into the atmosphere at once.

Read about it more here:
en.wikipedia.org...
www.snopes.com...

The same thing has happened on more than one occasion. With higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, this could happen more often.

MANY people have died from CO2, because it displaces oxygen.

Carbon dioxide led to death in McDonald's bathroom.
www.cnn.com...
www.youtube.com...

Two French wine-makers suffocated by carbon dioxide fumes from grapes they were treading.
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Enough said...
edit on 15-5-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
For those who label CO2 as a toxic pollutant, answer me this:

Why then, don't all the people sitting in an auditorium watching a basketball game start dropping like flies when the CO2 levels increase to 3000-4000 ppm on average during a regular game ?


Ventilation.

See my last post.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: CranialSponge
For those who label CO2 as a toxic pollutant, answer me this:

Why then, don't all the people sitting in an auditorium watching a basketball game start dropping like flies when the CO2 levels increase to 3000-4000 ppm on average during a regular game ?


Ventilation.

See my last post.



If carbon monoxide was at those same 3000-4000 ppms in that same auditorium with the same ventilation, people would drop like flies. And yet with CO2 being at those levels, they do not. Same air ventilation, different results.

That's the difference between toxic and non-toxic.

Nuff said.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
You just contradicted yourself.


No I did not contradict myself. You just need to practice your reading skills more.

You forgot to mention carbon dioxide in your post regarding smog, so I corrected you.


originally posted by: CranialSponge
Catalytic converters reduce toxic emissions into the lesser toxic emissions: Carbon dioxide and water.

So since that's the case, then there is MORE carbon dioxide being produced by vehicles now, NOT less.


Yes, carbon monoxide is very toxic and deadly. Carbon dioxide is not as toxic. Catalytic converters turn one large evil to a lesser evil, but still evil nonetheless.

I never claimed there was less carbon dioxide being produced. Where did you get that idea?


originally posted by: CranialSponge
Again, CO2 is not a pollutant... you just proved it. Otherwise, why the hell would the EPA legislate something to be produced even more ?!


No, CO2 is a pollutant. Read some of my last posts.

The EPA figured CO is more deadly than CO2, so we should convert it. Either way, both are pollutants.



originally posted by: CranialSponge
Nor does this mean that carbon monoxide has been completely omitted from the smog problem because of catalytic converters.


I didn't claim that either. I know catalytic converters are not 100% efficient, and they often need replacing. I also know that many older cars don't have them at all. So carbon monoxide is still being emitted, along with carbon dioxide.

So why are you claiming I made such an assertion?


originally posted by: CranialSponge
Again.... yet another person confusing our pollution problem with Anthropogenic Global Warming.


Again, another ignorant statement from you... which was the main reason to my last reply to you.

Vehicles emit CO2, a pollutant, which causes global warming. Do you even know the definition of anthropogenic?

an·thro·po·gen·ic
adjective
(chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity.




edit on 15-5-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join