Bloomberg Promises $15 Million To Help Make Up For U.S. Withdrawal From Climate Deal

a reply to: alphabetaone

Denying that climate shift is man-made has a lot of merit to it, it's arguable in so many ways even scientifically. Denying that the climate itself is shifting is wholly different and folly.

There is not enough proof to state unequivocally the the planet is warming... but that climates are shifting? That's another story. The Arctic melt experienced over recent decades is well-documented. It may or may not be significant in geological time spans, but it certainly is significant in human time spans.

To continue with that example, it makes little logical sense to assume it is caused by carbon dioxide levels. The actual direct cause has actually been found: the Bering current has warmed significantly. Now the cause of that warming can be debated, but it appears too isolated to be atmospheric... I personally believe it is connected to tectonic activity in the Pacific Ocean.

Oceanic acidification is another good example. Most Global Warming advocates assume the cause is carbonic acid, but that ignores the use of high-sulfur fuels in international shipping. Many years ago I posted a thread that correlated oceanic acidification to shipping lines (almost unregulated sulfur content) and coastal population areas in countries that used high-sulfur fuels, adjusted for prevailing currents. It was an almost perfect match. Add to that the intensities of sulfuric versus carbonic acid. Sulfuric acid is commonly referred to as battery acid, since it is commonly used in lead-acid cells... it is extremely corrosive and highly toxic. By contrast, I have a 2-liter bottle of concentrated carbonic acid, commonly referred to as 'Mountain Dew,' sitting beside me so I can drink it.

A two liter bottle of sulfuric acid drank could kill a village.

I think understanding the difference for a lot of people and the why's are important for making informed decisions...not outright dismissing it because it's the party-line thang ta do.

If the Paris Accord were truly about maintaining a stable climate, they would have ships researching oceanic temperatures upstream from the Bering Straits to locate where the heat is coming from, and testing the waters quanta timely in the acidification areas of the oceans to determine the exact acids and qualities responsible. No international agreement is required for that; only a minuscule financing source compared to what they are asking to combat carbon dioxide. And the results would likely lead to new discoveries on how the climate reacts to human activities and would likely improve those carbon dioxide models that scientists keep throwing grant money at.

Well, you make an unfortunate and valid point there...we always tend to wait until its too late for almost everything. Not to mention I doubt even if we doubled our carbon output that it would come close to being the catalyst to the doom. There are other far larger factors driving the current climate shift and it simply doesn't matter what we do short of nuking the polar icecaps that could truly affect long-term climate.

Be careful posting that last point... there are people today so terrified of a carbon atom getting together with a couple of oxygen atoms, they might seriously try to nuke the poles if they thought it would destroy carbon dioxide.

But (more) seriously...

I would go so far as to say 5 times the present levels of carbon dioxide would be needed for me to get excited. That would be 0.2% instead of the present 0.04%, and double the typical carbon dioxide levels in an enclosed office. At that point, there is an approaching possibility of minor health issues. Considering we have, assuming 100% human fault, raised the carbon dioxide levels by 0.01% in 50 years or so, we have 800 years at our present rate before that happens.

Bottom line for me is that I want to know how carbon dioxide levels affect the planet. But I just can't get excited about it being so critical. I can get excited about finding the true cause of ocean acidification, protecting forested areas, finding a working solution for recycling, or a number of other, more time-critical issues. Heck, I can get excited over finding alternate energy technologies! Just not because of carbon dioxide.

When someone starts talking climate, I'm usually on board until they mention the evil CO2 molecule... then I tune them out, which usually happens within 15 seconds or so.

TheRedneck

OH EM GEE!!!

Look the free market is adapting to market forces!

WOW!

Progressives must be shaking in their boots!

originally posted by: TheRedneck
There is not enough proof to state unequivocally the the planet is warming... but that climates are shifting? That's another story.

Well, in my estimation it makes a bit more sense than CO2 as the primary culprit. CH4 is much better culprit.

The Arctic melt experienced over recent decades is well-documented. It may or may not be significant in geological time spans, but it certainly is significant in human time spans.

Well, humans tend to relate everything to within their own lifespans. For example, every generation there is a new threat to a particular cataclysm. (2012 is a great recent example, also Y2K before that) Where even the most basic of research could easily have edified more people; I suppose chicken little sells more books. Everything is significant in geological time but to only one player...the planet whose geology is being timed. The organisms - in our case, us - really are fleeting and insignificant.

I personally believe it is connected to tectonic activity in the Pacific Ocean.

I do too, but one cant discount the introduction of fresh water into the mix...desalinization plays a big part, and if the NAO / PDO slows due to desalinization, the warming intensifies bringing even more warm air to polar regions as winds carry the now warmer ocean currents. I think tectonic and magma movement are working in conjunction to warm elements from the bottom while the water vapor is trapping more heat to work from the top down resulting in a confluence of various warming types.

Oceanic acidification is another good example.

This is something I'm woefully ignorant on and should probably delve into a bit more. I'm still unsure though if it's a true litmus test of climate or simply a by-product of pollution...im sure you would know a whole lot more in that regard.

If the Paris Accord were truly about maintaining a stable climate, they would have ships researching oceanic temperatures upstream from the Bering Straits to locate where the heat is coming from, and testing the waters quanta timely in the acidification areas of the oceans to determine the exact acids and qualities responsible.

I think we both know it never was about maintaining a stable climate, I think it was always more a shot from the hip, trying to throw SOMETHING at the world (based from ignorance) so that when the SHTF no one can cry and scream that something wasn't done. Besides Coriolis, Woods Hole and NOAA (among a few others) do that research now...however a lot of the findings either make their way to peer-review too late to matter or never make it there at all (usually based on mathematical uncertainty).

I would go so far as to say 5 times the present levels of carbon dioxide would be needed for me to get excited. That would be 0.2% instead of the present 0.04%, and double the typical carbon dioxide levels in an enclosed office. At that point, there is an approaching possibility of minor health issues. Considering we have, assuming 100% human fault, raised the carbon dioxide levels by 0.01% in 50 years or so, we have 800 years at our present rate before that happens.

Ok, I can see that...but that makes the broader assumption that the rate of raise remains constant, which I doubt highly to be honest.

When someone starts talking climate, I'm usually on board until they mention the evil CO2 molecule... then I tune them out, which usually happens within 15 seconds or so.

I'm not quite as impatient about it. There are truly a lot of ignorant people out there that regurgitate what they've heard / been told. I have no trouble with someone who wants to parrot the CO2 argument so long as their open-minded enough to let themselves be educated about it before drawing a conclusion. This thread shows a bit of the best and worst of that if we have to be honest. (Also leaving partisan arguments completely away...climate never has been nor will be a partisan concern; its a human concern)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction which is something I avoid like the plague. I think what we're witnessing, is likely the very beginning stages of how an ice age begins. Reach out to me in a few thousand years to let me know how that prediction went

a reply to: alphabetaone

Well, in my estimation it makes a bit more sense than CO2 as the primary culprit. CH4 is much better culprit.

Agreed! CH4 has a much, much broader absorption spectrum. That's actually what makes CO2 such a bad candidate for warming... the absorption spectrum is extremely narrow (the same reason it makes a good lasing medium).

...one cant discount the introduction of fresh water into the mix...desalinization plays a big part, and if the NAO / PDO slows due to desalinization, the warming intensifies bringing even more warm air to polar regions as winds carry the now warmer ocean currents.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are hypothesizing that the melting serves as a reinforcement for the warmer temperatures due to changes in salination?

Definitely an interesting concept... I need to think on that before I comment either way.

This is something I'm woefully ignorant on and should probably delve into a bit more. I'm still unsure though if it's a true litmus test of climate or simply a by-product of pollution...im sure you would know a whole lot more in that regard.

I'm pretty well convinced H2SO4 is the culprit. While advances appear to have been made in sulfur content of fuels, it wasn't that long ago that international shipping was unregulated in that respect. Sulfur contents of up to 5% were common (and I'm glad I wasn't close enough to smell it!). A recent IMO regulation has set 0.5% as a goal by 2020. That's still high compared to diesel (15 ppmv or 0.0015%) or gasoline (10 ppmv or 0.001%) in the US, but it's an improvement.

Now consider that sulfur dioxide (SO2 resulting from conbustion) is about twice as dense as air, whereas carbon dioxide is only slighty denser than air. The sulfur dioxide settles much faster than carbon dioxide and easily converts into sulfuric acid.

Incidentally, sulfur dioxide was the culprit behind acid rain back in the day... that was the impetus for tighter regulations.

I think we both know it never was about maintaining a stable climate,

You forgot how much money stands to be made issuing and trading in carbon credits. If carbon credits became mandatory in the US, Al Gore would become a multi-billionaire overnight.

Ok, I can see that...but that makes the broader assumption that the rate of raise remains constant, which I doubt highly to be honest.

Oh, obviously. But the linearity, so far as the greenhouse effect is concerned, actually works to lengthen the time, not shorten it. I don't have the link here to the studies, but it should be easy enough to find.

I'm not quite as impatient about it.

I probably shouldn't be. But in my defense, I have found through experience that if someone has become convinced that carbon dioxide is the Devil's own chemical, it becomes pretty hard to get any facts through that wall.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction which is something I avoid like the plague. I think what we're witnessing, is likely the very beginning stages of how an ice age begins.

I absolutely despise the cold and have Raynaud's Syndrome to boot... so I really, really, really hope you're wrong.

Maybe if I build a CO2 generator it will slow that down some?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm pretty well convinced H2SO4 is the culprit

There is no culprit, ocean acidification is a scam.

Ocean acidification-the latest in a chain of scare campaigns. Once again, the “science” is a sham. Buffering capacity of basalt in particular is ignored. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 does not cause a doubling in ocean CO2. How convenient to conveniently forget the oceans contain 48x more CO2 than the atmosphere. The effects are out by over a full order of magnitude. The figures I have seen are totally fraudulent- .4 pH points for a doubling of CO2 concentration suggests a very high percentage of the CO2 becomes carbonic acid-remember, pH is logarithmic. To add to the fraud, doubling the atmospheric CO2 does not mean doubling ocean CO2-far from it. Double atmospheric CO2-even if all the extra dissolves in the oceans is only a 2% increase – hardly likely to do anything, certainly not dissolve the planet.

Once again, scare mongering LIES to dupe the science illiterate in to surrendering their freedoms. Really, how science illiterate can anyone be to believe the ocean acidification scare-of-the-day.

Once again, the UN are the ones plugging the lies. Wake up, the UN is a massive fraud-one of the grandest if not the grandest in history. “Above all else, appear respectable”- one of the mottoes of the Fabian Society, one of the instigators of the UN.

a reply to: Christosterone

Posturing and still leaving the people in America who are starving and homeless with nothing. He's a douche...world class.

a reply to: D8Tee

No, it's not a scam... certain areas of the oceans are decreasing in pH level enough to affect the life cycles in it.

The Arctic is melting, too.

There is a hole in the ozone layer.

There really is an entire island of plastic waste in the Pacific Ocean.

The scam is not that these things are not happening, but that they're not happening because of carbon dioxide. Acidification is due to sulfur content in fuels, which has already been drastically lowered. The Arctic is melting because the Bering current is warmer than before. The ozone hole is a natural byproduct of the geometry of the planetary magnetic field. The plastic island is an abomination that should be cleaned up. Maybe a good place for the Paris Accord to spend Bloomberg's $15M?

On the other hand, polar bears are not endangered. The sea level rise has not changed. There are doubts as to whether the entire planet has warmed. Storm intensity shows no sign of increasing.

The tactic used by most Global Warming advocates is to spout mistruths and half-truths to advance a specific agenda. Don't be like them. What's real is real... but carbon dioxide based Global Warming is not a part of reality.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

No, it's not a scam... certain areas of the oceans are decreasing in pH level enough to affect the life cycles in it.

Source for that information, I'd like to look at it.

And as much as I hate all the plastic in the ocean, to call it an island is a bit misleading. Stepping off a boat onto the island would require you to know how to swim, not something I associate with an island.

a reply to: TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
So, if I understand you correctly, you are hypothesizing that the melting serves as a reinforcement for the warmer temperatures due to changes in salination?

Correct, that is what I was hypothethesizing. It's a self-perpetuating, self-feeding cycle. The less saline the water is, the less likely it will be to sink below the less dense lesser salinity water. The propespect of denser water sinking is the engine that drives the NAO/PDO. The thermodynamics play a huge part in the circulation, so, surface temperature matters equally. But the real key here is in getting the denser water to sink, once it does it can cool appropriately but the longer it stays at the surface, the longer the heat is transferred from water to ambient air in the polar regions. And so on...

I absolutely despise the cold and have Raynaud's Syndrome to boot... so I really, really, really hope you're wrong.

Maybe if I build a CO2 generator it will slow that down some?

Yikes! I would imagine you DONT wanna see that happen then lol One can never underscore enough the pleasantry associated with blue fingers and toes :/

I say, get to work on building that CO2 generator and power everything with a personal coal burning electric plant hahaha

a reply to: D8Tee

Start here: www.earth.columbia.edu...

But like most issues concerning the ecology, extreme effort has been put into skewing the science. pH, for instance, does not say anything about the cause of the reading... it is no more than a logarithmic measurement of the (p)ercentage of (H)ydrogen ions dissolved.

There are many acids, all of which by definition lower pH. Carbonic acid, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, and uric acid just to name a few of the more common. Each acid has a different tendency to lower pH values. This is not some earth-shattering revelation; it is first-year chemistry. Just Google, and you will see that. You will also see how weak carbonic acid is and how strong sulfuric acid is.

That's how the pseudo-scientists writing these stories trap people into believing. They twist the narrative from "the ocean acidity is increasing in specific areas" to "carbon dioxide is increasing ocean acidity! OMG!" Half-truths.

Anyway, look that up and see for yourself... feel free to ask if you have any questions.

TheRedneck

a reply to: alphabetaone

Correct, that is what I was hypothethesizing.

It's an intriguing concept, and could explain a few things. I have tried to put together a link between South Pacific volcanic activity and Bering Current temperatures, but thus far I have been unable to establish a link. If your hypothesis is correct, the link would be partially masked by the positive reinforcement. If I take that into account, perhaps a pattern will emerge.

Thank you!

Yikes! I would imagine you DONT wanna see that happen then lol

Yeah, it sucks bigly.

My mother has it secondary to scleroderma, but mine appears to be primary. She has lost one finger to it already, and almost lost another. The damage appears to be cumulative, too... some years back I kept going despite my left foot starting to freeze up, until a sharp pain through it forced me to stop. It went away when I got it warm, but now every time my left foot gets too cold it returns and I can barely walk. It gets worse every winter, but so far disappears completely in warm weather.

I guess you could say I'm a little biased toward warmer temperatures.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: alphabetaone

Correct, that is what I was hypothethesizing.

I have tried to put together a link between South Pacific volcanic activity and Bering Current temperatures, but thus far I have been unable to establish a link.

I have a few inroads at NOAA, the NWS, the Buoy data ... ill see if I can find any relevant data or data sets or even better any preliminary studies suggesting ring of fire / bering straight marriage.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Fantastic!

Allow for a temporary positive feedback... an initial correlation would show up as a short-term increase, probably exponential or sinusoidal in nature.

And please let us know what (if anything) you find!

TheRedneck

Has anyone in this thread pointed out yet that Al Gore admitted the Paris agreement wouldn't have stopped climate change?

And I'm not mincing words or taking a quote out of context. Chris Wallace pointed out the deal would not have fixed the problem and Gore responded that that was correct. He then further elaborated (and now I'm paraphrasing) that it wasn't meant to fix it, it was a symbolic agreement. My point with this is not to debate whether climate change is real or not, merely pointing out that those freaking out all over the news that the US pulling out of the deal will doom us were just contradicted by Al Gore.


Fearmongering at its finest.

a reply to: face23785

He then further elaborated (and now I'm paraphrasing) that it wasn't meant to fix it, it was a symbolic agreement.

That's a fancy way of saying "it wasn't meant to fix anything, it was meant to look like we were doing something so we could collect money from taxpayers, especially in the USA, and move it around and play with it under the auspices of saving the planet.....Now, gotta go! Meeting up with some Green Fund managers for a weekend in the Maldives."

a reply to: queenofswords

Yup pretty much. Let these rich leftists finance it, they got enough of our money.

a reply to: face23785

Same old Al Gore and his alarmist talking points. Can't wait to see his new movie, interesting he's putting a new ending onto it. I've been looking on torrent for that movie, it didn't get leaked from it's premiere at the film festival earlier this year.

Paris Agreement was all about a slush fund that the multi nationals would use to their advantage. Lend the money out at interest to developing nations to build infrastructure so the multi's can go in and rape the natural resources. The money lent out is paid back by the taxpayers, and keeps them perpetually in debt. Good deal for the multi nationals, the needed infrastructure is built on the taxpayers dime instead of them having to put up the capital.

Whats interesting about the Green Climate fund is it did not disallow the financing of fossil fuel fired electrical generation.

a reply to: face23785

Gore gets shredded in 2010. I've come to the conclusion that the alarmists are the true deniers. They are denying the reality that there is no climate crisis.

a reply to: D8Tee

Oh you don't have to convince me. He's a putz for sure. He's gotten mega rich off of it and these leftists who supposedly hate rich people think he's a hero.