Now I want to slap republicans for being stupid

originally posted by: TheRedneck

We will eventually develop new and improved methods of generating energy; I have no doubt of that. That is a good thing. When it happens, I will gladly embrace it. However, I will be embracing it because it improves people's quality of life and the state of mankind, not because it gets rid of carbon dioxide.

TheRedneck

I agree 100%, but I think sooner than later will be the key. Sooner for me is in the next 50 years or so. The problem with C02 is that it stays for a very long time about 100 years, so whatever build up we have is not going way anytime soon. The other bad part is it retains water vapor that prevents heat from escaping back out, so like a double whammy compared to other gasses, thus the old green house thing. It is also building at an extreme rate compared to other gases that do much of same thing like methane, so it is something we need to be careful about.

We are in for a wild ride with all this as extreme weather conditions continue to happen due to the huge amount of C02, so I'm not going to call it Al Gore's global warming, but some significant nastiest are on the horizon.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

He should have just come out as trans-gendered or something.

Anything other than involving the government in yet another scheme to ultimately grow its size, raise its scope.

On the Ben Shapiro show he was talking about how the left has embraced gender identity as in whatever you want to be, but then they push this huge message that America has a Misogyny problem because all the women have dropped and screamed some kind of "I am woman hear me roar" type thing. I think they forgot Hillary won the popular vote last time and if she didn't have a few critical miss steps she be President today.


Ben suggested that Trump should run as a woman and then self proclaim he is the first female President...

a reply to: TheRedneck

We don't know?

The CO2 problem was first noted over 100 years ago by Svante Arrhenius around 1896.

We do know that doubling(we are on pace to do in the next 50 years CO2 using 280ppm as a starting point) will make the world a warmer place. This will also make the sea levels rise, which is already being observed. The extra CO2 in also causes more to CO2 being dissolved in the ocean which among many other things kills coral.

We know a lot, just because we do not know everything or have the complete solution does not make it invalid.

Your post literally just highlighted the denial talking points that the oil conglomerates think tanks have come up with to cast doubt. You have fallen for their manipulation and disinformation tactics and are too proud to admit it. The irony is you believe the propaganda from big oil sponsored think tanks but write off the actual scientists who say would should be concerned as shills.

As Mark Twain said, It is easier to fool someone than convince him that he has been fooled.

Given that the US military is taking steps to safeguard their bases from climate change issues, that alone should convince a reasonable person that the threat is real.

a reply to: Xtrozero

today I learned that one oyster can clean over 50 gallons of water a day. Filter it.
Can't do toxins though.

So. there's that.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The problem with C02 is that it stays for a very long time about 100 years, so whatever build up we have is not going way anytime soon.

Carbon dioxide is a low-energy carbon compound; that's why it is so common. Under certain circumstances, carbon-containing molecules will undergo a chemical change to a lower energy molecule, the most obvious of those conditions being oxidation (burning). All chemicals do this; burn hydrogen and you will get a lower energy state hydrogen oxide: water.

Unless conditions exist to either reduce the chemical further or add energy to form a higher-energy compound, any molecule will remain forever. In the atmosphere, there is little chance of reducing the chemical further, since it is already oxidized and there's not much fluorine in the atmosphere (fluorine is the only element that can reduce an oxide). One of the natural mechanisms to recycle the carbon in carbon dioxide is photosynthesis, which uses solar energy to convert the carbon dioxide to higher-energy compounds (many of which we colloquially call "food"). That mechanism increases in efficacy with the abundance of carbon dioxide, meaning it is a strong negative feedback.

The other bad part is it retains water vapor that prevents heat from escaping back out, so like a double whammy compared to other gasses, thus the old green house thing.

??? Atmospheric carbon dioxide does not retain water vapor.

Carbon dioxide and water can combine to form carbonic acid (H2O + CO2 H2CO3), but that is a very, very slow reaction and carbonic acid is a very weak acid. We literally drink it; at a high concentration, it's what makes sodas fizz. That fizz is indicative of a super-saturation that can only be maintained under pressure... release the pressure and the carbon dioxide escaping from the solution makes the fizz. Thus, the amount of carbonic acid in the atmosphere is so minimal as to be irrelevant. In the ocean, the acidification that keeps making the news is from sulfuric acid, formed when high-sulfur fuels are burned. Sulfuric acid combines much faster and produces a much more powerful acid (sulfuric acid is commonly referred to as "battery acid").

Those are some of the statements that made me start digging because they didn't make sense and led me to the realization that Global Warming was poppy-cock. I'm not demeaning you for stating them; that's apparently what you have been told. I'm saying that those telling you these things are lying to you.

TheRedneck

a reply to: jrod

We don't know?

No, we do not.

All of the predictions are based on mathematical models using computer algorithms. These algorithms are produced by scientists and mathematicians analyzing various factors and estimating feedback coefficients. These programs are fed known historical weather data and then attempt to analyze that data and predict future data. If they do so accurately and consistently, the algorithm is mostly correct within the range being tested; if not, the differences between actual and predicted trends is further analyzed, adjustments are made to the feedback algorithms, and the program is tried again.

So far, we have had zero success predicting future trends of even a year or so. Work is progressing, but until an algorithm works, we do not understand the various feedbacks sufficiently to make predictions. That hasn't stopped pundits from making assumptions based on unproven models, however... it just means they don't know what they are talking about.

The CO2 problem was first noted over 100 years ago by Svante Arrhenius around 1896.

Arrhenius' theory is being mis-applied in present Global Warming Theory. He postulated that an increase in a certain gases (now called "greenhouse gases") had the ability to absorb and emit certain wavelengths of EM radiation ("spectroscopy"). He was not fully correct in his calculations of the magnitude of energy retention, as carbon dioxide does not respond linearly.

But even more intriguing is that Arrhenius actually argued (as I do) that an increase in carbon dioxide and the corresponding increase in heat would be not just beneficial but absolutely required to provide food for an expanding population.

We do know that doubling(we are on pace to do in the next 50 years CO2 using 280ppm as a starting point) will make the world a warmer place. This will also make the sea levels rise, which is already being observed. The extra CO2 in also causes more to CO2 being dissolved in the ocean which among many other things kills coral.

Oh, dear, where to start?

First of all, those predictions of doubling carbon dioxide levels (which would attain a resultant atmospheric carbon dioxide level of 560 ppmv) are assuming quite a few things, not the least of which is that photosynthetic activity will not increase along with the higher levels (which we know it does; the planet is already "greening"). Secondly, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels of 280 ppmv have not existed since 1800 (it was 280 ppmv in 1800 and has slowly been climbing ever since). Present levels are at ~400 ppmv, an increase of 120 ppmv over a 120 year time span. From those figures, it is silly to expect an increase of an additional 100 ppmv in 50 years.

However, that is misleading. According to NOAA, the increase at the Mauna Loa Observatory has increased mainly since 1960 when it was ~316 ppmv. Present readings are at ~411 ppmv, a 85 ppmv increase over 60 years. That would indeed allow for 500 ppmv in 50 years as you say. However, look at the CH4 (methane) levels, which are directly caused by the volcano itself: they correlate with the rise in carbon dioxide levels. The increase in carbon dioxide is obviously coming from volcanic venting.

280 ppmv is also the level that is postulated to actually retard plant growth. Plant matter increases with carbon dioxide levels at least until 1500 ppmv (which is about where some effect on humans would become apparent). We know this because greenhouses use concentrated carbon dioxide at those levels to grow plants faster and larger.

There is no observed sea level rise. There is observed continental sinkage. Sinkage can be limited to one particular area, while oceanic rise must, by the laws of physics, either happen globally or a mechanism to change the gravitational constant ion particular areas exists. The reports of "rising oceans" also correlate to areas which have experienced significant growth along sealines, which explains why these areas are sinking: additional construction resulting in additional weight on the land surfaces.

It is simply not possible for the ocean to rise in Miami and not rise in Los Angeles. Most sea level measurements are taken from land-based observatories.

TheRedneck

Disappointing coming from Crenshaw. I really expected less big brother globalism from him.

a reply to: TheRedneck

No the CO2 is not coming from the volcano. There are others places all over the world the are observing CO2 levels rise also. It is a direct result of burning fossil fuels for energy. The rate of increase is also increasing.

The fact you want to blame the volcano shows extreme ignorance on your part.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Sea level is rising, the observation show this world wide.

ATS user to have the motto 'Deny Ignorance', now we have Mods promoting ignorance.

originally posted by: VeeTNA
a reply to: Xtrozero

today I learned that one oyster can clean over 50 gallons of water a day. Filter it.
Can't do toxins though.So. there's that.

An aquarium diatom filter with UV light kills algae and pathogens. Why hire oysters?