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.

 

Ice shelf about to break away from Antarctic coast

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
so, how many people even knew about the 'IPCC' before Kyoto?


22,546,345 apparently. lol


is it really that hard to understand? the media sold it as GW


Did they? I'm sure it fits your little myth, but the reality doesn't confirm that...


Increased Burning of Fuels; Could Alter Climate Change in Climate Is Expected Steady Increase Is Measured 'Feedback Effects' Are Crucial
E-MAIL
By WALTER SULLIVAN

November 20, 1979, Tuesday

Section: Science Times, Page C1, 1688 words

WHAT will the climate of the future be like? Warmer? Colder? Few questions are more important to those who must plan future energy and agricultural policy.



To Halt Climate Change, Scientists Try Trees
By WILLIAM K. STEVENS
Published: Tuesday, July 18, 1989

SCIENTISTS, foresters, environmentalists and Government officials are seriously exploring the feasibility of an ambitious long-term enterprise: planting enough trees around the world to ease the threat of global warming.



His Bold Statement Transforms the Debate On Greenhouse Effect
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: Tuesday, August 23, 1988

SITTING in his office near the Columbia University campus, seven floors above the internal combustion of fossil fuel along Broadway, James E. Hansen held a large pair of what he called loaded dice. He was making a point last week about the probabilities of drastic climate change as a result of the greenhouse effect.



EXPERTS QUESTION SEA-RISE THEORY
E-MAIL
Permissions
By WALTER SULLIVAN (The New York Times); National Desk

April 15, 1984, Sunday

Late City Final Edition, Section 1, Page 15, Column 1, 929 words

Specialists in polar ice caps have expressed doubts about a rise in sea level that has been predicted as a consequence of the expected warming of world climates. Some experts, in fact, now suspect that the sea level may fall. Two reports on probable climate change were issued last ...



THE NATION; How Fighting Global Warming Could Be Painless and Profitable
By ROBERT REINHOLD
Published: Sunday, September 3, 1989

...But avoiding world climate change, he maintains, will also require compromises, like ride sharing and more use of mass transit. He argues for a gradual increase of the gasoline excise tax to $1 a gallon, combined with a penalty against owners of gas guzzlers paid to drivers of new efficient cars. But he said these measures would be politically impossible now.



Oh noes, the bogeyman...


Bush Proposing Talks in U.S. on Global Warming
By ALLAN R. GOLD, Special to The New York Times
Published: Wednesday, December 6, 1989

''Whether it's evolution or revelation, I think the President is to be congratulated on taking this initiative,'' said Senator John Heinz, a Pennsylvania Republican who has criticized the President's policies on climate change.

But Senator Albert Gore Jr., a Tennessee Democrat and another critic of Mr. Bush's climate-change policies, said, ''It remains to be seen whether this is a real change.'' Mr. Gore termed the proposal a ''begrudging acceptance of political reality.''


That's enough. They are from the NYT, both terms have been used for a long time.


even today people are using it and i'm not just talking about opponents of the air tax, like me. i think not but i've seen it often enough, when in doubt, try to goad people.... i'll leave it at that.


Because it is still a relevant term. The long-term trend will be warming from anthropogenic influences.


everyone still called it GW and climate change is relatively recent,


Nope, they didn't. And it's obviously not recent.


why you would debate my (alledged) age and an issue as clear as the GW/CC transition which everyone who is even remotely interested in such topics will simply remember.


Wasn't meant to be a debate. It was just a passing comment. I've been following this since around 1987-88, and I have seen both terms used interchangeably. If you have evidence of nefarious motives in preferring one term over the other, spit it.

I asked you this before.


iow you're doing a lot of shadow boxing as far as i can see.


Not really, I was focusing on your exact words. I can quote them again if you want.


PS: i will from now on only adress posts negatively and simply omit everything else, otherwise i'll be suspected of talking for that person - -extremely uncorrect i presume. (no that's not a word)


Okie doke. Sounds fun.




posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by melatonin

So because of a handful of scientists suggested global cooling, Dupont had a patented chemical outlawed (Freon?) in the 1970s?

Really?

No, not really. DuPont got freon outlawed so their new refrigerant would still be patent-protected via propaganda about the dangers of freon and the concern implemented in the public arena by the "New Ice Age". But at least you're close, if the reasoning is backwards.

I was there.


Freon is a CFC and was gradually phased out due to ozone depletion. Wasn't even 'outlawed' till 1996.

Had nothing to do with any 'new ice age'. The global cooling worries were due to aerosol influences (SO2, dust etc). Now, I know CFCs were used in aerosols, but it's not the same thing, lol. The clean air act in the 1970s and 1990s helped with SO2 et al.


Demand for Freon® refrigerants and propellants continued to grow until the 1970s when scientific studies indicated that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer that shielded the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. During the 1980s DuPont began developing more environmentally friendly hydroflourocarbons, eventually marketed as Suva® refrigerants and Dymel® propellants. During the 1980s, federal regulatory agencies banned the use of chlorofluorocarbons and DuPont began phasing out production, producing its last CFCs in the developed countries in 1995. The difficulties faced by American producers and consumers alike in curtailing their use of Freon® were a testament to its profound impact on postwar life.

www2.dupont.com...



It appears so. Amazing is the fact that acid rain is still extant in the areas that were once splattered across the news. Just as amazing is the fact that the media coverage declined to present levels concerning acid rain (in other words minimal if at all) about the same time it was 'revealed' that catalytic converters were a major cause of it.

Again, I was there.


Catalytic converters were one significant cause. SO2 was and still is a major contributor to acid rain. Ask the chinese, they're finding out how it works.

So the notion was never abandoned like you suggested.


Because, once again, I was there. I trust my memory and direct observation more than I will ever trust an Internet source, or a faceless person arguing that what I saw wasn't real.


Yeah, of course. You were there. Even though the evidence shows there were few studies and a few media reports suggesting global cooling, and many more about global warming, it was some sort of big 'reverse' from the scientists, lol.


If I cannot, who can? I am an 'average person', and I was there.


Perhaps.


You might as well try to tell me that the house I grew up in didn't exist until I was 30, or perhaps that 'Gilligan's Island' never aired on broadcast TV. Those arguments are no different than the one you are proposing about the 1970s, Mel. I was there.

Apparently you were not.

TheRedneck


I wuz around in the 70s. But was more worried about The Magic Roundabout, lol.

And that's all you have. You were there. But the evidence suggests you are wrong. You do know that memory isn't some sort of uncorruptable data disk, but is more a reconstructive phenomena - hence why eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Here ya all go!survivalacres.com...
(for those that dont think the earth is flat and reality doesnt need sugarcoating)



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin

Freon is a CFC and was gradually phased out due to ozone depletion. Wasn't even 'outlawed' till 1996.

The actual ban was in 1994. But I was actually referring to the pre-ban phase-out. You see, in the 1970s, one with a bit of mechanical inclination could recharge their air conditioners via the use of a small, inexpensive hose kit and a few cans of Freon (R-12, manufactured by DuPont primarily, as well as a few other chemical companies who paid royalties to DuPont for the privilege of manufacturing their product). Then the CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) known as R-12 were heavily taxed. Then sale was prohibited except in large bulk containers (that conveniently only automotive repair shops could afford to buy). The final phase out was in 1994, when R-12 was deemed illegal to manufacture, although it was made prohibitively expensive much earlier, producing an effective ban on personal use of the product.


Catalytic converters were one significant cause. SO2 was and still is a major contributor to acid rain. Ask the chinese, they're finding out how it works.

The SO2 components of the exhaust from a catalytic converter, caused by the sulfur trapped in the unit combined with the high heat they operate at, is the reason catalytic converters contribute to acid rain. At the same time they were being required (against public sentiment, btw), companies were being cracked down on for releasing SO2. The reason the acid rain scare was dropped was because of the hypocrisy in the government that would be exposed if with one hand they were cracking down on companies that released SO2, while with the other hand they were forcing private citizens to release it.


So the notion was never abandoned like you suggested.

Abandoned from the public perception. You just don't seem to grasp the concept of propaganda. Or, perhaps you do and you just don't like to address it. That's OK, I would try to avoid a subject that made my entire argument look like a dried-out wheel of Swiss cheese too.


Yeah, of course. You were there. Even though the evidence shows there were few studies and a few media reports suggesting global cooling, and many more about global warming, it was some sort of big 'reverse' from the scientists, lol.

So, you are saying that after-the-fact accounts are more reliable than eyewitness reports. Hmmmm.... at least I got the 'lol' I was expecting.


I wuz around in the 70s. But was more worried about The Magic Roundabout, lol.

Not 100% sure what a 'Magic Roundabout' is, but I will assume from context and the name that it is some sort of a children's show. If so, that explains why you have to rely on historical reports: you weren't there in the sense that at that age you didn't know or care what was happening.

And now, in your arrogance, you seem to think that everyone who was there, who saw and understood what was happening, is so beneath you as to be declared memory-impaired? Because what they saw doesn't agree with what you want to be?

Thank you; I do believe you have just shown your true colors here.


And that's all you have. You were there. But the evidence suggests you are wrong. You do know that memory isn't some sort of uncorruptable data disk, but is more a reconstructive phenomena - hence why eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

That's more than you have. You have no direct experience with the events I have described, but somehow you claim to know more about them than I (or anyone else who lived through that time period as more than a small child).

I know how tricky memory can be. But I also know that the corruption from memory is rarely expressed in a complete reversal of what has happened (except in rare cases of severe mental disorder). An eyewitness can remember a black car as being dark blue, or a Chevy as being a Ford... but they will not remember it as a bright yellow semi. The details may become a bit sketchy, but the jist of the experience remains.

Go on, keep reading your reports by activists explaining why they want me to be wrong. In your heart you know as well as I do that I am right, that Global Warming aka Climate Change aka Cap & Trade aka Kyoto is a huge scam being perpetrated on the world's population.

And if you look deeper you might realize that, despite your adherence to the fabricated lines, you are not immune from the same things that will affect us all should this agenda continue: depressed economies, lack of modern conveniences, third-world style poverty, and tyrannical leadership.

On second thought, don't look that deep. You might scare yourself.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The actual ban was in 1994. But I was actually referring to the pre-ban phase-out. You see, in the 1970s, one with a bit of mechanical inclination could recharge their air conditioners via the use of a small, inexpensive hose kit and a few cans of Freon (R-12, manufactured by DuPont primarily, as well as a few other chemical companies who paid royalties to DuPont for the privilege of manufacturing their product). Then the CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) known as R-12 were heavily taxed. Then sale was prohibited except in large bulk containers (that conveniently only automotive repair shops could afford to buy). The final phase out was in 1994, when R-12 was deemed illegal to manufacture, although it was made prohibitively expensive much earlier, producing an effective ban on personal use of the product.


Sound, yeah - but the Montreal protocol had a worldwide ban for 1996. So still nothing to do with any 'new ice age' but rather due to ozone depletion.

Dupont, industry, and RW/libertarian think-tanks responded to the science just like much of the relevant industry has to climate science. Deny and obfuscate. Indeed, even in the late 80s denial was the norm. The more things change, the more they stay the same.


The chairman of DuPont commented that the ozone depletion theory was "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense." (Chemical Week, 16 July 1975). The aerosol industry also launched a PR blitz, issuing a press release stating that the ozone destruction by CFCs was a theory, and not fact. This press release, and many other 'news stories' favorable to industry, were generated by the aerosol industry and printed by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, Business Week, and the London Observer (Blysky and Blysky, 1985). The symbol of Chicken Little claiming that "The sky is falling!" was used with great effect by the PR campaign, and appeared in various newspaper headlines

The CFC industry companies hired the world's largest public relations firm, Hill & Knowlton, who organized a month-long U.S. speaking tour in 1975 for noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution. Scorer blasted Molina and Rowland, calling them "doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing that has been accumulated so far is a number of theories."

...

Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding. - One CFC industry magazine stated in 1975, "The whole area of research grants and the competition among scientists to get them must be considered a factor in the politics of ozone" (Roan, 1985). A publication by the conservative think tank, The Cato Institute, argued that NASA's 1992 warnings of a potential ozone hole opening up over the Northern Hemisphere "were exquisitely timed to bolster the agency's budget requests" (Bailey, 1993).

Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals. - Dr. Fred Singer commented on environmentalists' reaction to Molina and Rowland's work linking CFCs with ozone depletion as follows: "The ecofreaks were ecstatic. At last, an industrial chemical--and produced by big bad DuPont and others of that ilk" (Singer, 1989).

Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage. - Of course, other countries complained that they were unwilling to act until the U.S., the number one manufacturer and emitter of CFCs, showed leadership on the issue and took action first.

Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken. -Between 1974 and 1987, the CFC industry and government officials continually asked for an additional three years for more research. Molina called this tactic, "the sliding three years".

linky

Same players, same game.

Of course, after a lot of whining and crying, Dupont did take advantage of their new products. One of the few things you did get right.


The reason the acid rain scare was dropped was because of the hypocrisy in the government that would be exposed if with one hand they were cracking down on companies that released SO2, while with the other hand they were forcing private citizens to release it.


Wasn't dropped at all.

It is still an issue now.


Abandoned from the public perception. You just don't seem to grasp the concept of propaganda.


Nope, just don't buy that it is propaganda to be concerned about scientifically informed human impacts on the environment.


So, you are saying that after-the-fact accounts are more reliable than eyewitness reports. Hmmmm.... at least I got the 'lol' I was expecting.


The evidence is available. They still have media and scientific papers so we don't have to rely on your biased and flawed memory.

They show that you're just another pawn spouting think-tank BS.


Not 100% sure what a 'Magic Roundabout' is, but I will assume from context and the name that it is some sort of a children's show.


'Twas great.


If so, that explains why you have to rely on historical reports: you weren't there in the sense that at that age you didn't know or care what was happening.


So what? The last few posts show how crap 'you being there' is as a source of information.


And now, in your arrogance, you seem to think that everyone who was there, who saw and understood what was happening, is so beneath you as to be declared memory-impaired? Because what they saw doesn't agree with what you want to be?


lol. Redneck, you have just shown that you being there is not reliable.


That's more than you have. You have no direct experience with the events I have described, but somehow you claim to know more about them than I (or anyone else who lived through that time period as more than a small child).


I didn't even live in the states, so wouldn't have any direct experience of air conditioners in the 1970/80s - we never really needed them in the UK, lol. Oh noes.


Go on, keep reading your reports by activists explaining why they want me to be wrong. In your heart you know as well as I do that I am right, that Global Warming aka Climate Change aka Cap & Trade aka Kyoto is a huge scam being perpetrated on the world's population.


You are an activist - a vicarious one. You are little more than an anti-science pawn in the right-wing deniers game of Delay and Dolittle. History repeating itself - just like for tobacco, just like for ozone, just like now for GHG-induced warming.


And if you look deeper you might realize that, despite your adherence to the fabricated lines


Adherence to science.

Cheers.


[edit on 11-4-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin

DuPont's actions are open for all to research:
  • DuPont patented Freon-12, the prevalent refrigerant used in air conditioning and refrigeration units.

  • DuPont actively supported ozone depletion (which was popularly tied to the "New Ice Age") after working against it for many years.

  • DuPont did this about the same time the final patent lifetime on Freon-12 was about to expire.

  • DuPont released R-134a refrigerant as a newly-patented replacement for Freon-12 about the same time Freon-12 was phased out from public use.


All just coincidence of course...



Wasn't dropped at all.

It is still an issue now.

Oh? Really? how many newspapers are spreading the word about acid rain? How many news stories do we see about acid rain? How many documentaries are being made about acid rain? How many threads on here concern acid rain? In contrast, how many newspaper articles are being published about Global Warming? How many news stories include Global Warming? How many documentaries are shown about Global Warming? (I know for a fact DirectTV now airs an entire channel - "Planet Green", PLGN, Channel 286 - about Global Warming.) How many threads do you see on here about Global Warming?

Is the acid still in the rain? Yes. Is it doing as much damage to forestry as it was in the 70s and 80s? Yes. Are scientists still aware of it? Yes. But it is not being sold to the public.


Nope, just don't buy that it is propaganda to be concerned about scientifically informed human impacts on the environment.

It is propaganda to pick and choose which scientific explanation/solution will be the agenda du jour. I have no beef with scientific discoveries being examined and thoroughly researched, nor would I have a problem with any sufficiently researched conclusion being used to adjust policy. But cherry-picking which problem will be addressed this decade, and what facts are to be accepted and which are to be ignored, and choosing whose research is sound and whose isn't based on nothing more than desired outcomes is indeed propaganda.


The evidence is available. They still have media and scientific papers so we don't have to rely on your biased and flawed memory.

They show that you're just another pawn spouting think-tank BS.

And all of these papers and media are subject to being amended to portray history the way those who control said media wish it to be portrayed. It's called 'spin'. I am sure everyone here is familiar with 'spin' from watching Faux News; they are experts at taking a story and making it portray whatever political agenda happens to be convenient at the time.

My memory may not be perfect, but it certainly works better than edited papers designed to revise history.

I guess I should thank you for the compliment. At one time, your tactic was to attempt to denigrate me as someone who was incapable of simple thought outside of your stereotyping. Now you compare me to a think tank. I must be gaining neurons by leaps and bounds.




And now, in your arrogance, you seem to think that everyone who was there, who saw and understood what was happening, is so beneath you as to be declared memory-impaired? Because what they saw doesn't agree with what you want to be?


lol. Redneck, you have just shown that you being there is not reliable.

You wanna explain this? You just responded to a challenge to your logic with a quick dismissal that doesn't even acknowledge the challenge.

Maybe these neurons I found are really yours? You're not leaking brain cells are you?



I didn't even live in the states, so wouldn't have any direct experience of air conditioners in the 1970/80s - we never really needed them in the UK, lol.

Ah, but the great and all-knowing Melatonin, omniscient master of all climate, still knows more about the situation than even those who saw it first-hand.

Yeah, right.



You are an activist - a vicarious one. You are little more than an anti-science pawn in the right-wing deniers game of Delay and Dolittle. History repeating itself - just like for tobacco, just like for ozone, just like now for GHG-induced warming.

Activist... possibly, since I am actively debating you (and others) as to the true purpose of Global Warming. But by that definition, you are also an activist. Pot calling the kettle black?

Anti-science.... hmmm.... would you like to show me anywhere on ATS that I have dismissed science out of hand? I have questioned the methods (part of the scientific method), I have questioned the results (part of the scientific method), and I have questioned the motives of those involved (part of common sense). You, on the other hand, believe that volcanoes cannot melt ice; oh, no, it takes CO2 to do that! You have denied that water contains more heat per degree than air, therefore making it easier for warm water to melt ice than warm air. You have denied that ice flows from the bottom and not the top of the glacier, accepted and proven principles from ages ago. Heck, you have even dismissed latent heat calculations out of hand!

When you call me anti-science, I think about all of these things, and I am coming to the conclusion that I should be taking that as a compliment as well. Because you, sir, apparently believe science includes nothing that could ever disagree with Hansen or Gore (I think I'll start calling it 'Hanscience'
). So if I am anti-Hanscience in that respect, it means I am actually more scientific than you or any of your 'heroes'.

Yeah, that's a compliment. Thank you!

TheRedneck


[edit on 4/11/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
  • DuPont actively supported ozone depletion (which was popularly tied to the "New Ice Age") after working against it for many years.


  • No. Dupont denied that CFCs were causing ozone depletion well into the 1980s. Only around 1990 did they start accepting the science and eventually became a prime mover - essentially when they knew it was in their favour. The denial was associated with the same methods we are seeing now by the likes of you and your puppet masters.

    And ozone depletion was not popularly tied to 'new ice age'. That was associated with aerosols (SO2, dust etc).



    Oh? Really? how many newspapers are spreading the word about acid rain? How many news stories do we see about acid rain?



    Report on Acid Rain Finds Good News and Bad News
    By CAROL KAESUK YOON
    Published: Thursday, October 7, 1999

    the last two decades, countries in northern Europe and North America have been enacting regulations to reduce smokestack emissions of sulfur in an effort to curb acid rain and its harmful effect on the environment.



    Metro Briefing | New York: Albany: Monitoring For Acid Rain

    ANTHONY DEPALMA; COMPILED BY JOHN SULLIVAN
    Published: June 5, 2007
    Officials with the Adirondack Council, an environmental group, are lobbying to reverse planned reductions in the federal budget that would severely limit or eliminate several acid rain monitoring programs.



    Metro Briefing | New York: Albany: Acid Rain Rules Go Into Effect
    By Kirk Semple (NYT); Compiled by George James
    Published: Wednesday, August 18, 2004

    state has decided to enact the acid rain rules that a New York judge threw out in May, arguing that further delay would endanger public health and the state's natural resources...



    Beyond Carbon: Scientists Worry About Nitrogen’s Effects

    By RICHARD MORGAN
    Published: September 1, 2008

    ...

    “The nitrogen dilemma,” Dr. Vitousek added, “is not just thinking that carbon is all that matters. But also thinking that global warming is the only environmental issue. The weakening of biodiversity, the pollution of rivers, these are local issues that need local attention. Smog. Acid rain. Coasts. Forests. It’s all nitrogen.”



    Editorial
    A Major Setback for Clean Air

    July 16, 2008

    ...

    The 2005 rule was aimed at sharply reducing power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide, which creates acid rain, and nitrogen oxides, which create smog. The government estimated that cutting those emissions could help prevent 17,000 premature deaths annually by 2015. The rule covered emissions in 28 states east of the Mississippi River. It was aimed at pollution that blows eastward from coal-fired power plants in the Midwest, threatening not only human health but the environment — in New York’s case, the streams and forests of the Adirondacks.



    Acid Rain's National Reach
    Published: Saturday, April 10, 1999

    people think of the ravages of acid rain, they tend to think mainly of dead and dying watersheds in the Northeastern United States, particularly those in New York's Adirondack Mountains, where hundreds of highly acidified lakes and streams can no longer sustain aquatic life. But an exhaustive Federal study has now concluded that acid rain has spread its poisons far and wide, damaging sensitive watersheds in the Southeastern United States and in ecologically significant areas of the West like the Sierra Nevada, the Cascade Range and some parts of the Rocky Mountains.



    State Closes Coal-Fired Plant That Failed to Limit Emissions
    LISA W. FODERARO
    Published: May 11, 2007

    STONY POINT, N.Y., May 10 — Four years ago, a company that owns two local power plants settled a lawsuit with New York State by agreeing to install $100 million worth of pollution control technology at one of them, its coal-fired plant here, or shut it down.

    ...

    The emissions from the 350-megawatt Lovett plant are linked to acid rain and smog. At the time of the settlement, state environmental officials said the emissions from Lovett alone, which looms over the west bank of the Hudson River, represented a quarter of the sulfur dioxide and almost a third of the nitrogen oxide released by electric generators in seven counties in the Hudson Valley.



    The Forest That Stopped Growing: Trail Is Traced to Acid Rain
    By WILLIAM K. STEVENS
    Published: Tuesday, April 16, 1996

    In the first long-term study of its kind, researchers have found that a New England forest whose soil chemistry has been altered by acid rain essentially stopped growing nearly a decade ago and will probably be a long time in recovering.


    That's as much as I can be bothered from the NYT. From new scientist...


    Fred's Footprint: The cost of cleaner air

    Catalytic converters filter our pollutants from exhausts using two metals: palladium and platinum. World demand for both has soared as a result, with catalytic converters taking almost half of current product from mines.

    Most of the palladium comes from Siberian mines and is refined at the world?s biggest, and most notoriously polluting, metals smelters at a godforsaken spot called Norilsk, a closed Russian city on the edge of the Arctic Circle.

    The Norilsk smelters are the biggest concentrated source of sulphur dioxide pollution on the planet.

    Sulphur dioxide makes acid rain. And for hundreds of kilometres round Norilsk, the trees of the tundra are dead because of the acid fallout. In effect we are destroying huge areas of Arctic tundra with acid rain, so the rest of the world can keep its city air clean.



    Oceans not safe from acid rain
    05 September 2007

    EVEN the oceans aren't safe from acid rain. Acidification of the upper layers of the planet's oceans has become a concern as the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rises, increasing the amount that the oceans absorb. But the impact of nitric oxide and sulphuric acid from the burning of fossil fuels has been neglected, says Scott Doney of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who led a team that modelled the fate of these emissions.



    Dirty ships evade acid rain controls
    22 June 1996 by Michael Bond
    Magazine issue 2035
    THE world is waking up to a new acid rain threat. Sulphur pollution from ships is increasing so dramatically that it could soon cancel out the improvements made by cutting emissions from power stations and other land-based sources.



    Science : Lightning sharpens acid rain's bite
    31 May 1997 by Vincent Kiernan
    Magazine issue 2084
    Washington DC

    IT'S not just milk that turns sour when lightning strikes. A geologist in Athens, Georgia, has found that acid rain becomes nastier during thunderstorms, when lightning generates reactive chemicals that speed up acid production in the atmosphere.



    Science : Toxic chemistry turns air acid
    03 May 1997 by Andy Coghlan
    Magazine issue 2080
    SULPHURIC acid forms much more easily in the atmosphere than expected, say chemists in Britain. This suggests that the atmosphere may become acidic enough to damage the environment even when the air is too dry for rain.



    Raining acid on Asia - As clouds of polluting gas drift in from China's power stations, Japan will have to help its neighbour install greener technologies or suffer the economic and environmental consequences
    15 February 1997 by Peter Hadfield
    Magazine issue 2069



    Acid attack
    25 April 1998 by Michael Brooke
    Magazine issue 2131
    ACID rain has progressively thinned the shells of eggs laid by British thrushes over the past 150 years, a new study suggests. Ornithologists fear that the trend could make thrush eggs less likely to hatch.


    Bored with new scientist, now sciencedaily...


    Airborne Acid May Help Soot Turn Into Cloud Seeds
    ScienceDaily (Mar. 28, 2009) — Carbon soot aerosols from combustion of fossil fuels and forest fires directly influence the Earth-atmosphere heat balance by absorbing sunlight. Fresh soot particles repel water and hence have little effect on properties and lifetimes of clouds.

    ...

    Because sulfuric acid, a pollutant and the driving agent in acid rain, is increasing in the atmosphere due to industrial activities, the authors expect that this mechanism of water absorption by acid-coated soot significantly influences cloud formation.



    Acid Rain Reduces Methane Emissions From Rice Paddies
    ScienceDaily (Aug. 7, 2008) — Acid rain from atmospheric pollution can reduce methane emissions from rice paddies by up to 24 per cent according to research led by Dr Vincent Gauci of The Open University. This is potentially a beneficial side effect of the high pollution levels



    Climate Change Set Back For Acidified Rivers
    ScienceDaily (Dec. 5, 2008) — Climate change is hampering the long-term recovery of rivers from the effects of acid rain, with wet weather offsetting improvements, according to a new study by Cardiff University.



    Database Shows Effects Of Acid Rain On Microorganisms In Adirondack Lakes
    ScienceDaily (June 27, 2008) — Prior to the federal Clean Air Act, unhindered industrial emissions were released into the air throughout the Midwestern and Eastern United States for decades. Many of those harmful chemicals came right back down to earth in the form of acid rain, a chemical concoction that includes nitric and sulfuric acid.


    I'm bored now.

    So your suggestion that it has in any way been abandoned is just complete tripe and piffle. The point is that most of the developed world introduced legislation in the 1990s to ameliorate the effects of sulphur and nitrogen emissions.


    [edit on 11-4-2009 by melatonin]



    posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 10:44 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by TheRedneck
    It is propaganda to pick and choose which scientific explanation/solution will be the agenda du jour. I have no beef with scientific discoveries being examined and thoroughly researched, nor would I have a problem with any sufficiently researched conclusion being used to adjust policy. But cherry-picking which problem will be addressed this decade, and what facts are to be accepted and which are to be ignored, and choosing whose research is sound and whose isn't based on nothing more than desired outcomes is indeed propaganda.


    You're not a sceptic, redneck. You're a pseudosceptic with anti-science syndrome driven by your ideological biases. The fact you fall so readily into policy and politics shows this clearly.

    You are arguing from political and economic consequences.


    And all of these papers and media are subject to being amended to portray history the way those who control said media wish it to be portrayed.


    Yeah, of course, lol. In some grand conspiracy people went back to the historical media and scientific papers to change the past, lol.

    That's very funny.


    Now you compare me to a think tank. I must be gaining neurons by leaps and bounds.


    Not really, you're just a minor pawn in their game.


    You wanna explain this? You just responded to a challenge to your logic with a quick dismissal that doesn't even acknowledge the challenge.


    What? You mean that inane challenge you posed, lol. I would have to be an idiot to accept it.

    It's pretty clear. You presented some fantastical timeline about Dupont and Freon associated with new ice ages in the 1970s (when it was about ozone depletion and restriction really happened in the 1980/90s, and global cooling was related to aerosols emissions which was a minor scientific position in the 70s),


    1970s: concerns about the coming "New Ice Age" are propagandized and spoon-fed to the public. The result is that certain chemicals are outlawed, among them the refrigerant used in air conditioning units. Coincidentally, the patent held by DuPont on said refrigerant is about to expire. A new refrigerant that is deemed harmless to the atmosphere is then patented by DuPont, extending their patent protection over refrigerants for two patent life-spans.


    Wrong.

    And then some BS about acid rain and catalytic converters and how that forced abandonment of robust science in the 1980s, when clean air acts to act on the problem were being introduced in the 1970s and 1990s in the US.


    1980s: the concern then moves to acid rain. News stories and 'documentaries' are published on a regular basis showcasing how terrible the destruction of the forests via sulfuric acid in rainwater is, and warning of a day when standing in a rain shower could be deadly to human life. This was abandoned shortly after some chemists stood up and announced that the largest contributor to acid rain was the use of the catalytic converter, mandated by government.


    You being there was no reliable insight.


    Ah, but the great and all-knowing Melatonin, omniscient master of all climate, still knows more about the situation than even those who saw it first-hand.

    Yeah, right.


    It appears so.


    Activist... possibly, since I am actively debating you (and others) as to the true purpose of Global Warming. But by that definition, you are also an activist. Pot calling the kettle black?


    I agree. A voluntary activist for science in response to anti-science and pseudoscience.


    Anti-science.... hmmm.... would you like to show me anywhere on ATS that I have dismissed science out of hand?


    You are not a sceptic. You are a pseudosceptic arguing from ideology, it is clear as day to me.


    Because you, sir, apparently believe science includes nothing that could ever disagree with Hansen or Gore (I think I'll start calling it 'Hanscience'
    ). So if I am anti-Hanscience in that respect, it means I am actually more scientific than you or any of your 'heroes'.


    Nope, I'm quite open to disagreeing with both of them, and have done/do.

    [edit on 11-4-2009 by melatonin]



    posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 11:03 AM
    link   
    reply to post by melatonin

    A quick count had the number of examples at 17, spanning a period of 11 years (1997-2008). I could give you 17 articles on Global Warming covering a single day's time span!

    Nice try though. I would give the examples, but apparently I'm not as bored as you are.


    As to who is being 'scientific' and who isn't, well, we're not ever going to agree on this. Obviously we both have agendas. Mine is to combat the fabrication and propaganda I see around me, all the way from re-writing history to ignoring possible explanations for phenomena out of hand. Yours? Well, obviously it is to promote Global Warming.

    Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. When that judgment comes down, I will be right here, ready to accept it. You will no doubt be running around screaming about the sky falling from whatever cause has struck your fancy that year.

    Must be a lot of fun to run around in circles screaming doom... enjoy it. I have a control circuit board to lay out (5 of them, actually). I'll try to check back in later on as I have time.

    TheRedneck



    posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 11:19 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by TheRedneck
    reply to post by melatonin

    A quick count had the number of examples at 17, spanning a period of 11 years (1997-2008). I could give you 17 articles on Global Warming covering a single day's time span!


    That's all I could be bothered looking for. If you want to, spend more time. The point was that your claim that anything was abandoned due to catalytic converters was tripe.


    Nice try though. I would give the examples, but apparently I'm not as bored as you are.


    No, no. I love research. But I tend to only give the effort it deserves.


    You will no doubt be running around screaming about the sky falling from whatever cause has struck your fancy that year.

    Must be a lot of fun to run around in circles screaming doom... enjoy it. I have a control circuit board to lay out (5 of them, actually). I'll try to check back in later on as I have time.


    And that's exactly what the deniers said in the 1980s about CFCs and ozone, lol.

    Have fun with your electronics. Are you an engineer? lol. Read a great article from Pascal Boyer about engineers and crankism t'other day.

    [edit on 11-4-2009 by melatonin]



    posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 11:41 AM
    link   
    Thanks for all your research and links and stuff, guys!

    I think we all want clean air and water, food and somewhere
    safe to live.....I hope. Thanks again!



    posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 12:11 PM
    link   
    reply to post by melatonin
     


    you quote a few articles, two of which have GW in their headlines and use CC as a means to avoid repetition. what is this supposed to prove? where is your 22mn number coming from and if correct, wouldn't it constitute an miniscule minority?

    what are you really going to try to prove? that 22mn people used CC while the rest used GW? absurd and pointless. so many fallacies built into one, it's mind boggling. GW was everywhere, it was the primary moniker ever since GW 'went gold'. every reader can verify that, and if not, you s/he can clearyly see the resistance against the term today. it wasn't that long ago and your insistence on sideshows casts a very hard and bright light on your modus operandi.




    Because it is still a relevant term. The long-term trend will be warming from anthropogenic influences.


    let me guess... 2100AD. could have sworn there was a time when 2050 was far enough away in the future.



    If you have evidence of


    why is the term being shunned today? evidence isn't the same as proof btw.


    Not really, I was focusing on your exact words.


    trying to remain as polite as is defensible, i suggest you focus on the issue at hand and related topics rather than nitpicking about guesstimates of forum posters' ages and what you can interpret into their phrases.



    posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 12:26 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Long Lance
    you quote a few articles, two of which have GW in their headlines and use CC as a means to avoid repetition. what is this supposed to prove? where is your 22mn number coming from and if correct, wouldn't it constitute an miniscule minority?


    lol, I just made the number up. Wasn't that obvious?

    It was a silly question which deserved a silly answer.

    So, what the articles show is that climate change is not a new term. Both global warming and climate change have been used for decades and often interchangeably. And so your claim was more piffle.

    So far I've seen three deniers in this thread, and one common strand is the tendency for fantasy, piffle, and wishful-thinking.




    Because it is still a relevant term. The long-term trend will be warming from anthropogenic influences.


    let me guess... 2100AD. could have sworn there was a time when 2050 was far enough away in the future.


    Nope, I'm sure warming will kick off again soon enough. There are numerous factors that underpin climate, and one of them is the anthropogenic forcing, it isn't going away any time soon.


    why is the term being shunned today? evidence isn't the same as proof btw.


    It isn't. A science daily search of the term 'global warming' for the last year brings up 1,549 articles. I'm sure not all are relevant, but even if 50% are, then that's over 700 articles.

    No shunning.

    ABE: a similar 'global warming' search for the NYT brings up over 10,000 articles in the past year; for the grauniad, 384 so far in 2009, and 117 in the last 30 days.


    trying to remain as polite as is defensible, i suggest you focus on the issue at hand and related topics rather than nitpicking about guesstimates of forum posters' ages and what you can interpret into their phrases.


    lol, was a minor irrelevant passing comment. Get over yourself.

    [edit on 11-4-2009 by melatonin]



    posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 06:06 PM
    link   
    reply to post by melatonin

    That's all I could be bothered looking for. If you want to, spend more time. The point was that your claim that anything was abandoned due to catalytic converters was tripe.

    Really? You really should get your facts straight Mel. From your post to Lance on the number of GW articles published:

    Originally posted by melatonin

    A science daily search of the term 'global warming' for the last year brings up 1,549 articles. I'm sure not all are relevant, but even if 50% are, then that's over 700 articles.

    And yet, 17 articles over a 11-year span is equivalent to that. Perhaps you need to have some math books rewritten like 1970s history was to make that argument fly.

    Oh, yes, and I just have to bring this up (from the same reply to Lance):

    Originally posted by melatonin

    lol, I just made the number up. Wasn't that obvious?

    Shades of the IPCC! It's contagious!



    And that's exactly what the deniers said in the 1980s about CFCs and ozone, lol.

    Yeah, and the ozone 'hole' was later proven to be a natural phenomena that exists due to the geographic location (South Pole).


    Are you an engineer?

    On, heavens no! I'm a redneck, a denier, a pawn of the oil companies, a oil company executive, a bigot, a racist, a Nazi, a liberal wussy, and a pseudo-scientist. Don't you remember?


    TheRedneck
    P.S.: Oh, yes, almost forgot... I also ran the Spanish Inquisition.



    posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 07:44 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by TheRedneck
    And yet, 17 articles over a 11-year span is equivalent to that. Perhaps you need to have some math books rewritten like 1970s history was to make that argument fly.


    Who's talking about equivalence? You stated the acid rain had been abandoned or something due to catalytic converters. Whereas, Lance was talking about some form of 'shunning' of the term 'global warming'.

    The only commonality is that both claims are so transparently wrong.


    Shades of the IPCC! It's contagious!


    That comment would futher verify your anti-science syndrome.


    Yeah, and the ozone 'hole' was later proven to be a natural phenomena that exists due to the geographic location (South Pole).


    Ozone depletion by CFCs is a very real phenomena.


    On, heavens no! I'm a redneck, a denier, a pawn of the oil companies, a oil company executive, a bigot, a racist, a Nazi, a liberal wussy, and a pseudo-scientist. Don't you remember?


    lol, liberal? Not likely.



    posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 10:15 PM
    link   
    reply to post by melatonin

    Who's talking about equivalence?

    That was me. You can find that out by looking to the left.


    What I stated was that the acid rain issue was minimalized in the public media, due to (or at least coincidentally at the same time as) the realization and exposure that catalytic converters (due to their SO2 output, so you don't confuse that issue again) were a major contributor. In that respect, you began to argue that there had been no minimalization in the public media. Yet, you managed to pull 17 articles from an 11-year span on acid rain, while simultaneously bragging to Lance about 10,000 articles in the past year alone for just the NY Times. I would say that indicates that any major public campaign to press the dangers of acid rain is taking a serious back seat to other climate issues, wouldn't you?

    Silly me, of course you wouldn't. But I still would.



    That comment would futher verify your anti-science syndrome.

    Oh, I forgot! It is heresy to even question the IPCC, even when their thermometers are found next to A/C exhausts or located over large areas of heat absorbing concrete, or even when they are caught falsifying data. But apparently it is perfectly fine to

    Originally posted by melatonin

    lol, I just made the number up. Wasn't that obvious?

    Silly me!



    Ozone depletion by CFCs is a very real phenomena.

    It certainly is. CFC's act as a catalyst to break O3 into O2, meaning they are not used up in the process and can continue to cause the reaction until they do (eventually) break down themselves.

    But the other side of the equation is that O2 transforms itself into O3 in the presence of certain frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. In other words, while the CFCs are busily depleting ozone, the sun is busily creating it (and the rate is inversely a function of the percentage of O3 to O2). In the long run, is it wise to regulate CFCs? Yes. Is the release of CFCs going to ever completely remove ozone from the upper atmosphere? Nope.

    A lot of hysteria over a real issue which was only addressed in order to profit a company's bottom line.

    Wow, did anyone else get this de-ja-vu feeling?



    lol, liberal? Not likely.

    Yeah, I have been told before I was way too liberal. Amazing how some people seem to think they know me, isn't it? I mean, people actually decide I am a denier or a... wait, that was you!


    TheRedneck



    posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 04:17 AM
    link   
    May I ask, both Melatonin and RedNeck....I am actually interested in this subject, but I have a very hard time reading the various posts, as they are chopped up....

    I say this from the standpoint of, slight 'awe', and slight 'confusion'....the 'awe' because I have no idea how to do the quotes....and the 'confusion' because the excessive use of 'quotes' just makes it very hard for others (meaning ME) to comprehend.

    Don't want to seem personally offended...because, really, your personal differences aren't my concern....I mean, when the discussions start to be taken down into the "break-down" of a sentence-by-sentence dissertation, well...it tends to become a personal diatribe that is best suited to a U2U instead of a back-and-forth in an open Forum.

    Sorry for my opinion.....didn't want to blurt in to other Member's discussions....just wanted to provide my opinion....



    posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:52 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by TheRedneck
    reply to post by melatonin

    Who's talking about equivalence?

    That was me. You can find that out by looking to the left.


    Oh, OK. If you're shifting goalposts, fine.

    Yes, acid rain is not as big an issue as it once was in the developed world. Predominately because most of the developed world have introduced legislation to ameliorate the impact of the associated emissions - and the legislation has been pretty successful (less than half SO2 2007 cf. 1970)

    That's a different question from being abandoned as a result of catalytic converters.

    Whereas, AGW has been a growing issue, with the evidence consolidating and pressure on some sort of real action increasing. So on one side we have an issue which has attracted legislation and has somewhat waned in importance but not abandoned (acid rain), and another that has been of growing importance but has attracted pretty poor response and mainly lip-service.


    What I stated was that the acid rain issue was minimalized in the public media, due to (or at least coincidentally at the same time as) the realization and exposure that catalytic converters (due to their SO2 output, so you don't confuse that issue again) were a major contributor


    No confusion.


    In that respect, you began to argue that there had been no minimalization in the public media. Yet, you managed to pull 17 articles from an 11-year span on acid rain, while simultaneously bragging to Lance about 10,000 articles in the past year alone for just the NY Times. I would say that indicates that any major public campaign to press the dangers of acid rain is taking a serious back seat to other climate issues, wouldn't you?


    Nope, I'm not buying your shift of goalpost, redneck. They are essentially different sets of data. In one I presented individual articles, in the other just a number of potentially relevant articles. I could have done the same for each, but for Lance, he suggested that the term 'global warming' had been shunned, so I went for the big number effect - mainly because I just couldn't be bothered copying and pasting individual articles. Acid rain being abandoned just required existence of articles still discussing the problem.

    A one year NYT search brings up a potential 10,000+ articles for 'acid rain' as well...

    query.nytimes.com...

    However, I agree that acid rain is not discussed as much as it once was, that's mainly because controls have been introduced and they are gradually reducing emissions of the relevant compounds. But the problem has never been abandoned. Earlier...


    This was abandoned shortly after some chemists stood up and announced that the largest contributor to acid rain was the use of the catalytic converter, mandated by government.


    Your claim was of something being abandoned, nothing about comparison to global warming or minimilisation. It is still a very real issue. However, as pointed out, we have introduced controls to help ameliorate its effects.

    Now, on the second claim, that is also wrong. The largest contributor to acid rain is not catalytic converters - it is a significant source. There's a difference between pulling assertions from your colon and presenting supporting evidence, and that's at least one positive for electricuniverse, at least he tried to present something that he thought supported his assertions (of course, they didn't, but a deserved cookie for trying).



    www.epa.gov...

    And more details are available in the top excel file here.

    For the US, In 1970 SO2 from highway vehicles was around 270,000 short tons, from electric utilities it was around 17,000,000 short tons. In 1991, it was 400,000 for highway vehicles, 15,000,000 from electric utilities. In 2007 it was 91,000 for highway vehicles and 9,000,000 from electric utilities.

    In summary (US; total SO2 emissions):

    1970: Highway vehicles 0.87%; electric utilities 55%.
    1991: Highway vehicles 2%; electric utilities 70%
    2007: Highway vehicles 0.7%; electric utilities 69%

    The Acid rain issue was never abandoned due to catalytic converters, and catalytic converters have never been the largest contributor to acid rain.

    If you have evidence rather than gut feelings, spit it.


    Oh, I forgot! It is heresy to even question the IPCC, even when their thermometers are found next to A/C exhausts or located over large areas of heat absorbing concrete, or even when they are caught falsifying data.


    The IPCC produce no data. You're just trying to vilify a bogeyman. The IPCC use data from elsewhere to produce a summary of the scientific position.



    Ozone depletion by CFCs is a very real phenomena.

    It certainly is....

    In the long run, is it wise to regulate CFCs? Yes.


    Cool. Lucky that people ignored the whines from right-wing think tanks and industry then.


    A lot of hysteria over a real issue which was only addressed in order to profit a company's bottom line.


    lol. It's almost like tourettes for you.


    Yeah, I have been told before I was way too liberal. Amazing how some people seem to think they know me, isn't it? I mean, people actually decide I am a denier or a... wait, that was you!


    Nah, you'd be best described as a conservative with strong libertarian leanings. It's pretty obvious.

    [edit on 12-4-2009 by melatonin]



    posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:01 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by weedwhacker
    May I ask, both Melatonin and RedNeck....I am actually interested in this subject, but I have a very hard time reading the various posts, as they are chopped up....

    I say this from the standpoint of, slight 'awe', and slight 'confusion'....the 'awe' because I have no idea how to do the quotes....and the 'confusion' because the excessive use of 'quotes' just makes it very hard for others (meaning ME) to comprehend.


    It can be a problem if they are cut up into overly numerous really short chunks, but the idea is to present a post of question-answer, call-response, lol. The alternative is to present a large block of text with little clear association to the relevant questions/issues from the other poster - that is even more like pulling needles from haystacks.

    It's quicker and easier to respond in a Q-A format. It is also better to read a response, as it is very clear as to what is the response to a particular issue/question.


    it tends to become a personal diatribe that is best suited to a U2U instead of a back-and-forth in an open Forum.


    Perhaps. But I actually don't mind redneck. He is a pseudsceptic pawn discussing from his gut, but, hey, no-one's perfect, lol. I actually felt a bit sorry for him when he replied here, last time we crossed swords was a bit of a mess for him as well.

    However, the discussion was really over a few posts ago, apart from attempts to shift goalposts to rerepresent their incorrect assertions in some more acceptable format. It's a rather intellectually dishonest approach, of course.

    [edit on 12-4-2009 by melatonin]



    posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:33 AM
    link   
    Climate change is big business now. Lots of the Global Warming crowd are cashing in, including our new President. Al Gore will benifit directly from the sale of carbon credits. You should be happy, earth lovers. Your heroes have moved in and claimed their stake.
    You've won! No way are they going to lose money without a fight now. Hurrah for the Earth!

    /sarcasm

    Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange--the rest of the story



    new topics

    top topics



     
    5
    << 1  2  3    5  6 >>

    log in

    join