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.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Typically, especially with my esteemed opponent here, the topic tends to shift from one aspect to another... I think it is akin to the difficulties of hitting a moving target. Allow me to take this opportunity to clarify my position:
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)
Source: www.chinadaily.com.cn...
May 28, 2008
Eight out of every 10 rainfalls in Guangzhou, capital of Guangdong province, last year was classified as acid rain.
The city suffered from the worst acid rain of any in the province, the Guangdong provincial environmental protection bureau said. Altogether, two-thirds of Guangdong's 21 cities were affected.
Source: discovermagazine.com...
December 21, 2007
Human-generated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is slowly acidifying the ocean, threatening a catastrophic impact on marine life. And just as scientists are starting to grasp the magnitude of the problem, researchers have delivered more bad news: Acid rain is making things worse.
Source: dsc.discovery.com...
May 30, 2008
Acid rain may seem, like, so 1980s, but the problem has not gone away.
Researchers reported this week that soils throughout the Northeast are continuing to acidify, despite a 50 percent decrease in acid rain since the peak in 1973.
That's a different question from being abandoned as a result of catalytic converters.
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.
Originally posted by melatonin
Lance was talking about some form of 'shunning' of the term 'global warming'.
Shades of the IPCC! It's contagious!
That comment would futher verify your anti-science syndrome.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
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....
But all of this is unsurprising politics. One of the several points that I did not know about and that truly shocked me was the case of Mt. Erebus on Ross Island in the Ross Sea in Antarctica. It is an active volcano that has three stunning properties:
Unlike ordinary volcanoes, which erupt from time to time, this one is active in a continuous eruption all the time;
it spews out more than 1,000 tonnes of chlorine per day¾ that's right, not per year (which would be about 370,000 tonnes), but per day, whence the antarctic jet stream carries it into the stratosphere;
it is located 15 km upwind from the observation station in the McMurdo Sound, where scientists measure the chlorine concen-tration of the antarctic atmosphere, the very chlorine that, the ozone flacks claim, provides the "link" to CFCs and the ozone hole.
Your first reaction to all this is probably the same as mine:
"I don't believe it." But the authors give good references...
A stable or downward trend in UV-B radiation reaching the earth is observed for all eight measuring stations.
It was shut down in 1985-6, that's what. Too expensive, went the official explanation by the government that is spending $7.5 billion on the Supercollider. More likely, the data brought in by the pro-gram were too embarrassing. Although the Greens rarely pay attention to facts, these data did disturb them, and they attributed the decrease to pollution in the cities, where the data were taken (Bis-marck N.D., Tallahassee, Fla., and Albuquerque, N.M. polluted?) J. Scotto, a widely respected researcher at the National Cancer In-stitute, refuted this in Science of 11/25/89, pointing to the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii which is hardly in a polluted area, yet registered no increase in UV-B from 1974 to 1985.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
The acid rain problem is far from over:
Perhaps 'abandoned' was a bit of a stretch, but 'severely curtailed' would be just as damning to those who control the media and more accurate. The point is not that nary a word was ever uttered in the 21st century concerning the topic, but that the media circus was curtailed to the point that many younger people today are not even aware of acid rain, as compared to the old days when it was impossible to not hear of it... just like Global Warming today.
I must admit, you are very good at focusing on a tree when I start to describe a forest.
That was all I have been saying, Mel. You can keep trying to fish some argument out of semantics all you want, but as Weed aptly pointed out, it is nothing more than obfuscation of the actual issue.
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.
I now await your reasoning on this simple question of "Why?"
Originally posted by Long Lance
uh oh watch the news and verify for yourself which term is currently dominating and how relative use changes with concurrent weather patterns.
the IPCC is first and foremost a political organisation, even if it was primarily scientific (like a university should be, for example) critizising it wouldn't make me an opponent of science just that particular organisation. one might even oppose one more theories and remain open to science as a concept.
SO2? are you sure you it wasn't NO2 or NOx? just asking because the fuel's sulphur content is the only source of S02 i can think of whereas nitrogen is readily available in air.
Originally posted by melatonin
Originally posted by Long Lance
uh oh watch the news and verify for yourself which term is currently dominating and how relative use changes with concurrent weather patterns.
Evidence?
Nope, the claim that data was being falsified was sufficient. It's a strong claim that shows ideology speaking. Making errors and falsifying data are different things. And I'm sure as evidence you'll present people making errors.
Errors happen. But to extend that to intentional falsification just shows your motivation rather than anything about Hansen, GISS, or the IPCC.
SO2? are you sure you it wasn't NO2 or NOx? just asking because
SO2 from cars is an issue. However, one of the emissions from cars is NOx. Which catalytic converters reduce.
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).
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.
Cool. Lucky that people ignored the whines from right-wing think tanks and industry then.
Nah, you'd be best described as a conservative with strong libertarian leanings. It's pretty obvious.
Not really. I just take your words and work with them. That's all I have. You provide no real evidence for me to verify or clarify your claims, just your words.
At no point have you even bothered to provide evidence, just a reliance on your memory - the same memory that conflated global cooling and CFCs, lol.
In 1990s major legislation was introduced to ameliorate its effects - cap and trade, lol. I've stated it a few times now. It's the same reason we hear less about ozone depletion. Action has been taken so attention moves elsewhere. But in both cases, the issue is still real.
SO2? are you sure you it wasn't NO2 or NOx? just asking because the fuel's sulphur content is the only source of S02 i can think of whereas nitrogen is readily available in air.
Originally posted by Long Lance
watch the news, that's all i can say, i severely doubt they have a statistic on words they use more or less. again i am not talking about scientific papers, i'm talking the media.
no, the claim may be right or it may be wrong, you don't know why someone would believe that and i for one find it hard to believe that someone would somehow overlook discontinuities in a temperature curve.
if that can 'slip through' then i have to wonder what can't
Originally posted by TheRedneck
As I said before, that is a very pretty graph. Where did you find it? It's not included in the link you gave.
According to this data, you are correct that SO2 emissions from highway vehicles are a minor contributor to the sulfuric acid content of acidified rainwater. I am not yet ready, however, to accept this information as factual.
The IPCC is a scientific (*cough* *cough*) collection agency for data from different countries, as well as a political entity that recommends policy changes based on that data. Therefore it is inherently their responsibility to ensure that data received is accurate.
Yes, you do. You take my words and try to twist them into saying something I did not intend to say. But that's OK; I have come to expect such from you. It is a tactic you appear to have mastered; my congratulations.
And in a general response to your assertion that I continually change the subject, this is exactly why.
(Just so you don't try to make this out as something it isn't, what I am stating is that my 'unsupported' statements are things I have known and worked with for years, and thus I see no need to continually verify with outside sources something that has shown itself to be a fact over time.)
Action has indeed been taken, and it has not resolved the issue, as my sources revealed.
Originally posted by melatonin
Again, reverting to intentional dishonesty with no evidence just shows their own ideological biases.
...
And then an attempt to cast doubt on the wider science due to minor errors, lol. Yet we have to take your word for some form of shunning of a term that is still in common use.
You see, the anti-science pseudoscepticism is in the method.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by melatonin
Oh boy, so once more we have nothing more than responses from someone who just gives "lol" as a response, and claims the evidence presented against his undying myth does not prove anything...
Originally posted by Long Lance
it's certainly not a minor error to attirbute the hottest season to the year 1998 when it later turned out to be 1934, when lots of political clout depends on such data.
The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6). This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century. In both cases the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree. The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.
Originally posted by Long Lance
a lot has happened due to these alledged facts which were presented and these consequences weren't minor either.
Originally posted by melatonin
The data from one area of the globe needed slight correction, this was a result of a switch to an updated data set. It changed nothing of note. At a global level, 1998 is still the warmest for Hadley-CRU and 2005 for GISS.
These things happen, but to paint it as intentional falsification speaks more to that person's motivations than anything else.
Originally posted by Long Lance
did they talk about about these minor differences when 1934 was in 2nd place?
they did not and the reasons are clear. data is apparently just means to an end.
which end?
he has reason to laugh, i think, because he believes to be among the winners.
Originally posted by melatonin
You presented evidence of volcanoes.
Well done.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I presented research which shows the increase volcanic activity is the main cause of the warming in the Arctic, and not atmospheric warming, as well as the volcanic/magmatic activity being the cause for the melting of glaciers...
Stop with your dismissing evidence because it disagrees with your Religious belief in Global Warming...
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Not really, it is clear by now your ego is bigger than the universe, and you dismiss any, and every evidence with your "lols" and claims that the evidence presented does not mean anything
Shouldn't you stop using a computer, living in a house with AC, and heaters, since the electricity you are using is the cause of Climate Change?....
Originally posted by melatonin
............
Wingnuts have become one of my greatest source of lulz.
Shouldn't you be out teabagging today, lol.