Global warming debunked, again.

[White Eagle]

I'll pay for the transportation

 

[smelter]

I'll pay for the transportation

.... i luv it when a plan comes together.

 

[Kulindahr]

Dick Cheney has a garage and a car and I'll donate the duct tape.

just an observation

Duct tape?!

Too easy to get out. I have a couple of cans of Good Stuff expanding-insulating adhesive sealant, and a bit of construction glue....

We should sample the gases in the garage first, though, so we can compare the composition afterward and be sure it was the car that did the deed....

 

[Kulindahr]

.... i luv it when a plan comes together.

Afterward, we could all cum together.

Enough of scientific experiments, now




Oops -- wrong smiley!

 

[White Eagle]

Damn I love a scientist!!

 

[Nishin]

[...] If you eliminated all of the cars in the world (goal #1 of the extreme enviro-terrorists) There would still be a very negligible affect.
[...]

HUH ...

 

[AngelBoy]

Global warming not debunked at all.

If you eliminated all of the cars in the world (goal #1 of the extreme enviro-terrorists) There would still be a very negligible affect

Private cars/light vans worldwide cause about 9% of CO2 output (about 2.5 billion tonnes per year). So this amount is not negligible.

Of the worlds total CO2 from fosil fuels of 27 billion tonnes - the USA produces about 6 billion tonnes (22%) which is around 20 tonnes per person per year.

In 20 years from now most projections are for a world poulation of around 8 billion. If every person then produced the same 20 tonnes of CO2 each as an average US person does today then world CO2 output would be 160 billion tonnes a year.

This would be 6 times the current amount and is more than enough under any climate model to cause a runaway greenhouse effect. The rest of the world will not industrialize as fast as this - but without action CO2 output will at least double in 20 years.

Its thought around 21 billion tonnes a year world CO2 output (the amount in 1990) could be sustainable. The only possible way to allocate this to the 8 billion people alive in 20 years time would be to allow each person 2.5 tonnes a year.

For the USA a drop from 20 to 2.5 tonnes CO2 per person per year would mean quite big changes. The CO2 problem is made worse by the fact that while Oil will be very limited and expensive in 20 years time there is still far more coal in the ground - which produces twice as much CO2 to give the same amount of energy.

The maths of global warming is very simple and readily available - though sometimes confused by using metric tonnes and Carbon equivalent (which is just the weight of the one Carbon atom in CO2 - divide CO2 weight by 22 and multiply be 6).

 

[Kulindahr]

Has building vast arrays of greenhouses been proposed as a partial solution? Make them airtight, and pump in CO2, and get wondrous yields!

 

[AngelBoy]

Has building vast arrays of greenhouses been proposed as a partial solution? Make them airtight, and pump in CO2, and get wondrous yields!

Enhanced CO2 atmospheres to promote plant growth are already used on a commercial scale.

For most crops - being grown in a 1% CO2 atmosphere increases yields by about 40%. Above 2% CO2 is toxic to plants – while animals have problems above 4%. This is not because CO2 is poisonous for animals – just that through a “design” accident we detect when to breathe based on the level of CO2 in returning blood – rather than having sensors that measure the level of Oxygen in blood leaving the lungs.

The amount of extra CO2 in the air if every single bit of fossil fuel in the ground was burnt would never approach these levels.

There is also a problem with enhanced CO2 food crops in that they have less nutrients than crops grown in normal levels of CO2. So they do have a potential "McFood" issue – in having more calories but not enough vitamins etc.

 

[Kulindahr]

Enhanced CO2 atmospheres to promote plant growth are already used on a commercial scale.

For most crops - being grown in a 1% CO2 atmosphere increases yields by about 40%. Above 2% CO2 is toxic to plants – while animals have problems above 4%. This is not because CO2 is poisonous for animals – just that through a “design” accident we detect when to breathe based on the level of CO2 in returning blood – rather than having sensors that measure the level of Oxygen in blood leaving the lungs.

The amount of extra CO2 in the air if every single bit of fossil fuel in the ground was burnt would never approach these levels.

There is also a problem with enhanced CO2 food crops in that they have less nutrients than crops grown in normal levels of CO2. So they do have a potential "McFood" issue – in having more calories but not enough vitamins etc.

Thanks -- I recall seeing those figures in botany class with Dr. Chambers, but didn't remember them.

As for that last problem, maybe that's where/how biofuel crops could be grown -- they don[t really need the vitamins, do they?

 

[AngelBoy]

Thanks -- I recall seeing those figures in botany class with Dr. Chambers, but didn't remember them.

As for that last problem, maybe that's where/how biofuel crops could be grown -- they don[t really need the vitamins, do they?

The trouble with “growing” fuel is that internal combustion engines are very greedy animals.

The “food” needed to fill an SUV tank is enough to feed a person for a year. The entire USA grain harvest would only meet 17% of our gasoline usage.

I do think that there are technological fixes – but that maybe we would also benefit from a less energy intensive life style as well. Most car journeys are just a few miles – by the time you’ve parked you don’t save much time compared to walking.

Plus being an SUV/Couch potato means you end up looking like one to – I see loads of guys every day that would be real cute if they didn’t have the typical USA “Pear shaped” body. Plus they will save loads on medical fees later

 

[AngelBoy]

Re: Global warming not debunked at all.

I hope you will excuse a non sequitur. Is "maths" the commonly used form in the UK? Here across the Atlantic, it sounds something like saying "fishes".

Just kidding.

Thanks Johan

Not sure where I read the word "Maths" - is it the wrong way of saying it? Most of my ideas I get from reading - not the sort of things folks around here talk about much.

 

[Spensed]

Re: Global warming not debunked at all.

Thanks Johan

Not sure where I read the word "Maths" - is it the wrong way of saying it? Most of my ideas I get from reading - not the sort of things folks around here talk about much.

It's one of those English/US variants. In England, folk shorten mathematics to maths. In the US, the more usual abbreviation is math. Go figure.

Reading is great. But being Sophy Schoolmarm about it is kinda sad. Did I just include myself in my own put down? LOL.

 

[AngelBoy]

Re: Global warming not debunked at all.

It's one of those English/US variants. In England, folk shorten mathematics to maths. In the US, the more usual abbreviation is math. Go figure. Reading is great. But being Sophy Schoolmarm about it is kinda sad. Did I just include myself in my own put down?

Hey - I can sound like a European intelectual without even trying! I love big long words and real sarcastic comments - but often I get them wrong.

Think you did just kinda "Flame" yourself - but I like the expression "Sophy Schoolmarm".

Still trying to figure out where I fit on the intelectual scale from Genius thru Moron to Bush

 

[jackoroe]

^Most people don't know what scam bottled water is. It is usually no better than tap water. My water has a bit too much chlorine for my tastes. I use a Brita filter pitcher and it's as good as any bottled water. As to the government getting involved, I agree they should not. Using corn to make bottles is having an adverse effect on corn prices and has had a significant detrimental effect on the poor who eat a lot of corn products. Tap water is the way to go.

 

[NickCole]

^Most people don't know what scam bottled water is. ...

This is true.

It's another example of how easily convinced people can be by effective marketing and propaganda. And not only dumb people. People who are smart and educated can be sheep just as easily as stupid people.

We have incredible spring well water at our house. It's clean and clear and unbelievably delicious. But most people who come to our house grab a bottled water from the fridge. If I don't stock it, they don't drink water. It's so monumentally retarded, I'm actually awed by what it says about their willingness to be swayed by utter nonsense if it's packaged in a pleasing and appealing way.

 

[SuperQueer]

This is true.

It's another example of how easily convinced people can be by effective marketing and propaganda. And not only dumb people. People who are smart and educated can be sheep just as easily as stupid people.

We have incredible spring well water at our house. It's clean and clear and unbelievably delicious. But most people who come to our house grab a bottled water from the fridge. If I don't stock it, they don't drink water. It's so monumentally retarded, I'm actually awed by what it says about their willingness to be swayed by utter nonsense if it's packaged in a pleasing and appealing way.

I'm so effected sometimes I get dumbfounded in the spring water aisle

 

[frankfrank]

A lot of times, if I'm at somebody's house and they said that I can drink the bottled water they have in the refrigerator, I'll STILL fill my glass with tap water.

 

[Flaming Pop Tart]

The closer we examine the claims made by Academy Award winner, Algore, the more holes in those claims we seem to be finding. I was wondering at what point will he be intellectually honest and at least acknowledge that he has been wrong on many of these points? Or will he simply continue to demonize any who dare to disagree with the new religion of environmental socialism?



http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article

Since you were talking about closing examining claims, I thought I would closely exam yours. I looked at the article you linked to. It's not a report of scientific research - it's an opinion piece. You do realize that this, by definition, cannot debunk anything scientific? Then I looked at who wrote it. It's a guy from The Heartland Institute. Here is something everyone should know about the Heartland Institute:

"The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit organization "to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems". [1] It campaigns on what it calls "junk science", "common-sense environmentalism" (i.e. anti-Kyoto, pro-GM), the privatization of public services, smokers' rights (anti-tobacco tax, denial of problems from passive smoking), the introduction of school vouchers, and the deregulation of health care insurance. It also provides an online resource for finding right-wing think tank policy documents called PolicyBot."

They are ideologically pre-determined to oppose environmental regulation. Gore's phrase "an inconvenient truth" (Unlike the internet, he didn't invent the phrase, but did he apply well here) speaks exactly to a situation like this. The scientific reality of global warming is an inconvenient truth to the ideology of organizations like The Heartland Institute. But a truth it is - The IPCC (over 1000 climatologists) reached consensus that global warming is happening, and it's anthropogenic. The physical evidence is simply overwhelming.

 

[Kulindahr]

Plus being an SUV/Couch potato means you end up looking like one to – I see loads of guys every day that would be real cute if they didn’t have the typical USA “Pear shaped” body. Plus they will save loads on medical fees later

I've noticed the "pear shape" problem lately.
Even ten years ago, if you came across a bunch of high school or college guys swimming at a river, most were slender or skinny and reasonably fit, i.e. you could tell there were muscles. Now, those are the rare ones; most are blubbery.
And they have probably never given a thought to the fact that the treats they so love that make them overweight rely on lots and lots of petroleum products to produce -- and we're back to the greenhouse problem.