Global warming debunked

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

estesbob

Guest
By ANDREW SWALLOW - The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 19 May 2007

**Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week. **
​

Man’s contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn’t change the climate if we tried, he maintained.
“We’re all going to survive this. It’s all going to be a joke in five years,” he said.

stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html
 
No doubt he will be attacked by Dr. Heidi Clum of the Weather Channel, who wants all dissenters defrocked.😛
 
Let’s just hope it’s debunked in time to prevent all the political nut cases from enacting a whole lot of ill-conceived legislation.

Mudgie-in-training and freelance sparkle/coffee grinds sprinkler
 
Darn!!! Somebody beat me to it. I see the tide starting to turn again the environmental extreemists just like it is starting to turn against the social extreemists. It will be some time before we can definitely beat them back, but it will happen.
 
The issue may die, but the people with their hair on fire will find another one.

Remember Ira Magaziner, the guy who was telling Congress “The Japanese are working night and day on Cold Fusion?” And tried to get us to spend billions on it?

Remember where he surfaced after that was all debunked? Hired by Hillary Clinton to run her Health Care team!!😛
 
According to this article the net percentage of human CO2, methane, NO2, and CFCs is 0.279%. This is obviously huge!

Lets take a bathtub full of water - mine is approximately 13,000 in^3 or 56 Gallons. 0.279% of 56 Gallons comes to…oh about 0.156 gallons or approximately 2.5 cups.

See HUGE! Genormous in fact. Lets do a simple heat transfer equation, I know it doesn’t quite match what is happening, but it will help show the enormity of the problem.

Lets say we have a tub full of ice cold water at 0deg C (32deg F). Since 0.156 is 0.279% of 56, we will need to subtract that to find the pre-polluted tub - that comes to 55.844 gallons which is about 211,391.8 grams of water. Next we add the 2.5 cups or 591 grams of boiling hot water at 100deg C (212deg F). Now lets do the math…

(m1Ti1 + m2Ti2)/(m1+m2) = Tf
((211,391.8)(0) + (591)(100))/(211,391.8+591) = 0.278 deg C

Or - 32.5deg F - We raised the temperature of the bathtub by HALF A DEGREE!!! Break out the sauna gear - I’m jumping in!! :rolleyes:
 
Maybe we don’t have to go as far as the extremists but environmental conservation is still important as we are stewards of creation.
 
Maybe we don’t have to go as far as the extremists but environmental conservation is still important as we are stewards of creation.
I will tell you a story.

I was working a project at Fort Hood, Texas a few years back and noticed a strange thing near my training site. It was a cube, 8 feet on a side, made of wire. Inside were feeding stations, water stations and a lot of birds.

The sergeant who was in charge walked over and explained it to me – the birds could see the food and water from the outside, and enter the cage through a hole near the top. But when they tried to leave, they would instinctively go to the very top, above the enterance and couldn’t find their way out.

He went on to explain these were cowbirds – they lay their eggs in other birds nests and the cowbird hatchlings push out the other baby birds. Cowbirds are on the increase and songbirds, as a result are on the decrease.

So I asked, “How do you kill them?”

He gave me the strangest look and said, “The environmentalists won’t let us kill them. We have to relocate them.”

**
Relocate** them?!?! They’re freakin’ birds!! They’ll fly right back.
 
I will tell you a story.

I was working a project at Fort Hood, Texas a few years back and noticed a strange thing near my training site. It was a cube, 8 feet on a side, made of wire. Inside were feeding stations, water stations and a lot of birds.

The sergeant who was in charge walked over and explained it to me – the birds could see the food and water from the outside, and enter the cage through a hole near the top. But when they tried to leave, they would instinctively go to the very top, above the enterance and couldn’t find their way out.

He went on to explain these were cowbirds – they lay their eggs in other birds nests and the cowbird hatchlings push out the other baby birds. Cowbirds are on the increase and songbirds, as a result are on the decrease.

So I asked, “How do you kill them?”

He gave me the strangest look and said, “The environmentalists won’t let us kill them. We have to relocate them.”

Relocate them?!?! They’re freakin’ birds!! They’ll fly right back.
But the polar caps are melting and some species becoming extinct as well as some major weather changes. We have aduty to take care of this world for future generations. We don’t have to be extreme but some efforts should be encouraged.
 
But the polar caps are melting and some species becoming extinct as well as some major weather changes. We have aduty to take care of this world for future generations. We don’t have to be extreme but some efforts should be encouraged.
Not to worry, Jim. We’ll all be pecked to death by cowbirds long before that happens.😃
 
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Do we have cowbirds in Pennsylvania?
Yep. They tend to hang around pastures. Breaking up the forests (for pastures, subdivisions and so on) allows them more and more access to songbirds who nest in the woods.
 
According to this article the net percentage of human CO2, methane, NO2, and CFCs is 0.279%. This is obviously huge!

Lets take a bathtub full of water - mine is approximately 13,000 in^3 or 56 Gallons. 0.279% of 56 Gallons comes to…oh about 0.156 gallons or approximately 2.5 cups.

See HUGE! Genormous in fact. Lets do a simple heat transfer equation, I know it doesn’t quite match what is happening, but it will help show the enormity of the problem.

Lets say we have a tub full of ice cold water at 0deg C (32deg F). Since 0.156 is 0.279% of 56, we will need to subtract that to find the pre-polluted tub - that comes to 55.844 gallons which is about 211,391.8 grams of water. Next we add the 2.5 cups or 591 grams of boiling hot water at 100deg C (212deg F). Now lets do the math…

(m1Ti1 + m2Ti2)/(m1+m2) = Tf
((211,391.8)(0) + (591)(100))/(211,391.8+591) = 0.278 deg C

Or - 32.5deg F - We raised the temperature of the bathtub by HALF A DEGREE!!! Break out the sauna gear - I’m jumping in!! :rolleyes:
As a scientist (almost have my Ph.D. in chemistry), that is almost offensive in its presumption. The idea that “well, that’s not a lot, therefore it’s not bad” is a dangerous statement. Many pollutants are monitored on the parts per million or parts per billion level, which is even smaller quantities than what you’re talking about. Let’s say we have your 56 gallon bathtub filled with water, and I told you that there was 0.5 mL of mercury in it. Would you want to drink it? It’s only 0.00024% mercury. Your gas pollution stats were 1000 times more concentrated than that. That’s not a lot, so it should be safe, right? That amount of mercury is 1.5 times the legally allowed amount in water supplies. Reference here]

Secondly, the whole point of global warming is that the temperature of the earth is rising by a degree or less. It is not a massive change, but that small change might have drastic influences just like adding another tenth of a milliliter of mercury to your bathtub full of water.

Personally, I don’t think we have all the stats in yet, so I’m not trying to insist that global warming is real and the rest of you are wrong. However, go ask the residents of L.A. on a smoggy day whether we have an impact on our environment. We shouldn’t act with reckless abandon, treating the earth like it’s a cheap plaything. God gave us a beautiful earth. Let’s try to live with it instead of in spite of it.
 
As a scientist (almost have my Ph.D. in chemistry), that is almost offensive in its presumption. The idea that “well, that’s not a lot, therefore it’s not bad” is a dangerous statement. Many pollutants are monitored on the parts per million or parts per billion level, which is even smaller quantities than what you’re talking about.
No offense, but CO2 is not normally considered a “pollutant.”
Let’s say we have your 56 gallon bathtub filled with water, and I told you that there was 0.5 mL of mercury in it. Would you want to drink it? It’s only 0.00024% mercury.
No offense, but CO2 is not mercury.
Your gas pollution stats were 1000 times more concentrated than that. That’s not a lot, so it should be safe, right? That amount of mercury is 1.5 times the legally allowed amount in water supplies. Reference here]
Again, no offense, but mercury and CO2 are not chemically interchangeable.
Secondly, the whole point of global warming is that the temperature of the earth is rising by a degree or less. It is not a massive change, but that small change might have drastic influences just like adding another tenth of a milliliter of mercury to your bathtub full of water.
Yet for all the viewing-with-alarm, the actual evidence is that if warming is taking place, it is small and of natural origin. What man adds is very small – if it is significant at all. And that is the point Lady Cygnus was making.
Personally, I don’t think we have all the stats in yet, so I’m not trying to insist that global warming is real and the rest of you are wrong.
Which is her point – that when we get down to real data, it doesn’t support all the hype.
However, go ask the residents of L.A. on a smoggy day whether we have an impact on our environment.
That’s a bit out of date. The smog problem is much less than it used to be.
We shouldn’t act with reckless abandon, treating the earth like it’s a cheap plaything. God gave us a beautiful earth. Let’s try to live with it instead of in spite of it.
But we don’t know what “reckless abandon” is – much of what the most radical true believers would have us do is pretty drastic and could have effects opposite to what they desire.

Case in point is nuclear power. It’s clean and safe – but the US is only about 17% nuclear, on old, creaky plants, while France is approaching 80% nuclear on modern, up-to-date plants. The environmentalist opposition to nuclear power has actually resulted in far more fossil fuels being used in the US.
 
As a scientist (almost have my Ph.D. in chemistry), that is almost offensive in its presumption. The idea that “well, that’s not a lot, therefore it’s not bad” is a dangerous statement. Many pollutants are monitored on the parts per million or parts per billion level, which is even smaller quantities than what you’re talking about. Let’s say we have your 56 gallon bathtub filled with water, and I told you that there was 0.5 mL of mercury in it. Would you want to drink it? It’s only 0.00024% mercury. Your gas pollution stats were 1000 times more concentrated than that. That’s not a lot, so it should be safe, right? That amount of mercury is 1.5 times the legally allowed amount in water supplies. Reference here]

Secondly, the whole point of global warming is that the temperature of the earth is rising by a degree or less. It is not a massive change, but that small change might have drastic influences just like adding another tenth of a milliliter of mercury to your bathtub full of water.

Personally, I don’t think we have all the stats in yet, so I’m not trying to insist that global warming is real and the rest of you are wrong. However, go ask the residents of L.A. on a smoggy day whether we have an impact on our environment. We shouldn’t act with reckless abandon, treating the earth like it’s a cheap plaything. God gave us a beautiful earth. Let’s try to live with it instead of in spite of it.
While you are talking to the Residnets of LA you might want to ask them about the snow in malibu last winter. .
 
No offense, but CO2 is not normally considered a “pollutant.”

No offense, but CO2 is not mercury.

Again, no offense, but mercury and CO2 are not chemically interchangeable.
Well, filling a bathtub with ice water isn’t exactly the same thing as our environment. So by your argument, her argument is invalid as well.
Yet for all the viewing-with-alarm, the actual evidence is that if warming is taking place, it is small and of natural origin. What man adds is very small – if it is significant at all. And that is the point Lady Cygnus was making.

Which is her point – that when we get down to real data, it doesn’t support all the hype.
I disagree. The earth is warming, this is generally accepted. However, we have not come to a true consensus as to the cause and it’s most likely going to be a combination of factors. Yes, some natural events may contribute, but so does man. If we take steps to curb what we produce, then the effect will lessen. That does not mean we can stop nature, but we don’t have to exacerbate the problem.
That’s a bit out of date. The smog problem is much less than it used to be.
It’s much less, is it? Well, why? Was it a natural thing, or was it human intervention? Did we make a difference to improve our environment?
But we don’t know what “reckless abandon” is – much of what the most radical true believers would have us do is pretty drastic and could have effects opposite to what they desire.

Case in point is nuclear power. It’s clean and safe – but the US is only about 17% nuclear, on old, creaky plants, while France is approaching 80% nuclear on modern, up-to-date plants. The environmentalist opposition to nuclear power has actually resulted in far more fossil fuels being used in the US.
Well, can we build the nuclear power plant in your backyard? What about the nuclear waste, can we store that in your attic? It’s not the “environmentalist opposition” so much as the average citizen who wants the benefits, but doesn’t want to make the sacrifices necessary to make it a reality. Funny, that’s similar to the global warming opposition. If global warming is not that big of a deal, why can’t we use cleaner cars and stop using SUVs anyway? Why can’t we fund more research into renewable or cleaner energy sources? I agree we shouldn’t bow to the fear-mongering (does that reek of terrorism to you too?), but that doesn’t mean we can’t do what they say anyway.

As far as “reckless abandon”, go back to the L.A. smog example. If everybody just did what they wanted, with no regard to anything else, then the smog wouldn’t have improved, right? The arguments I see against global warming are generally hubris based – I didn’t cause it, therefore I shouldn’t have to change my behavior. Global warming is slightly different than L.A. smog or the hole in the ozone layer. If we wait until there is absolute, clear, obvious proof that global warming is man made, it will probably be way too late to do anything about it. We can either do a little bit now to prevent the problem, or do a heck of a lot later just to try and survive. If it turns out that it’s a natural thing anyway, then was it really a bad thing to change our behavior to be more ecologically friendly?
 
While you are talking to the Residnets of LA you might want to ask them about the snow in malibu last winter. .
What about it? My point was that we have an effect on our environment. I grew up in Pittsburgh. My grandparents knew not to wear light colored things downtown due to the soot and pollution from all the steel mills. If you go there today, it’s much cleaner. We, as humans, caused the problem, and we fixed the problem. We know not to do that again.
 
Well, filling a bathtub with ice water isn’t exactly the same thing as our environment. So by your argument, her argument is invalid as well.
No offense intended, but she didn’t claim to almost have a PhD in Chemistry.
I disagree. The earth is warming, this is generally accepted.
But what does that mean?

We have gone through short (multi-year) periods of cooler and hotter temperatures before.
Yes, some natural events may contribute, but so does man. If we take steps to curb what we produce, then the effect will lessen. That does not mean we can stop nature, but we don’t have to exacerbate the problem.
What are we willing to pay for this? And how do we keep other nations from sneaking more pollution at our expense?

And, what are the positive effects of warming? For example, Canada stands to have a major economic boom if some forecasts are true – longer growing seasons in the Prairie Provinces and the Northwest Passage may open up.

Is it possible the benefits may more than offset the negatives? That’s certainly what happened during the Medivial Warm.
It’s much less, is it? Well, why? Was it a natural thing, or was it human intervention? Did we make a difference to improve our environment?
If you live in Los Angeles, you’d say so – but we didn’t do it by setting our hair on fire and jumping off a cliff.😛
Well, can we build the nuclear power plant in your backyard?
Sure. In fact, there is one nearly in my backyard, on the Arkansas River.

By the way, when you do your dissertation, is this the kind of arguments you intend to use?
What about the nuclear waste, can we store that in your attic?
We’ve spend billions to construct a storage facility at Yucca Mountain. It’s all ready to go – only environmentalists keep blocking it with legal maneuvers.

Save your spleen for them – if they’d get out of the way, we could cut fossil fuel use sognificantly.
It’s not the “environmentalist opposition” so much as the average citizen who wants the benefits, but doesn’t want to make the sacrifices necessary to make it a reality.
Actually, if a sane, sober presentation is made the average citizen sees the logic behind nuclear power. The average citizen in France certainly does.

But the air is thick with propaganda here in the US.😦
Funny, that’s similar to the global warming opposition. If global warming is not that big of a deal, why can’t we use cleaner cars and stop using SUVs anyway?
At what cost?
Why can’t we fund more research into renewable or cleaner energy sources? I agree we shouldn’t bow to the fear-mongering (does that reek of terrorism to you too?), but that doesn’t mean we can’t do what they say anyway.
We’ve already bowed to fear-mongering in regard to nuclear power.
As far as “reckless abandon”, go back to the L.A. smog example. If everybody just did what they wanted, with no regard to anything else, then the smog wouldn’t have improved, right?
And if we’d done what the radical environmentalists wanted, LA would be unpopulated today.
The arguments I see against global warming are generally hubris based – I didn’t cause it, therefore I shouldn’t have to change my behavior.
Who said that?

What I see is people saying we shouldn’t be panicked into doing something counter-productive.
Global warming is slightly different than L.A. smog or the hole in the ozone layer.
Slightly.😃
If we wait until there is absolute, clear, obvious proof that global warming is man made, it will probably be way too late to do anything about it.
And if we panic, set our hair on fire and jump off the cliff, we won’t be able to reverse our actions when we find out we’re wrong.
We can either do a little bit now to prevent the problem, or do a heck of a lot later just to try and survive. If it turns out that it’s a natural thing anyway, then was it really a bad thing to change our behavior to be more ecologically friendly?
What do you mean by “prevent?” Do you mean we can stop or reverse whatever climate change is taking place?

We’re doing a pretty good job of cleaning things up without the panic of “global warming.” It remains to be proven if we can – or should – take more radical measures.

In the meantime, why not also take measures to capitalize on the benefits of “global warming” if it comes?
 
And what if all global warming is caused by Milankovitch cycles, and cutting down manmade greenhouse gasses doesn’t do diddly-squat?

How are you going to stop it then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top