Global Warming: the Thread

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Even though his investment firm now holds a 9.5% share in Camco Int., which has one of the world's largest carbon credit portfolios?

 

[At Home 0]

Al Gore isn't a fucking evil dude or anything like that, but he's making money.

[SuperJerk 0]

Yes, Al Gore's invested in a company that provides the type of solutions he advocates. It's called capitalism.

 

Marvin's theory about Gore presumes it is a hoax, but sides-steps the mountain of evidence that this is a real problem. Carbon emissions are proven to have an effect on temperature, but global warming opponents insist that its all part of a natural cycle, as if the planet could just start becoming warmer one day because it hadn't done it in a while.

 

 

[Mike wanna be 0]

The planet does go through heating & cooling cycles, and it is based on carbon emissions. We don't match what cows or volcanoes put out, but that's no excuse to sit around & do nothing while we wait for the planet to freeze over "naturally".

[At Home 0]

The planet does go through heating & cooling cycles, and it is based on carbon emissions. We don't match what cows or volcanoes put out, but that's no excuse to sit around & do nothing while we wait for the planet to freeze over "naturally".

 

Based on carbon emissions?

 

Wrong. CO2 levels are an effect of heating and cooling, not a cause of it. And we've got about another 10,000 years before the next ice age.

 

[At Home 0]

Yes, Al Gore's invested in a company that provides the type of solutions he advocates. It's called capitalism.

 

Marvin's theory about Gore presumes it is a hoax, but sides-steps the mountain of evidence that this is a real problem. Carbon emissions are proven to have an effect on temperature, but global warming opponents insist that its all part of a natural cycle, as if the planet could just start becoming warmer one day because it hadn't done it in a while.

 

The effect they have is relatively small. Solar variability, the albedic variable, and the Milankovitch cycles will have a greater effect on the temperature than carbon emissions will ever hope to have. Our emissions are having an effect, but don't put your blinders on.

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

CO2 levels are an effect of heating and cooling, not a cause of it. And we've got about another 10,000 years before the next ice age.

 

This chart isn't the easiest to understand...Usually timelines put older stuff on the left and newer stuff on the right, and this one has it reversed. The farther you go to the right, the farther into the past you get. But the chart shows a link between CO2 and temperature, but has no implication for cause and effect. However, saying that CO2 is an effect of heating and cooling doesn't explain what the source of the CO2 is, since matter has to come from somewhere.

 

Given the emphasis on the ice caps, I'd be interested in seeing more research on this. Do you have a link?

 

 

The planet does go through heating & cooling cycles, and it is based on carbon emissions. We don't match what cows or volcanoes put out, but that's no excuse to sit around & do nothing while we wait for the planet to freeze over "naturally".

The amount of greenhouse gases put out by cows is a direct result of livestock breeding by beef-eating humans, and is therefore not a naturally occuring phenomena.

[EricMM 0]

Again, unsourced photobucket graphs are not exactly High Science in my book.

 

Marvin's just crazy.

[At Home 0]

I already gave you the sources, Eric.

[At Home 0]

This chart isn't the easiest to understand...Usually timelines put older stuff on the left and newer stuff on the right, and this one has it reversed. The farther you go to the right, the farther into the past you get. But the chart shows a link between CO2 and temperature, but has no implication for cause and effect. However, saying that CO2 is an effect of heating and cooling doesn't explain what the source of the CO2 is, since matter has to come from somewhere.

 

Obviously, since humans weren't producing shit tons of CO2 tens of thousands of years ago, we can only say that natural processes dictated the temperature. Nothing was putting more CO2 in the air, only the temperature was changing vis a vis the aforementioned variables that I've mentioned. As the temperature gets hotter, the ocean releases CO2, and CO2 levels go up. So just one of the places where CO2 is an effect, not a cause.

[SuperJerk 0]

This chart isn't the easiest to understand...Usually timelines put older stuff on the left and newer stuff on the right, and this one has it reversed. The farther you go to the right, the farther into the past you get. But the chart shows a link between CO2 and temperature, but has no implication for cause and effect. However, saying that CO2 is an effect of heating and cooling doesn't explain what the source of the CO2 is, since matter has to come from somewhere.

 

Obviously, since humans weren't producing shit tons of CO2 tens of thousands of years ago, we can only say that natural processes dictated the temperature. Nothing was putting more CO2 in the air, only the temperature was changing vis a vis the aforementioned variables that I've mentioned. As the temperature gets hotter, the ocean releases CO2, and CO2 levels go up. So just one of the places where CO2 is an effect, not a cause.

Or maybe CO2 is part of a bigger cause/effect cycle that we are throwing off by introducing so much of it.

[At Home 0]

It's one of the variables that causes climate change. I've never said that our part isn't there, it is, but carbon dioxide emissions play a relatively small role. Cars spit out a lot, I ride a bike now, and there are good reasons to consume less of everything.

[EricMM 0]

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/

 

Eat it, denier bitches.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Your attitude is unhelpful to those who support science, Eric.

[At Home 0]

Well he totally just convinced me, I don't know what you're talking about.

[EricMM 0]

Whatever do you mean?

 

I'm linking to fucking NASA, he's linking to photobucket...

[At Home 0]

I already gave everyone the sources. Quit being a fucking baby about this. They're from an astronomy textbook. I'm simply hosting them because those graphs are the original files from the textbook, from one of the authors, not a scanned image.

[EricMM 0]

Then source the book / author. Come on man.

[At Home 0]

Go look around in the other global warming thread, they are there. Whatever one is the one with Kunh as the co-author.

[SuperJerk 0]

Go look around in the other global warming thread, they are there.

We have plenty of threads where discussions of global warming occurred, but I dug back several years trying to find one where that was the actual topic and couldn't find one.

[Guest]

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...p;#entry2677981

[SuperJerk 0]

Yes and no.

 

That thread was started to talk about about one effect of global warming.

 

In my search I was looking for a thread about global warming in general.

[EricMM 0]

Either way, I can quote my environmental science textbooks from Highschool and College that have graphs that show that CO2 causes Global Warming.

 

An astronomy textbook doesn't do it for me. Astronomy?

[At Home 0]

Prove my point, Eric.

[EricMM 0]

 

Bizzump.

 

This guy is great.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

 

"Heat", an episode of PBS' Frontline to be aired on October 21st. Looks like it could be kinda controversial.

[Fierce! 0]

Again, unsourced photobucket graphs are not exactly High Science in my book.

 

[Jobber of the Week 0]

http://gizmodo.com/5052830/clean-coal-no-l...new-power-plant

 

"Clean Coal" No Longer Oxymoron at New Power Plant

 

Maybe you've heard the plans for "clean coal" (aka carbon capture and storage), a technology that collects carbon-dioxide exhaust from formerly high-polluting power plants, condensing and freezing it for storage in depleted natural-gas fields. This month, energy provider Vattenfall fired up the CO2 collection process at a plant in Spremberg ("Call Us 'Spermberg' and Die") Germany. The plant's transition is making green-energy history, but as you can imagine, some kinks still need to be worked out.

 

The Spremberg plant is tiny by most standards, pumping out just 30 megawatts while many plants can pull off 10 times that output. Even so, compressing and chilling the CO2 can be a real energy drain in and of itself, so the efficiency of the plant is seriously compromised by the green initiative.

 

Still it is worth tweaking the basic system for enhanced efficiency, as Vattenfall says that the system can theoretically gather up to 98% of the CO2 produced by the plant, making it nearly pollutant free.

 

Critics say that this is just a diversion from investing resources in truly non-polluting technologies. While I tend to lean with those critics, I am a fan of clean coal because the US uses so much coal to produce electricity for cities. Still, I'm not 100% clear on the whole pumping-greenhouse-gases-into-the-earth thing. I know it gets sealed away in places that previously contained massive amounts of natural gas, but still, isn't anyone concerned that this is just set up for massive CO2 geysers in decades or centuries to come? There, I said it—science nerds, please feel free to bludgeon me with the Stick of Enlightenment. [Technology Review; Vattenfall]

[EricMM 0]

And?

[EricMM 0]

Thank goodness its still my state too, Marvin.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=sec-business

 

The country's first cap-and-trade auction for greenhouse gas reduction raised nearly $40 million for Northeastern states to spend on renewable energy technologies and energy-efficiency programs, officials of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which ran the auction, said Monday.

 

...

 

The earnings from the auction will go to the six participating states based on the number of allowances they had. Maryland will receive $16.4 million; Massachusetts, $13.3 million; Connecticut, $4.2 million; Maine, $2.7 million; Rhode Island, $1.3 million, and Vermont, $621,000, according to the initiative.

 

Shari T. Wilson, Maryland's environment secretary, said her state will use more than $6 million to help low-income people with utility bills and more than $7 million for energy-efficiency and conservation programs.