Until we get a Carbon Tax, we haven't even started - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15047344
Hindsite wrote:
1) Even if that were true, if would still be better than punishing people with more taxes.


2) The liberal fools in California do not know how to manage their forests to provide jobs and lumber, instead of fires and destruction.


3) I never thought of living a comfortable life as an addiction, but I would much rather have that addition than your addition to climate hysteria.



1) So species suicide is better than paying a little more at the pump.

2) That's what climax ecologies do, they burn.

3) When you're addicted to excuses, any excuse will do.
#15047351
late wrote:1) So species suicide is better than paying a little more at the pump.

There is no species suicide, only climate hysteria.

late wrote:2) That's what climax ecologies do, they burn.

Burning houses is not very economical.

late wrote:3) When you're addicted to excuses, any excuse will do.

So now you are addicted to excuses. Okay, enjoy.
Praise the Lord.
#15047352
Hindsite wrote:

Burning houses is not very economical.




Ignoring the repetitious babbling... the problem is that we are building in areas that are environmentally delicate, or the buildings are going to get regularly destroyed, or both.

The science is unequivocal. There are a lot of places we build where building should not be permitted.
#15047355
late wrote:Ignoring the repetitious babbling... the problem is that we are building in areas that are environmentally delicate, or the buildings are going to get regularly destroyed, or both.

The science is unequivocal. There are a lot of places we build where building should not be permitted.

So you believe the science says we need a carbon tax. I disagree.
#15047386
Sivad wrote:it's hilarious that you lectured on dunning-kruger and then epically dunning-krugered the fuck out of the rest of your post. you're now a dunning kruger legend.


What are you on about?

You've said nothing in that statement. What exactly is incorrect about my numbers? What statement is incorrect in everything I wrote? Thus far you've said nothing. All you have done is to try and say something clever, which doesn't make sense. Elaborate. Please explain, because you are full clearly of shit if you can't. back up your claim that I'm somehow wrong and thus I don't realize my stupidity.

Further, ponder why bigsteve hasn't responded to my analysis.

For the record, I compare numbers for a fucking living. ;)
#15047421
Hindsite wrote:That would be going against God's will. God wants people to fill the entire earth.
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
(Genesis 1:28 NKJV)


Planting more trees should absorb the excess carbon emissions. That would be a more natural and less expensive way.
https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/storie ... -footprint



:lol: You need a bit of foresite & not Hindsite.


Your 'friend' up ^ died out with the Neanderthals. :lol: :lol:

Planting more trees doesn't help when countries like Brazil are chopping them down at a rate that's quicker than new ones can grow, that is not even considering the impact on animal life, including us & the loss of potentially other useful resources bound up in the forest.
#15047424
late wrote:1) So species suicide is better than paying a little more at the pump.

The notion that use of fossil fuels could cause the extinction of the human species is absurd scaremongering. There is zero (0) probability of any such effect. In fact, it is virtually certain that use of fossil fuels and the resulting release of CO2 into the atmosphere is a net benefit to the human species.
2) That's what climax ecologies do, they burn.

When fools who think nature is best left unmanaged are in charge.
3) When you're addicted to excuses, any excuse will do.

When you are addicted to scare stories, any scare story will do.
late wrote:Despite all evidence pointing to the contrary..

All the fake "evidence," that is.
Last edited by Truth To Power on 08 Nov 2019 17:37, edited 1 time in total.
#15047429
Truth To Power wrote:delete
Probably best,
The net benefits of extra CO2 ran out 20 years ago and the world is browning.

'Terrestrial gross primary production derived from two satellite-based models (revised EC-LUE and MODIS) exhibits persistent and widespread decreases after the late 1990s due to increased VPD, which offset the positive CO2 fertilization effect.'

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/8/eaax1396

The idea that warming is always called optimum and is therefore good, has no scientific basis. What matters is the rate of change and whether adaptation can occur fast enough.
#15047430
Truth To Power wrote:
1) The notion that use of fossil fuels could cause the extinction of the human species is absurd scaremongering. There is zero (0) probability of any such effect. In fact, it is virtually certain that use of fossil fuels and the resulting release of CO2 into the atmosphere is a net benefit to the human species.

2) When fools who think nature is best left unmanaged are in charge.

3) When you are addicted to scare stories, any scare story will do.




1) The oxygen you breathe mostly comes from the Southern Pacific. The organisms that produce it can be killed, by excessive heat or acidity. Do I need to mention the oceans are getting hotter and more acid?

2) That's precisely what got us in this mess.

3) Science... I leave the fiction writing to the Firehose Brigade.
#15047442
BeesKnee5 wrote:Those two charts are from the same research paper.

Which claims they mean something they do not mean.
Being at ground level does not change where the absorption bands are, the density changes the width of the band.

Proving me right and you wrong: at ground level, the only level that matters, H2O completely dominates CO2, and CO2 can therefore have only very little effect on surface temperatures.
You have proved no one wrong other than to show you haven't a clue about what Angstrom did in his experiment ( clue, he did not test at the density of gasses at ground level)

Irrelevant. Any modern lab can do the experiments and confirm that Angstrom was effectively correct -- additional CO2 has very little effect on IR absorption in a realistic ground-level atmosphere -- and Arrhenius was wrong.
Further to this my investigations have thrown up some further flaws in Angstroms experiment. Firstly he didn't even do the experiment himself and his assistant got the measurements wrong.

'Koch had only a thermocouple to measure heat across the entire infrared spectrum. He accurately reported that about 10% of the radiation from a 100°C black body was absorbed in his tube, and that at lower pressure at most 9.6% was absorbed.

Repeats of this experiment have shown that about 9% is absorbed making the difference caused by a reduction of CO2 far more significant.'

What nonsense. Such experiments demonstrate conclusively that in a realistic ground-level atmosphere, even doubling CO2 from the pre-industrial (LIA) level will have almost no effect on total IR absorption or back radiation because the absorption spectrum is already saturated.
Still want to hang your hat on an experiment that had no way of knowing what was absorbed by CO2 and what was absorbed by H2O and was clearly not accurate enough to get the measurement right when compared to today's equipment?

Absolutely. It's a trivial experiment to replicate with modern equipment, so any errors by Angstrom or his lab assistants are irrelevant. The deceitful way the paper you have quoted presented the data confirms that they decided they had to obscure, distort, and conceal the facts because they disproved anti-CO2 hysteria.
You are now arguing with the world renowned source for the spectroscopy of molecules, that is how far your delusion has taken you.

What fact of molecular spectroscopy do you falsely claim I am disputing?
Does your window look out on the Chukchi sea?
Image

Why the Chukchi Sea, particularly? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: weather variation has simply moved the ice to different areas, so the total is no longer below the 2012 record:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

So all your Chicken Little doomsaying again comes to naught.
#15047444
BeesKnee5 wrote:Probably best,
The net benefits of extra CO2 ran out 20 years ago and the world is browning.

False. The net browning is due to deforestation, overgrazing, etc., not higher temperatures.
'Terrestrial gross primary production derived from two satellite-based models (revised EC-LUE and MODIS) exhibits persistent and widespread decreases after the late 1990s due to increased VPD, which offset the positive CO2 fertilization effect.'

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/8/eaax1396

:lol: From YOUR OWN SOURCE:

"Rhein et al. (16) reported stalled increases of sea surface temperature after the late 1990s based on multiple global datasets, which substantially limited oceanic evaporation (20). "

Which proves the world hasn't warmed in 20 years.

Which means everything you are saying on the subject is already-proved-false garbage.
The idea that warming is always called optimum and is therefore good, has no scientific basis.

False. Warming increases the oceanic evaporation rate (see above), accelerating the hydrological cycle and increasing precipitation. More precipitation is good for plants and ecosystems. Note the difference in bioproductivity between rain forest and desert.
What matters is the rate of change and whether adaptation can occur fast enough.

Nope. The end of the Ice Age was good for bioproductivity even though temperatures rose very rapidly and many organisms couldn't adapt.
#15047455
Truth To Power wrote:[]
Which claims they mean something they do not mean.

They mean exactly what they show. The total absorbtion across the whole atmosphere.
Zhong 2013
Proving me right and you wrong: at ground level, the only level that matters, H2O completely dominates CO2, and CO2 can therefore have only very little effect on surface temperatures.

You have zero evidence for this and I have supplied to research papers showing it to be incorrect,. Your turn to come up with evidence.


Irrelevant. Any modern lab can do the experiments and confirm that Angstrom was effectively correct -- additional CO2 has very little effect on IR absorption in a realistic ground-level atmosphere -- and Arrhenius was wrong.


Prove this by providing a recent experiment carried out.
Whether Arrhenius was right or wrong is pretty irrelevant as I'm not using his research to show you haven't a clue and you have again shown you don't know what was actually tested ( Clue : it was not the atmosphere at the density found at ground level )

What nonsense. Such experiments demonstrate conclusively that in a realistic ground-level atmosphere, even doubling CO2 from the pre-industrial (LIA) level will have almost no effect on total IR absorption or back radiation because the absorption spectrum is already saturated.

Kaplan in 1959 showed the effect is 0.3-0.4C for a reduction of 10%, if H2O had saturated the wavelength then this would've made very little difference.

Everytime you make this claim with no supporting evidence I will wheel out another example of research since WW2 that proves your claim untrue.

How about you show an experiment done since Angstrom that proves him right?
Absolutely. It's a trivial experiment to replicate with modern equipment, so any errors by Angstrom or his lab assistants are irrelevant. The deceitful way the paper you have quoted presented the data confirms that they decided they had to obscure, distort, and conceal the facts because they disproved anti-CO2 hysteria.

There is no deceit, only your inability to let go of your preconception

What fact of molecular spectroscopy do you falsely claim I am disputing?

The spectrum as supplied by hitrans
Why the Chukchi Sea, particularly? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: weather variation has simply moved the ice to different areas, so the total is no longer below the 2012 record:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

So all your Chicken Little doomsaying again comes to naught.


Again your inability to read charts let's you down.
I suggest you go back to your link and look to see if 2012 is currently lower than 2019.

As for the effects of global warming, the breakdown of the polar vortex is pretty clear
Image
Last edited by BeesKnee5 on 08 Nov 2019 20:56, edited 3 times in total.
#15047456
Truth To Power wrote:]
From YOUR OWN SOURCE:

"Rhein et al. (16) reported stalled increases of sea surface temperature after the late 1990s based on multiple global datasets, which substantially limited oceanic evaporation (20). "

Which proves the world hasn't warmed in 20 years.

Which means everything you are saying on the subject is already-proved-false garbage
.


Rhein et al. Is the fifth IPCC report.
You may want to read what it has to say about stalling sea temperature rise and global warming

Image
Glad to see you come on board with the majority of today's scientists.

I'm not making these claims, I am quoting research that has provided proof to support their claim. Something you are failing spectacularly at.


False. Warming increases the oceanic evaporation rate (see above), accelerating the hydrological cycle and increasing precipitation. More precipitation is good for plants and ecosystems. Note the difference in bioproductivity between rain forest and desert.


The increased humidity affects the amount of evaporation at the plants leaf surface. Too much humidity and the ability of a plant to use osmosis to draw nutrients through their roots is reduced. Extra heat increases the amount of moisture evaporating and so accelerates the drying of the ground . The two combined narrow the band in which plants aren't stressed by these two factors. That you chose to offer a layman's view without even understanding what VPD is shows everyone how quick you are to spout without grasping what the paper is describing.
#15047514
late wrote:1) The oxygen you breathe mostly comes from the Southern Pacific. The organisms that produce it can be killed, by excessive heat or acidity. Do I need to mention the oceans are getting hotter and more acid?

We can make our own oxygen now.
Praise the Lord.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 14
Ukrainegate

"The intent makes the crime." You can […]

Another school shooting

I'm heading out on the boat for some sea trials af[…]

My socialist friends want socialism. I am very sy[…]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjRkWPeU[…]