Australian Politics Forum - Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem
Reply #30 - Aug 24^th, 2013 at 8:09pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 11:35am:

Climate change is real no one is denying that.

Climate change has been with us since the Earth formed, otherwise we would still be a molten rock of lava.

The Earth cools and warms in accordance with its orbit around the sun and what the sun is doing at the time.

Its the natural cycle of the Earth.

What is not settled is that mans emissions of CO2 are going to destroy life as we know it today.

Nice straw man.

But despite that - It is "settled" and has been "settled" for decades now that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions will have and are having a significant impact on human society.

Only the ignorant flat-earthers continue to deny this.

Ajax wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 11:35am:

Now if governments were fairdinkum they wouldn't allow the future of all humanity to be placed in the hands of wall street and the stock exchange.

That's how serious the problem really is, ie. trading carbon credits on the exchange will keep us all safe and sound from the boogey man.

Remember gentlemen when the bankers manage to get the $2 trillion dollar carbon credit market going.

THE LAST THING ON THEIR MINDS WILL BE TO REDUCE MANMADE CO2 EMISSIONS.

That's how real the problem is.

Emissions trading is a proven strategy for emissions reductions that has been working successfully for decades under the US Clean Air Act.

Only the ignorant flat-earthers continue to deny this.

FARMBOY FLATTENS ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH HIM SO LOOKOUT WON'T YA! Cheesy

ALL YA HAVE TO DO IS GET HIS STEPDADS MOBILE AND THEN HE WILL CEASE AND DISIST VERY QUICKLY!!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11070
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem
Reply #31 - Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:48pm

The science is far from settled.

1. the hot spot that the computer simulated models are telling us will cause a runaway greenhouse effect doesn't exist in the real world.

2. There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature, CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years, look into our history for the truth.

3. Sea levels have been dropping and its not because 10000km3 fell on Australia and she soaked it all up, that is the biggest bed time story ever, well maybe close to the biggest bed time story AGW religion.

4. If we where so close to the precipice of no return for manmade CO3 emissions, do you think the best and quickest way is to create a $2 trillion dollar carbon credit market....????????...so bankers can get richer..????

The list goes on but I have to go out......oooouuuuurrroooo...!!!

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem
Reply #32 - Aug 26^th, 2013 at 7:57pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:

The science is far from settled.

1. the hot spot that the computer simulated models are telling us will cause a runaway greenhouse effect doesn't exist in the real world.

This is an amazing revelation. Which computer model is saying that there is a hot spot, and which computer model is saying there will be a runaway greenhouse effect?

Quote:

2. There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature, CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years, look into our history for the truth.

Once again. Listen carefully this time. What you are saying is that the initial warming following glaciation is not caused by rising CO2 levels. Yes, we know. Nobody is claiming any different. The initial warming is caused by changes to the Earth's orbit which increases the solar irradiance. Any increase in forcing will result in a temperature rise. Milankovich cycles? Ring a bell? Roll Eyes

Quote:

3. Sea levels have been dropping and its not because 10000km3 fell on Australia and she soaked it all up, that is the biggest bed time story ever, well maybe close to the biggest bed time story AGW religion.

Do you really want to go there after your demonstration of your arithmetic skills. With those arithmetic skills you could be .... OK, you're Anthony Watts aren't you? Own up.

Quote:

4. If we where so close to the precipice of no return for manmade CO3 emissions, do you think the best and quickest way is to create a $2 trillion dollar carbon credit market....????????...so bankers can get richer..????

Please translate from Gibberish to English.

Quote:

The list goes on but I have to go out......oooouuuuurrroooo...!!!

And we are very much looking forward to that one.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem
Reply #33 - Aug 26^th, 2013 at 8:28pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 11:35am:

[quote author=Ajax link=1376565774/25#25 date=1377308142]
.

Emissions trading is a proven strategy for emissions reductions that has been working successfully for decades under the US Clean Air Act.

the USA has clean air?

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11070
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem
Reply #34 - Aug 26^th, 2013 at 9:19pm

muso wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

[quote]This is an amazing revelation. Which computer model is saying that there is a hot spot, and which computer model is saying there will be a runaway greenhouse effect?

Your kidding right, this was the centre piece of the IPCC and the rest of the nutters that are trying to scare us into paying for the air we breath.

Quote:

Once again. Listen carefully this time. What you are saying is that the initial warming following glaciation is not caused by rising CO2 levels. Yes, we know. Nobody is claiming any different. The initial warming is caused by changes to the Earth's orbit which increases the solar irradiance. Any increase in forcing will result in a temperature rise. Milankovich cycles? Ring a bell? Roll Eyes

Correct but you forgot to add, as the sun warms the Earth then more CO2 starts to get released into our atmosphere due to the temperature rise.

CO2 has never controlled temperature here on Earth not when we had 20 times the amount we have today or now with man throwing up a very small percentage of the total CO2 in our atmosphere.

Quote:

Do you really want to go there after your demonstration of your arithmetic skills. With those arithmetic skills you could be .... OK, you're Anthony Watts aren't you? Own up.

Are you serious are you buying this nutjob that claims the Australian terrain soaked up 10000km3 of rainwater that's why oceans fell by 7mm.

Please..................????

You are an educated person how can you believe this garbage................wake up dude.

Quote:

Please translate from Gibberish to English.

Well if we're all doomed because man is throwing up some miniscule amount of CO2 compared to nature which by the way is plant food and the earth's vegetation will thrive on it.

Don't you think every country could have taken direct action.

Like for example employing the latest technology in feeding and capturing.

Front end..start by using gas fired boilers this reduces CO2 emissions by up to 25%.

At the back end use latets technology in capturing CO2,

1. Fabric Filter Bags
2. Electrostatic precipitators,
3. Scrubbers
4. Carbon sequestration

Like in 2002 the government legislated to reduce the sulphur content in diesel from 10% to 6%.

It just passed the law and the corporation to their disappointment in having to spend money for no return complied.

Did we need to go to the stock exchange for that too..????

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem
Reply #35 - Aug 26^th, 2013 at 10:58pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 9:19pm:

muso wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

[quote]This is an amazing revelation. Which computer model is saying that there is a hot spot, and which computer model is saying there will be a runaway greenhouse effect?

Your kidding right, this was the centre piece of the IPCC and the rest of the nutters that are trying to scare us into paying for the air we breath.

I'll take that as meaning that you don't know.

Quote:

Quote:

Once again. Listen carefully this time. What you are saying is that the initial warming following glaciation is not caused by rising CO2 levels. Yes, we know. Nobody is claiming any different. The initial warming is caused by changes to the Earth's orbit which increases the solar irradiance. Any increase in forcing will result in a temperature rise. Milankovich cycles? Ring a bell? Roll Eyes

Correct but you forgot to add, as the sun warms the Earth then more CO2 starts to get released into our atmosphere due to the temperature rise.

Correct, but you forgot to add that this released CO2 leads to additional warming - about 40% of the total in fact.

Quote:

CO2 has never controlled temperature here on Earth not when we had 20 times the amount we have today or now with man throwing up a very small percentage of the total CO2 in our atmosphere.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It leads to radiative forcing. Before we started emitting it to the atmosphere in huge quantities, there were other forcings which were more prominent. Other forcings are due to direct solar forcing, cloud albedo, trace levels of methane etc.

It's true to say that prior to about 1960, the forcing signal due to carbon dioxide was not the dominant one. However careful measurements show that it has emerged as the dominant forcing since then. Does that mean that it's the only forcing? No. Does it mean that temperature must correlate with CO2 concentration? Not yet. There are other forcings and feedbacks to consider.

Quote:

Quote:

Do you really want to go there after your demonstration of your arithmetic skills. With those arithmetic skills you could be .... OK, you're Anthony Watts aren't you? Own up.

Are you serious are you buying this nutjob that claims the Australian terrain soaked up 10000km3 of rainwater that's why oceans fell by 7mm.

You are an educated person how can you believe this garbage................wake up dude.

Dude: Learn arithmetic so that you can work things out for yourself.

Quote:

Well if we're all doomed because man is throwing up some miniscule amount of CO2 compared to nature which by the way is plant food and the earth's vegetation will thrive on it.

It's not that simple. There will be some increase in vegetation, but recent research shows increased damage to plants. I'll see if I can find that for you.

"There is no such thing as too much fertiliser" - tell that to an agronomist and watch the reaction.

Quote:

Don't you think every country could have taken direct action.

Like for example employing the latest technology in feeding and capturing.

Front end..start by using gas fired boilers this reduces CO2 emissions by up to 25%.

- and then some. Combined Cycle gas turbine plants are even better.

Quote:

At the back end use latets technology in capturing CO2,

Carbon capture ends up costing far too much, and storing the CO2 underground is fraught with problems.

Quote:

1. Fabric Filter Bags

They remove particulates (fly ash). Most power stations already have them. They don't reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Quote:

2. Electrostatic precipitators,

Old hat. Again, they reduce particulates while contributing to acid rain. Fabric filters are generally better than ESP's.

Quote:

3. Scrubbers

I prefer good looking women. (maybe you should explain more. What are you scrubbing from the air, using what? )

Quote:

4. Carbon sequestration

See Carbon capture - too hard basket again.

Quote:

Like in 2002 the government legislated to reduce the sulphur content in diesel from 10% to 6%.

Yes they did. If they just removed subsidies on burning fossil fuels then that would help.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem
Reply #36 - Aug 26^th, 2013 at 11:35pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:

3. Sea levels have been dropping and its not because 10000km3 fell on Australia and she soaked it all up, that is the biggest bed time story ever, well maybe close to the biggest bed time story AGW religion.

No. Sea levels have not been dropping.
Sea levels are rising.
This is because the earth is warming

As you have already been shown from the article discussed on other threads:

Although there are daily, seasonal and annual variations, sea levels worldwide have been creeping up by 3mm a year on average, as a consequence of ocean warming and glacial melting....

Since 2011, when the atmospheric patterns shifted out of their unusual combination, sea levels have been rising at a faster pace of about 10 millimeters per year

In 2010-11 there was a drop of 7mm in sea levels, due apparently in part to the floods in Australia in those years.

10,000m3 fell on Australia - but no one has claimed that "she soaked it all up" as you claim. What has been demonstrated to you on several occaisions is that it would only take one quarter of that volume to lower sea levels by 7mm. Sone 2500km3

Seriously - you really need to start paying attention to what is written and stop telling lies.

Back to top

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11070
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem
Reply #37 - Aug 27^th, 2013 at 5:48pm

muso wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 10:58pm:

I'll take that as meaning that you don't know.

The hot spot is the IPCC's mantle piece of evidence, their computer circulation model all show a heating of the tropopause an area of about 10 to 12 klms above sea level all around the equator.

This is what they claim will produce a runaway greenhouse effect.

http://www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/~olb/PAPERS/tropical-tropospheric-temperature-trends....

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/vr0603.pdf

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-1.html

Its just too bad that thousands of weather balloons and satellites cannot find this hot spot in the real world, it only exists in the computer circulation models.

Now why would that be.......???!!!

Maybe cause its

B

ullsh!t

We are going to be taxed on the air we breath because of a computer model who's evidence is non existent in the real world......??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

Correct, but you forgot to add that this released CO2 leads to additional warming - about 40% of the total in fact.

Did a computer circulation model spit out this data.

Sorry dude, it has yet to be proven that CO2 drives climate change, it never did in the past when we had 20 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today.

Why would it all of a sudden do so......?

Can you explain this........cause i'm all ears....??!!

Quote:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It leads to radiative forcing. Before we started emitting it to the atmosphere in huge quantities, there were other forcings which were more prominent. Other forcings are due to direct solar forcing, cloud albedo, trace levels of methane etc.

Sure I don't disagree here, problem is that CO2 is a trace gas not enough to cause the damage that Al Gore scared the world with.

Water Vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, take away all other greenhouse gases except water vapour and we will still be left with 95% of the greenhouse gas.

Quote:

It's true to say that prior to about 1960, the forcing signal due to carbon dioxide was not the dominant one. However careful measurements show that it has emerged as the dominant forcing since then. Does that mean that it's the only forcing? No. Does it mean that temperature must correlate with CO2 concentration? Not yet. There are other forcings and feedbacks to consider.

No you are wrong CO2 is not the dominant greenhouse gas..??!!

Since 1998 more than one third of ALL that's ALL manmade CO2 emissions have been released into our atmosphere and yet there has been no warming since 1998.

That just shoots your theory full of holes.

Quote:

Dude: Learn arithmetic so that you can work things out for yourself.

An education doesn't make you smart in life, just like a monkey you learn a few tricks and hopefully you might be able to expand on them by yourself.

There are many educated people that get the wool pulled over the eyes on a daily basis.

Quote:

It's not that simple. There will be some increase in vegetation, but recent research shows increased damage to plants. I'll see if I can find that for you.

OOHH my goodness where did you get that politicized hung of cr@p.

So CO2 harms vegetation????????

That's like saying oxygen harms us!!!!!!!!

Dude millions of years ago when we had 20 times the CO2 we have today in our atmosphere, vegetation thrived and then so did the animals that eat it.......FACT

Quote:

They remove particulates (fly ash). Most power stations already have them. They don't reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

They remove what we term as pollution for instance the soot that comes out of the chimneys or power stations can be captured by electrostatic precipitators of fabric filter bags.

The CO2 which by the way isn't pollution can be extracted with scrubbers and then stored for sequestration.

Quote:

Old hat. Again, they reduce particulates while contributing to acid rain. Fabric filters are generally better than ESP's.

Correct but its not old hat, ask people who live next to a power station if they would prefer the filterization of the soot or the CO2...????

I would bet they would say the soot 99.99% of the time.

Quote:

I prefer good looking women. (maybe you should explain more. What are you scrubbing from the air, using what? )

HAhahahah....Co2 can be scrubbed so stop being so silly.

Quote:

See Carbon capture - too hard basket again.

About as hard as getting the whole world to run on green energy.

Quote:

Yes they did. If they just removed subsidies on burning fossil fuels then that would help.

We don't need the UN and the IPCC telling us what to do with our resources and having to pay them too.

I say to hell with them they do nothing for Australia why should we allow them to dictate to us how and when we can use our resources.

Why should billions of Australia's tax pay dollar flor to them.

The money can be used here at home in a much better way to clean up pollution and work towards green energy.

I say p!ss them off once and for all.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 27^th, 2013 at 5:55pm by Ajax »

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem
Reply #38 - Aug 27^th, 2013 at 7:28pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 5:48pm:

muso wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 10:58pm:

I'll take that as meaning that you don't know.

The hot spot is the IPCC's mantle piece of evidence, their computer circulation model all show a heating of the tropopause an area of about 10 to 12 klms above sea level all around the equator.

This is what they claim will produce a runaway greenhouse effect.

The main factor here is that there is definite evidence of surface warming. The hotspot doesn't confirm whether the surface warming is due to CO2 forcing or Solar forcing. In fact any warming should result in the same characteristic warming of the upper troposphere. It's not the test that you think it is for CO2 warming.

The other important factor is that the charts in the IPCC paper refer to longterm equilibrium data. The period of study was too short and there was too much natural noise to get a good measurement.

The problem seems to be overconfidence in results, not accounting for El Nino events and taking the reading over too short a time scale. Fortunately there were other papers that actually accounted for the El Nino events in this short period of time.

Here is one of them:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1651/abstract

Quote:

Tropical vertical temperature trends: A real discrepancy?

Quote:

We examine the sensitivity of modeled and observed tropical tropospheric temperature trend amplification (the ratio of T2LT “lower troposphere” to surface changes) to several sources of uncertainty. Model behaviour is robust across a large perturbed physics ensemble of HadCM3, yielding a smaller amplification range (1.44 ± 0.06) than a previous multi-model ensemble (1.41 ± 0.24). The uncertainty of inter-satellite calibration implied by available MSU T2 (mid-troposphere) estimates (σ = 0.035K) is much greater than that required to adequately resolve the trend (σ < 0.01K), or the amplification behaviour (implied amplification range ±0.95). Trend amplification uncertainty in both models and observations decreases as the timescale increases. Depending upon choice of dataset and time period, uncertainty in trend amplification estimates over 21 years lies between ±1.5 and ±0.2.

Now show me the bit where they talk about a runaway Greenhouse effect. I can't seem to find it. (Maybe because it isn't there)

You don't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas????

Talk to the LWIR spectra: Roll Eyes

(That's one of those indisputable facts)

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 27^th, 2013 at 7:56pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem
Reply #39 - Aug 27^th, 2013 at 8:22pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 5:48pm:

HAhahahah....Co2 can be scrubbed so stop being so silly.

I'll respond to your other points in due course, but I'd love to see how you propose to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere.

Are you going to use a molecular sieve, lime, sodium hydroxide solution? What are you going to use. Think about the manufacture of each of those substances and then tell me where the net CO2 capture is, because lime is produced by heating carbonate rock, which emits CO2 to the atmosphere. Sodium hydroxide requires energy to produce and molecular sieves need to be regenerated.

There is actually an interesting bit of technology that converts CO2 to carbon monoxide and oxygen. It's interesting but in its early stages:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/clean-coal/a-cheaper-way-to-turn-...

Once you have CO, you can hydrogenate it to form methanol and various petrochemicals.

Then there is CO2 to algae.

Quote:

OOHH my goodness where did you get that politicized hung of cr@p.

So CO2 harms vegetation????????

Apparently so, but you don't have to take my word for it. OK, now you're going to tell me that agricultural researchers are in on the conspiracy too?

Increased insect damage to plants grown in higher atmospheric CO2. The leaves contain more sugar, which means that the pest species thrive.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm

Also - net reduction in plant growth worldwide. Increasing CO2 leads to reduced calcification of phytoplankton:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will...

http://www.satoconor.com/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/13/Carbon-Dioxide-Damage-in-the-F...

Quote:

Beside the fact that elevated carbon dioxide might cause for instance chlorosis and necrosis, the exponents of leaf damage, in some plants. It certainly affects the opening or closure of the stomata, starch content of the leaves and photosynthesis rate of all plants. Because of this some plants will show growth acceleration and some growth retardation. The most favoured ones will overgrow the rest, thus affecting the biodiversity in the flora through the mechanisms of eutrophication and selective parasitic injuries. The last mechanism will occur because of the higher sugar and starch content of the leaves.
The agriculture might be affected because many of the carbon dioxide damage sensitive plants are nutritious crops, essential for the food production, especially in the third world.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 27^th, 2013 at 8:41pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11070
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem
Reply #40 - Aug 27^th, 2013 at 10:51pm

muso wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 7:28pm:

The main factor here is that there is definite evidence of surface warming. The hotspot doesn't confirm whether the surface warming is due to CO2 forcing or Solar forcing. In fact any warming should result in the same characteristic warming of the upper troposphere. It's not the test that you think it is for CO2 warming.

The other important factor is that the charts in the IPCC paper refer to longterm equilibrium data. The period of study was too short and there was too much natural noise to get a good measurement.

The problem seems to be overconfidence in results, not accounting for El Nino events and taking the reading over too short a time scale. Fortunately there were other papers that actually accounted for the El Nino events in this short period of time.

Here is one of them:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1651/abstract

Quote:

Tropical vertical temperature trends: A real discrepancy?

Now show me the bit where they talk about a runaway Greenhouse effect. I can't seem to find it. (Maybe because it isn't there)

Well Well you do have a brain after all, good to see.

Being educated doesn't necessarily put a brain in your head.

Here it is,
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html

Quote:

You don't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas????

CO2 is a greenhouse gas I have never disputed that.

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11070
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem
Reply #41 - Aug 27^th, 2013 at 11:07pm

muso wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 8:22pm:

I'll respond to your other points in due course, but I'd love to see how you propose to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere.

Are you going to use a molecular sieve, lime, sodium hydroxide solution? What are you going to use. Think about the manufacture of each of those substances and then tell me where the net CO2 capture is, because lime is produced by heating carbonate rock, which emits CO2 to the atmosphere. Sodium hydroxide requires energy to produce and molecular sieves need to be regenerated.

There is actually an interesting bit of technology that converts CO2 to carbon monoxide and oxygen. It's interesting but in its early stages:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/clean-coal/a-cheaper-way-to-turn-...

Once you have CO, you can hydrogenate it to form methanol and various petrochemicals.

Then there is CO2 to algae.

Sorry muso I should have been a bit more clear.

I'm totally against trying to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere, if we try to do that we will bugger the Earth up for sure.

I'ld rather hot than cold.

When I say to use scrubbers, I mean when the CO2 comes out at the back end of the power stations

Like this....
http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/2734/rwe/innovation/projects-technologies/power-ge...

Quote:

Apparently so, but you don't have to take my word for it. OK, now you're going to tell me that agricultural researchers are in on the conspiracy too?

Increased insect damage to plants grown in higher atmospheric CO2. The leaves contain more sugar, which means that the pest species thrive.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm

Insects Take A Bigger Bite Out Of Plants In A Higher Carbon Dioxide World

What happened to the insects did they grow bigger mouths???

Did they grow bigger because of all the nourishment.

Besides how do they know this, currently we have some of the lowest amounts of CO2 in our history, only one other time has CO2 been this low in our atmosphere.

Cant buy that one.

Quote:

Also - net reduction in plant growth worldwide. Increasing CO2 leads to reduced calcification of phytoplankton:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will...

Cant buy that one either, plants adjust.

Take two identical plants put one outside your window ledge and the other in a greenhouse.

Both will live and flourish, its just one will be bigger than the other.

Plants have coped with 20 times the CO2 we have today and flourished.

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem
Reply #42 - Aug 27^th, 2013 at 11:14pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 10:51pm:

Now show me the bit where they talk about a runaway Greenhouse effect. I can't seem to find it. (Maybe because it isn't there)

Quote:

Here it is,
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html

Good try, but no cigar. Nobody is claiming that there will be a runaway greenhouse effect. The only people who claim that the IPCC are saying that, are the denialists.

Some astronomers have speculated that in a couple of billion years the Earth could develop a runaway greenhouse effect, but it certainly has nothing to do with climatology.
Quote:

You don't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas????

Quote:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas I have never disputed that.

sigh

Greenhouse gases cause warming.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem
Reply #43 - Aug 27^th, 2013 at 11:21pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 11:07pm:

[quote]Also - net reduction in plant growth worldwide. Increasing CO2 leads to reduced calcification of phytoplankton:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will...

Cant buy that one either, plants adjust.

Take two identical plants put one outside your window ledge and the other in a greenhouse.

Both will live and flourish, its just one will be bigger than the other.
Quote:

Plants have coped with 20 times the CO2 we have today and flourished.

Different species. It's possible for plants to adapt, but not in such a short time.

You don't get the reduced calcification rate part either. I'll explain it some other time.

I don't have enough time right now.

Quote:

Plants have coped with 20 times the CO2 we have today and flourished.

What kind of plants? Land plants? 20 times 400 is 8000.

I think you'll find that 7000 marked the upper level of the error bars in the original study, not the concentration. (It's also very speculative because two other studies quote figures of around 400ppm for this period. )

Not even the most extreme study shows CO2 at that level. What kind of plants existed in the Cambrian Period. You can Google that one, but I happen to know because I did Geology up to second year Uni.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 27^th, 2013 at 11:27pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem
Reply #44 - Aug 27^th, 2013 at 11:29pm

Ajax wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 5:48pm:

Since 1998 more than one third of ALL that's ALL manmade CO2 emissions have been released into our atmosphere and yet there has been no warming since 1998.

That just shoots your theory full of holes.

Oh dear. How many times must you be told?

There has been warming since 1998.
It is unequivocal
Indisputable.

It is the warming since 1998 that has caused the arctic ice cap to decrease
It is the warming since 1998 that has caused global glacial mass balance to decrease.
It is the warming since 1998 that has caused sea levels to rise

I know that a tabloid journalist in the Daily Mail told you different - but guess what. He is wrong.

Doesn't it bother you that everything you write is demonstrably wrong?

You can't add up.
You cant understand what you read
You tell lies.

Why do you do this?

Back to top

IP Logged