 |
|
11-05-2009, 05:14 PM
|
#11 (permalink)
|
|
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Berkshires
Posts: 2,776
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimstone
So now youtube is somehow biased?
|
Who said they were biased? Is this where you argue against points I don't make because you missed the boat again? 
Youtube is totally unedited, unverified, and open access. Anyone, I mean anyone can put whatever they want on it. It doesn't make it qualified at all.
Quote:
|
John Coleman (founder of The Weather Channel) is somehow less important because this TV clip was posted on youtube?
|
Do you get an honorary degree when you upload to youtube? Does it somehow make you smarter to hit the 'upload' button?
John Coleman is as important as he was before posting this, just as irrelevant to meteorological research and just as untrained in science. And he's got as much authority and actual research training in meteorology as a garbage man.
He's got a degree in journalism. He's a weather newscaster. This means he's good at getting in front of the camera and bullshitting for 5 minutes twice an evening. That and a buck will get him a cup of coffee during a NASA tour. He's not a meteorologist. He's got no formal scientific training or qualifications.
Quote:
|
Do you have any studies supporting global warming that have been produced by organizations that did not have anything to gain politically or financially?
|
Oh how little you know about the peer review process, tenure, and granting agencies. Probably about as much as John Coleman.
Quote:
|
It is interesting that all of the proposals that have resulted from the global warming scare result in huge shifts in either money or power.
|
Yes, because NOAA is secretly trying to take over the world. It's all a smoke screen to keep us from asking Obama about his birth certificate! You finally broke the case! 
Quote:
|
I would have thought that we would have an immediate call for the construction of nuclear power plants in the U.S., but that is not the case.
|
So that's your answer to climate change? Throw up some nuclear power plants, and.... done.
Actually it is the case. It's one proposal of a multi-pronged approach.
Quote:
|
Instead, we have schemes which involve things like "carbon credits"
|
You expect the corporations to curb their own emissions?
It's another part of a multi-pronged approach. Quite being so narrow minded. It's going to take a lot more than throwing up some nuclear plants, including FORCING the corps to reduce emissions.
Congratulations, you finally did it!! You get a gold star.
1 scientist against climate change theory before congress. Did you notice the parade of scientists that disagreed with him also before congress. Anything else?
__________________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
|
|
|
|
Sponsored Links
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 05:20 PM
|
#12 (permalink)
|
|
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Berkshires
Posts: 2,776
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpdsnowman
Well wait a minute...If all this data is false...if there are 30k scientists believe otherwise...
Why wouldnt Al gore debate with them and produce his credible side...
|
He does. It's called congressional hearings.
Quote:
|
Their main platform is CO2. Me personally I do alot with CO2 emissions thru the HVAC industry and not being a scientist, nor journalist, nor even a youtube fan I can say as far as CO2 goes. It aint hurtin the earth like other things can.
|
Which is heavier, one heavy cinder block or a truckload of small cinder blocks? 
It's not as bad as other stuff. But other stuff isn't being pumped into the air in such massive quantities like CO2. It's a matter of volume and continued volume every day.
If it wasn't CO2, why would they be targeting as something as 'innocuous' as CO2? You'd think they'd be lighting methane clouds on fire to scare the shit out of people. That logic of 'falsely' singling out CO2 doesn't make sense.
__________________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 09:00 PM
|
#13 (permalink)
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Central New York
Posts: 8,383
|
Well the point being CO2 is a gas that has been in existance since the beginning of time and the current contribution of man is a minimal minimal effect on the earth as a whole.
If you burn 10 tires thats more harm to the situation than you, your parents and your grandparents lifes combined of excreting co2 with every exhale....
Its a false pretense really.
__________________
M P D S N O W M A N
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 09:38 PM
|
#14 (permalink)
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Rocket Ranch, FL
Posts: 85
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpdsnowman
Well the point being CO2 is a gas that has been in existance since the beginning of time and the current contribution of man is a minimal minimal effect on the earth as a whole.
If you burn 10 tires thats more harm to the situation than you, your parents and your grandparents lifes combined of excreting co2 with every exhale....
Its a false pretense really.
|
If man's breathing was his only contribution, you would be correct. Fossil fuel combustion. We have China just coming on line with prosperity and they are dumping vehicles on the road like crazy. Not hating on China. It's just a massive population. If we don't manage it while it's still manageable, we'll lose.
Carbon Dioxide - Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide | Climate Change - Greenhouse Gas Emissions | U.S. EPA |
|
|
|
|
11-05-2009, 09:45 PM
|
#15 (permalink)
|
|
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Berkshires
Posts: 2,776
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpdsnowman
Well the point being CO2 is a gas that has been in existance since the beginning of time and the current contribution of man is a minimal minimal effect on the earth as a whole.
If you burn 10 tires thats more harm to the situation than you, your parents and your grandparents lifes combined of excreting co2 with every exhale....
|
What makes you think exhaling CO2 is the only way it gets pumped into the air? What makes you think you haven't put 10 tires worth of CO2 into the air by simply living your life the way you do this year alone?
And the CO2 you put into the air when you drive to work? The CO2 produced from making your Big Mac for lunch? The CO2 produced to deliver your snowboard to the shop where you bought it? The CO2 produced to deliver the materials to the snowboard factory so it can be made? The CO2 produced by burning coal to power the plant that made your car, snowboard, and Big Mac? The CO2 put out by the equipment digging up the coal and transporting it to the power plant so it can be burned to make your car, snowboard, and Big Mac? The CO2 produced to haul your old snowboard, old car, and old snowboard away in the trash? The CO2 produced to power the crusher for your car, the CO2 produced to build the landfill that your Big Mac wrapper is going into?
Quote:
|
Its a false pretense really.
|
The CO2 that you breathe out is minuscule compared to the CO2 produced to keep you in your comfortable lifestyle today. Just because you don't understand does not make it false.
__________________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Last edited by MunkySpunk : 11-05-2009 at 09:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
11-06-2009, 02:30 AM
|
#16 (permalink)
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mt. HOOD
Posts: 686
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MunkySpunk
What makes you think exhaling CO2 is the only way it gets pumped into the air? What makes you think you haven't put 10 tires worth of CO2 into the air by simply living your life the way you do this year alone?
And the CO2 you put into the air when you drive to work? The CO2 produced from making your Big Mac for lunch? The CO2 produced to deliver your snowboard to the shop where you bought it? The CO2 produced to deliver the materials to the snowboard factory so it can be made? The CO2 produced by burning coal to power the plant that made your car, snowboard, and Big Mac? The CO2 put out by the equipment digging up the coal and transporting it to the power plant so it can be burned to make your car, snowboard, and Big Mac? The CO2 produced to haul your old snowboard, old car, and old snowboard away in the trash? The CO2 produced to power the crusher for your car, the CO2 produced to build the landfill that your Big Mac wrapper is going into?
The CO2 that you breathe out is minuscule compared to the CO2 produced to keep you in your comfortable lifestyle today. Just because you don't understand does not make it false. |
I read this as its dumping close to a foot of snow near my house. They will say its climate change. I think not.
Its funny to think the big thing in the 70s and 80s was the threat of an ice age. Now global warming. What next.
__________________
Union Danny Kass signature model
Lib Tech Skate Banana
K2 Darko Boots
Volcom Outerwear
Giro Goggles
|
|
|
|
|
11-06-2009, 07:19 AM
|
#17 (permalink)
|
|
AASI Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mt. Hood Oregon
Posts: 9,693
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpdsnowman
Well the point being CO2 is a gas that has been in existance since the beginning of time and the current contribution of man is a minimal minimal effect on the earth as a whole.
If you burn 10 tires thats more harm to the situation than you, your parents and your grandparents lifes combined of excreting co2 with every exhale....
Its a false pretense really.
|
Oh Carmen, buddy, please.....how many times have I told you not to put horse shit in that bong of your?.....
Just to give you an idea.....let`s look at some staggering data about Coal:
Quote:
Coal Combustion and Carbon Dioxide Emissions
The amount of heat emitted during coal combustion depends largely on the amounts of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen present in the coal and, to a lesser extent, on the sulfur content. Hence, the ratio of carbon to heat content depends on these heat-producing components of coal, and these components vary by coal rank.
Carbon, by far the major component of coal, is the principal source of heat, generating about 14,500 British thermal units (Btu) per pound. The typical carbon content for coal (dry basis) ranges from more than 60 percent for lignite to more than 80 percent for anthracite. Although hydrogen generates about 62,000 Btu per pound, it accounts for only 5 percent or less of coal and not all of this is available for heat because part of the hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water vapor. The higher the oxygen content of coal, the lower its heating value.(3) This inverse relationship occurs because oxygen in the coal is bound to the carbon and has, therefore, already partially oxidized the carbon, decreasing its ability to generate heat. The amount of heat contributed by the combustion of sulfur in coal is relatively small, because the heating value of sulfur is only about 4,000 Btu per pound, and the sulfur content of coal generally averages 1 to 2 percent by weight.(4) Consequently, variations in the ratios of carbon to heat content of coal are due primarily to variations in the hydrogen content.
The carbon dioxide emission factors in this article are expressed in terms of the energy content of coal as pounds of carbon dioxide per million Btu. Carbon dioxide (CO2) forms during coal combustion when one atom of carbon (C) unites with two atoms of oxygen (O) from the air. Because the atomic weight of carbon is 12 and that of oxygen is 16, the atomic weight of carbon dioxide is 44. Based on that ratio, and assuming complete combustion, 1 pound of carbon combines with 2.667 pounds of oxygen to produce 3.667 pounds of carbon dioxide. For example, coal with a carbon content of 78 percent and a heating value of 14,000 Btu per pound emits about 204.3 pounds of carbon dioxide per million Btu when completely burned.(5) Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of this coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide.
Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Coal
|
Let`s do a little math:
4,558,273,000 Tons multiplied by 2.86 (from figures above)=1,303,666,078 tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere each and every year (actually increasing because China has a new Coal fired power plant coming online every month.
Now let`s look at Oil:
So how much Oil is burned on the planet in a year?
Okay, time for some math here:
First we need to convert Kg`s to Pounds since we are Americentric and us Americans are "too good" for the metric system....
317 multiplied by 2.20462= 698.8 Pounds of CO2 per barrel!
Now we need to see how many barrels of oil the planet consumes in a year:
85,085,664 Barrels/day multiplied by 365 equals: 31,056,267,360 barrels per year average!
Okay, lets get the weight of the CO2 produced yearly by burning oil:
31,056,267,360 barrels per year multiplied by 698.8 Pounds of CO2 per barrel equals: 21,702,110,631,168 Pounds of CO2 produced globally per year!!!
To make it an easier number to deal with, let`s convert it to tons:
21,702,110,631,168 Pounds divided by 2000 equals: 10,851,059,815.584 Tons of CO2 per year globally.
Okay, now let`s combine the two to see the CO2 results on our planet every year from burning the two principal fossil fuels....have`nt even put Natural gas into the mix..... 
1,303,666,078 tons of CO2 from Coal plus 10,851,059,815.584 Tons of CO2 from Oil Equals: 12,157,421,393.584 Tons of CO2 into the Earth`s atmosphere every single year.
Just in case you are curious....how many cubic feet does that equate to?
Again, math is our friend....
One cubic foot of CO2 weighs .1144 Pounds, so 1 pound of CO equals about 8.74 cubic feet of CO2
We have 12,157,421,393.458 Tons of CO2 from fossil fuels, or 24,309,442,787,168 pounds of CO2 per year globally.
So we will multiply 24,309,442,787,168 pounds pounds of CO2 by 8.74 to get the approximate cubic feet of CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere every year globally:
212,464,529,959,848.32 cubic feet of CO2 every single year.
Yes, that`s a huge number to try to comprehend so let`s try to make it manageable:
How about cubic miles instead:
1 cubic mile equals 147,197,952,000 ft3 so,
212,464,529,959,848.32 cubic feet of CO2 divided by 147,197,952,000 equals:
1443.39 cubic miles!
To put that in some kind of perspective, that is the equivalent of a cloud that would be 1 mile thick, 1 mile high and 1443.39 miles long.
So, let`s review class:
Yearly global figures on CO2 produced by burning Coal and Oil:
12,157,421,393.584 Tons of CO2
212,464,529,959,848.32 cubic feet of CO2
1443.39 cubic miles of CO2
Our impact on the planetary climate is far from minimal! |
|
|
|
|
11-06-2009, 07:23 AM
|
#18 (permalink)
|
|
AASI Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mt. Hood Oregon
Posts: 9,693
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATOTony76
I read this as its dumping close to a foot of snow near my house. They will say its climate change. I think not.
Its funny to think the big thing in the 70s and 80s was the threat of an ice age. Now global warming. What next.
|
Oh Christ are you really this ignorant?????
"Oh wow it`s snowing at the 3500 foot level on Mt. Hood in fucking Novemeber...that proves there is no such thing as global warming.....
You obviously have`nt got a clue not only about climate science but our local weather.....I suggest that you put down "Cat in the Hat" and try to get through an 8`th grade Earth Science text book.....  |
|
|
|
|
11-06-2009, 07:32 AM
|
#19 (permalink)
|
|
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Berkshires
Posts: 2,776
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATOTony76
I read this as its dumping close to a foot of snow near my house. They will say its climate change. I think not.
|
Actually, they will say it's snowing near your house.
After your last self-contradictory (albeit, unintentionally fucking hilarious) rant on climate change, I'm just going to hand you an e-cookie, pat you on the head, and move on to worthwhile posts. Because you just. don't. get. it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf
First we need to convert Kg`s to Pounds since we are Americentric and us Americans are "too good" for the metric system.... |
Oh that pisses me off to no end. I HATE the Imperial system. Do you know there is a 'microinch' measurement? 10^-6 inches! How fucked up is that? You take the logic of the metric system and force it into the idiocy of the Imperial system. Talk about a red-headed stepchild hammering a square peg into a round hole with a jackhammer. ARG!! I feel like asking people to borrow a million microbucks for the vending machine.
Quote:
|
Again, math is our friend....
|
RADICAL LEFT WING PROPAGANDA!!! Only a Commie would want to educate the masses and have them think for themselves!!
"Disingenuous mountebanks with their subliminal chicanery! A pox on them!" - Homer Simpson
__________________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
|
|
|
|
|
11-06-2009, 07:42 AM
|
#20 (permalink)
|
|
AASI Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mt. Hood Oregon
Posts: 9,693
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimstone
So now youtube is somehow biased? A site that allows you to post videos is itself somehow biased. John Coleman (founder of The Weather Channel) is somehow less important because this TV clip was posted on youtube?
Do you have any studies supporting global warming that have been produced by organizations that did not have anything to gain politically or financially? It is interesting that all of the proposals that have resulted from the global warming scare result in huge shifts in either money or power. I would have thought that we would have an immediate call for the construction of nuclear power plants in the U.S., but that is not the case. Instead, we have schemes which involve things like "carbon credits" and treaties that require the United States to pay lesser developed countries for our destruction of the environment.
A non-youtube link for you:
TESTIMONY OF DR. SYUN-ICHI AKASOFU |
I don`t need to say much here as Munky did a great job of handing you your ass on plate. You might take into account that he actually is a scientist in his own right and fully understands how the the peer review process works...you don`t have a clue based on your blatherings.....
I will touch upon something that he did`nt mention....
You wrote:
Quote:
|
Do you have any studies supporting global warming that have been produced by organizations that did not have anything to gain politically or financially?
|
And I suppose you are naive enough to think that the Coal industry and the Oil industry would`nt pay their own scientists to proclaim that Global Warming does not exist?.....
You wrote:
Quote:
|
I would have thought that we would have an immediate call for the construction of nuclear power plants in the U.S., but that is not the case.
|
Seriously, you have no clue why this is? Look at who the last president and vice president were....oil men. Do you really think that big oil is friendly to Nuclear power industry? What about the Coal industry? Do you really think they are pro nuclear energy? Have you go any clue who much money that the Oil, Gas and Coal industry has lobbied congress with? I wonder how many Republicans are bought and paid for by those industries. Nuclear has`nt got a snowball`s chance in hell. Add to that the public`s lack of scientific understanding of nuclear power and their downright superstitious fear of it.
Come on, really, I thought you were a little smarter than that..... |
|
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Got 0 Plans
