djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,122
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 16, 2015 8:40:47 GMT -5
Data fudging, How about I change it to cherry picking, that way I can say the numbers are true. Right?? OK, none of us here would ever cherry pick, would we? no, they are not the same thing. you can fudge the results without fudging the data. THAT is done all of the time. is that what you are claiming was done in the case of GW?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 17, 2015 7:32:12 GMT -5
This thread is about data collected from the 1950s to today. Discussing data collection techniques from the 1950s is exactly on point. Exactly! So why would she reference climate scientists in her last sentence as maybe being wild and crazy guys? No climate scientist will barely give a passing glance at short term weather statistics. Or how they're not in conformity (collection methods)or homogenized (data). Climate science is more in the realm of the physics of energy transfer. Here is a cut/paste from her reply #3 of this thread with more references to climate scientists which you "liked". <<< So everyone will ignore the climate scientist who runs that program, except for other climate scientists, who already think global warming data is accurate anyway, so why bother. >>> Seems that pointing out the difference between weather and climate was spot on in regards to this thread. JMA you are the one that linked in the CURRENT siting manual that NOAA uses for temperature sensors. I was trying to point out to you that the CURRENT manual was useless in our discussion of data from 1950. Not really sure what your point was in linking that manual, but now you're bitching that I discussed that manual that you linked in - whatever.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 17, 2015 7:51:10 GMT -5
Data fudging, How about I change it to cherry picking, that way I can say the numbers are true. Right?? OK, none of us here would ever cherry pick, would we? no, they are not the same thing. you can fudge the results without fudging the data. THAT is done all of the time. is that what you are claiming was done in the case of GW? Yes, I think it done all the time, politics, Global warming, government reporting, poll taking, news reporting. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html Do you thin there was any cherry picking or data fudging in this study?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 18:56:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 9:03:04 GMT -5
Exactly! So why would she reference climate scientists in her last sentence as maybe being wild and crazy guys? No climate scientist will barely give a passing glance at short term weather statistics. Or how they're not in conformity (collection methods)or homogenized (data). Climate science is more in the realm of the physics of energy transfer. Here is a cut/paste from her reply #3 of this thread with more references to climate scientists which you "liked". <<< So everyone will ignore the climate scientist who runs that program, except for other climate scientists, who already think global warming data is accurate anyway, so why bother. >>> Seems that pointing out the difference between weather and climate was spot on in regards to this thread. JMA you are the one that linked in the CURRENT siting manual that NOAA uses for temperature sensors. I was trying to point out to you that the CURRENT manual was useless in our discussion of data from 1950. Not really sure what your point was in linking that manual, but now you're bitching that I discussed that manual that you linked in - whatever. In that post I was commenting on Angels statement. I was only pointing out to you in other posts that short term weather phenomenom (1950's to now), and how accurate it's collection process, is irrelevent to AGW. If you weren't confused on the difference between climate and weather, it would come across as a concise statement.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 17, 2015 9:17:59 GMT -5
Sorry, not taking any lectures on the difference between weather and climate from someone who doesn't think carbon emissions = pollution.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 18:56:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 12:33:25 GMT -5
Sorry, not taking any lectures on the difference between weather and climate from someone who doesn't think carbon emissions = pollution. I wasn't giving any lectures. Nice dodge though. With oil reserves at an 80 year high and all global prices under $50/bbl. Think it will affect mans global atmospheric carbon emissions ? I've listened to the caterwauling about carbon emissions since the 1970's and yet fossil fuel usage continues to go up. The United States with all the AGW nonsense in the media, is now the biggest fossil fuel producer (and user)in the world. With another (supposed) record hot year under our belts, it hasn't slowed production one bit. Doesn't seem that people really care about your carbon "pollution" as an overall. It's just plant food.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 17, 2015 21:08:03 GMT -5
Sorry, not taking any lectures on the difference between weather and climate from someone who doesn't think carbon emissions = pollution. Technically, if one adheres to the view that climate change isn't anthropogenic in nature (which is clearly jma's position), carbon dioxide isn't pollution. It isn't unnatural or harmful to the environment. Obviously if you believe in AGW, you can argue that carbon dioxide is pollution on that basis, but I get the impression you're arguing that CO 2 is a pollutant regardless of whether it contributes to climate change, which isn't true. Having said that, if you mean "carbon emissions" to refer to other carboniferous byproducts of combustion, etc., such as methane, then disregard my above criticism.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 17, 2015 22:59:13 GMT -5
CO2 is a pollutant by definition regardless of the source or which side you are on. I have a lot of interesting species of plants that like my yard- they are still weeds.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 17, 2015 23:07:08 GMT -5
We need to cut back on all that soda pop too.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 17, 2015 23:44:41 GMT -5
pol•lu•tion (pə-lo͞oˈshən) n. The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted, especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances.
Barring AGW, CO2 isn't a "harmful substance" by any reasonable definition. Significant concentrations of it exist in the atmosphere, and you may recall from 5th grade science class that it's rather important to photosynthesis.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,122
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 18, 2015 2:30:45 GMT -5
pol•lu•tion (pə-lo͞oˈshən) n. The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted, especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances. Barring AGW, CO 2 isn't a "harmful substance" by any reasonable definition. Significant concentrations of it exist in the atmosphere, and you may recall from 5th grade science class that it's rather important to photosynthesis. argon and ammonia are also quite common in air, but in high enough concentrations, all three can be lethal.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 18, 2015 7:13:02 GMT -5
pol•lu•tion (pə-lo͞oˈshən) n. The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted, especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances. Barring AGW, CO 2 isn't a "harmful substance" by any reasonable definition. Significant concentrations of it exist in the atmosphere, and you may recall from 5th grade science class that it's rather important to photosynthesis. It's harmful in the way that water can be harmful. A certain amount of it is natural and normal and in fact necessary for the ecological cycle to function, but too much of either one and it changes the normal cycles, becoming hazardous to life. Terrestrial organisms, both plants and animals, can't survive long in an aqueous environment, and if we significantly change the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere due to liberating carbon that had previously been stored inside the earth in oil and coal deposits, while at the same time reducing big chunks of forests (that act to tie up the carbon in trees) we end up with a lot more CO2 loose in the atmosphere than we used to have. Same thing with nitrogen. Most of our atmosphere is nitrogen, and that's a good thing, too, because if it was mostly oxygen we would spontaneously combust, but if you have nitrogen inerting systems, like my company has, and you have a leak from one of your nitrogen lines, you can dip below the 19.8% oxygen level required to remain conscious and suddenly nitrogen is your enemy. Someone once said the difference between a cure and a poison is only the dosage.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 18, 2015 7:44:47 GMT -5
djAdvocate and happyhoix: Your collective point is taken, but is anyone anywhere suggesting that man's influence on the concentration of CO 2 has any significant deleterious effects whatsoever besides AGW?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 18, 2015 9:12:37 GMT -5
I on my way to sell some carbon today, (burnt coconut husks ) used to absorb impuritys. good right? But carbon is bad, right, I'm so confused
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 18, 2015 10:02:45 GMT -5
djAdvocate and happyhoix: Your collective point is taken, but is anyone anywhere suggesting that man's influence on the concentration of CO 2 has any significant deleterious effects whatsoever besides AGW? Well, not unless you're in a confined space and the CO2 is displacing all the O2 in the room
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 18, 2015 10:04:00 GMT -5
I on my way to sell some carbon today, (burnt coconut husks ) used to absorb impuritys. good right? But carbon is bad, right, I'm so confused Well, we're made of carbon, so I would have to say carbon is good!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 18:56:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 10:56:17 GMT -5
pol•lu•tion (pə-lo͞oˈshən) n. The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted, especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances. Barring AGW, CO 2 isn't a "harmful substance" by any reasonable definition. Significant concentrations of it exist in the atmosphere, and you may recall from 5th grade science class that it's rather important to photosynthesis. It's harmful in the way that water can be harmful. A certain amount of it is natural and normal and in fact necessary for the ecological cycle to function, but too much of either one and it changes the normal cycles, becoming hazardous to life. Terrestrial organisms, both plants and animals, can't survive long in an aqueous environment, and if we significantly change the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere due to liberating carbon that had previously been stored inside the earth in oil and coal deposits, while at the same time reducing big chunks of forests (that act to tie up the carbon in trees) we end up with a lot more CO2 loose in the atmosphere than we used to have. Same thing with nitrogen. Most of our atmosphere is nitrogen, and that's a good thing, too, because if it was mostly oxygen we would spontaneously combust, but if you have nitrogen inerting systems, like my company has, and you have a leak from one of your nitrogen lines, you can dip below the 19.8% oxygen level required to remain conscious and suddenly nitrogen is your enemy. Someone once said the difference between a cure and a poison is only the dosage. With that "dosage" idea in mind, mans current continual contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere needed to sustain the current level as compared to the total atmospheric weight is .001% or 100/ppm. 400/ppm with the naturally occurring added in.. If we double our fossil fuel usage in the future, assuming global plant growth density remains the same, it will then be .002% or 200/ppm. 500/ppm with the naturally occurring added in. I don't think there is any threat whatsoever in regarding CO2 as pollution.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,122
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 19, 2015 11:56:41 GMT -5
djAdvocate and happyhoix: Your collective point is taken, but is anyone anywhere suggesting that man's influence on the concentration of CO 2 has any significant deleterious effects whatsoever besides AGW? probably not. honestly, i don't pay much attention to this argument, in that the larger point of it is generally missed: that having a clean environment is valuable. it will be interesting to see where industrialization leads in China. it doesn't look good so far.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 18:56:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 12:19:43 GMT -5
djAdvocate and happyhoix: Your collective point is taken, but is anyone anywhere suggesting that man's influence on the concentration of CO 2 has any significant deleterious effects whatsoever besides AGW? probably not. honestly, i don't pay much attention to this argument, in that the larger point of it is generally missed: that having a clean environment is valuable. it will be interesting to see where industrialization leads in China. it doesn't look good so far. That's one of the reasons why AGW proponents continually refer to CO2 emissions as pollution. It creates a reference point of being "bad" or "dirty". CO2 is no more dirty (pollution) than oxygen, nitrogen, etc.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 19, 2015 12:47:16 GMT -5
djAdvocate and happyhoix: Your collective point is taken, but is anyone anywhere suggesting that man's influence on the concentration of CO 2 has any significant deleterious effects whatsoever besides AGW? probably not. honestly, i don't pay much attention to this argument, in that the larger point of it is generally missed: that having a clean environment is valuable. it will be interesting to see where industrialization leads in China. it doesn't look good so far. There lies the rib, Macbeth. As I've posted in the past, Canada at least is chalk full of examples of industries abandoning environmental initiatives (wetlands protection, heavy metal scrubbers in nickel plants, wastewater reconditioning, etc.) in lieu of limiting their carbon output to qualify for government subsidies. It so happens that aggressively going after carbon has the unintended side effect of diverting money from other (some would say 'more important') clean environment initiatives.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 19, 2015 12:49:55 GMT -5
probably not. honestly, i don't pay much attention to this argument, in that the larger point of it is generally missed: that having a clean environment is valuable. it will be interesting to see where industrialization leads in China. it doesn't look good so far. That's one of the points why AGW proponents continually refer to CO2 emissions as pollution. It creates a reference point of being "bad" or "dirty". CO2 is no more dirty (pollution) than oxygen, nitrogen, etc. If AGW is a reality and CO 2 is the primary mechanism responsible for it, it does reasonably qualify as pollution. We should all just agree in this thread that one should consider CO 2 a pollutant if and only if one considers AGW to be a reality and a serious environmental problem.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,122
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 19, 2015 13:44:20 GMT -5
probably not. honestly, i don't pay much attention to this argument, in that the larger point of it is generally missed: that having a clean environment is valuable. it will be interesting to see where industrialization leads in China. it doesn't look good so far. There lies the rib, Macbeth. As I've posted in the past, Canada at least is chalk full of examples of industries abandoning environmental initiatives (wetlands protection, heavy metal scrubbers in nickel plants, wastewater reconditioning, etc.) in lieu of limiting their carbon output to qualify for government subsidies. It so happens that aggressively going after carbon has the unintended side effect of diverting money from other (some would say 'more important') clean environment initiatives. no, that is not exactly the RUB. what is the rub is that we need to quantify the value of the environment, rather than treating it like it is just there to be despoiled, as we have historically. it is an arduous task, and we are in the very nascent stages now. i am confident it will get better over time. but it really has to be done, unless you think that we will magically stop growing as a species, and magically stop expecting better and better lifestyles for ourselves ad infinitum.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 19, 2015 14:07:32 GMT -5
@ rib Sometimes the spell checker doesn't catch everything.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,122
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 19, 2015 14:31:26 GMT -5
@ rib Sometimes the spell checker doesn't catch everything. speaking of ribs, i need to go get some lunch.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 19, 2015 16:55:45 GMT -5
@ rib Sometimes the spell checker doesn't catch everything. speaking of ribs, i need to go get some lunch. Livestock produce methane and cause all kinds of environmental havoc. North American livestock is highly resource-intensive, and most ranchland could be used to cultivate high-protein, high-carb vegetarian alternatives that feed far more people per acre. In other words: you're a meat-eating, resource-sucking troglodyte who hates the planet, and we'll all be better off when you're not one of the 0.1% of the planet's population wealthy enough to afford such luxuries. Since virtually all serious AGW-fighting proposals put out by the UN and NSF (and even the not-so-serious ones) factor down to the above conclusion, it's no small wonder that climate change denial is popular among the proletariat. I suspect people will start caring about fighting climate change when the world's leaders (each of whom personally consumes as much as as small third world town) refrain from flying an armada of private jets to a paradise-on-Earth resort in the middle of the Swiss alps to discuss ways of combating poverty and climate change. As in: I wouldn't hold my breath.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 19, 2015 21:23:54 GMT -5
So jma- does the fact I enjoyed physics and read a lot of studies make me a "Gravity proponent"?
Since when did reading and understanding science make one a proponent of anything? I accept the consensus until it changes- so really I am a proponent of common sense. Unlike politicians and their masters I have zero financial interest in whether AGW is true or false- I only care that we should pay attention to what we are doing to the planet and quit acting like selfish pricks- or more to the point- quit allowing businesses to do whatever the hell they want and ignore the consequences.
Do you miss the 'good old days'? Before the evil EPA that the GOP wants to shut down- smog, acid rain, and all that jazz? Have you seen places in China where you can't see across town and the weather alerts are ' better just stay home if you like breathing'?
Common denominator- science figured out what was going on and what it was going to do. I defer to science, not politics. DOn't care how many snowballs that idiot old fart throws in congress.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 20, 2015 7:41:36 GMT -5
djAdvocate and happyhoix: Your collective point is taken, but is anyone anywhere suggesting that man's influence on the concentration of CO 2 has any significant deleterious effects whatsoever besides AGW? probably not. honestly, i don't pay much attention to this argument, in that the larger point of it is generally missed: that having a clean environment is valuable. it will be interesting to see where industrialization leads in China. it doesn't look good so far. People forget what it was like in this country back in the 50's and 60's before we had environmental regulations. I work in a city that used to have six foundries, in an area with topography that leads to a lot of temperature inversions. I've seen pictures of our downtown area in what looks like a snowstorm - but that was just all the emissions from the foundaries. There was also a company that dumped an acidic gas out upwind of a school, and the women teachers standing on the playground during recess used to have their nylon stockings melt off their legs. I think everyone who complains about environmental regulations just costing money and retarding business ought to be required to spend a month in China - without benefit of a dust mask - so they can see what unregulated industry looks like.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 20, 2015 8:55:56 GMT -5
happyhoix, Because some of us complain or question different rules, regulations or policy's,
that we want no rules or regulations??
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 18:56:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 9:47:25 GMT -5
probably not. honestly, i don't pay much attention to this argument, in that the larger point of it is generally missed: that having a clean environment is valuable. it will be interesting to see where industrialization leads in China. it doesn't look good so far. People forget what it was like in this country back in the 50's and 60's before we had environmental regulations. I work in a city that used to have six foundries, in an area with topography that leads to a lot of temperature inversions. I've seen pictures of our downtown area in what looks like a snowstorm - but that was just all the emissions from the foundaries. There was also a company that dumped an acidic gas out upwind of a school, and the women teachers standing on the playground during recess used to have their nylon stockings melt off their legs. I think everyone who complains about environmental regulations just costing money and retarding business ought to be required to spend a month in China - without benefit of a dust mask - so they can see what unregulated industry looks like. I haven't. The EPA should continue to monitor and restrict carcinogenic emissions. I especially remember the smog and high, ground ozone levels, due to unburned hydrocarbon release. I only complain about high cost restrictions based on unproven long range theory. From a regulatory agency that doesn't have to answer to the voter.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 18:56:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 10:21:44 GMT -5
So jma- does the fact I enjoyed physics and read a lot of studies make me a "Gravity proponent"?
Since when did reading and understanding science make one a proponent of anything? I accept the consensus until it changes- so really I am a proponent of common sense. Unlike politicians and their masters I have zero financial interest in whether AGW is true or false- I only care that we should pay attention to what we are doing to the planet and quit acting like selfish pricks- or more to the point- quit allowing businesses to do whatever the hell they want and ignore the consequences.
Do you miss the 'good old days'? Before the evil EPA that the GOP wants to shut down- smog, acid rain, and all that jazz? Have you seen places in China where you can't see across town and the weather alerts are ' better just stay home if you like breathing'?
Common denominator- science figured out what was going on and what it was going to do. I defer to science, not politics. DOn't care how many snowballs that idiot old fart throws in congress.
1)I don't know if it makes you a gravity proponent. Only you can answer that question. 2)I'm not a representative of the GOP, so I can't say what they want to do with the EPA. 3)The EPA should continue with carcinogenic control for the things you listed. Regulation on the basis of unproven theory however, is just wrong. It also has unintended side effects as Virgil listed in a previous post. 4) Science isn't always correct (that's why it's called research) and will bow to political steering when grant money (any money) is at stake. 5) If you defer to anything without thinking about researching the subject on your own, from all possibilities of the subject, how is it different from the old idiot with the snowball ?
|
|