Pellaz
Tigron of Immanion
Actually, even fuel cell automobiles would not produce enough water vapor to make an impact on tropospheric temperature. We would probably have more rain though
Send. Them. All. To. Atlanta.
Anyone feel guilty about flying to Atlanta?
- Thread starter Michael TEOF
- Start date
Send. Them. All. To. Atlanta.
MetalPrincess8
KEEP IT METAL!!
Doll, you don't seem to have picked up on the humor in irony of my explanation.
Of course removing your catalytic converter is illegal! Without it, your car would be pumping out harmful CO instead of harmless CO2. CO is not good for lungs and hangs low in the air (smog), especially in valleyed areas like Mexico City or Los Angeles. But guess what? CO pollution doesn't harm the planet. It is a local environmental concern (i.e. smog in LA doesn't affect smog in Chicago).
CO2 is billed as a much greater environmental concern, however. If you're worried about huricanes, mass extinction, rising sea levels engulfing coast lines, and the end of human life as we know it, CO2 would seem to be a more serious industrial pollutant than CO. CO affects the lungs of life forms in a finite area; CO2 (supposedly) impacts the health of "the planet."
Yet, if that were true, why is 1/3 of humanity's output of CO2 a result of CO conversion from catalytic converters? That was the point I was trying to get across.
In sum: carbon dioxide is a natural gas, critical to the existence of life on planet earth.
A.) CO2 makes up 0.038% of the earth's atmosphere. That 0.038% stays constant because plant life converts CO2 into O2 (which is also a greenhouse gas by the way). 95% of CO2 emissions are from the oceans, decaying vegitation (its fall now, lots of CO2 is coming from those leaves on the ground), volcanic activity, and carbon based life forms breathing. The remaining 5% is human industry (chiefly power plants and catalytic converters on automobiles converting CO to CO2).
The greenhouse affect is one of numerous factors that affect temperature on planets. CO2 absorbs a few microns of UV bandwith along with O2 (AKA that stuff we breathe), O3, and Methane. 95% of UV bandwith is absorbed by atmospheric water vapor. The portions where CO2 absorbs UV radiation are mostly overlapped by water vapor (by the way, you can't absorb more than 100% of something).
In sum sum: CO2 affects temperature about as much as staring at your food helps you lose weight. Yes, focussing your eyeballs to stare at your food does expend calories. And yes, expending calories will help you lose weight.
The Michael
Let's get one thing straight...I am not your "doll"...Secondly, I didn't pick up on your humor because it wasn't funny. And finally, you don't have to write a scientific novel every time you post in this thread. Since when did you become Mr. Wizard? Do you actually do this for a living? Or did you copy and paste that from one of the many liberal news sources out there?
Maybe doll was out of line, but I never implied you were "my" doll
. It's a term I use to bond with women... kind of like "dude" or "bro" with guys. I regret that it offended you.I am completely on your side with this issue and went out of my way to defend you. I'm baffled as to why you'd think I copy/pasted my information from a liberal activist site. Last I checked, all liberal activist sites firmly believe industrial CO2 is the primary driver in Earth's rising temperature. I stated that it is not. Besides, this isn't a liberal/conservative issue. I'm not arguing for or against government regulation of emissions for private industry.
I'm arguing that industrial CO2 does not impact global or local temperature.
And since you don't want me to be your friend, I don't see why I should announce what I do for a living. Read what I wrote. Click on the study regarding UV radiation absorbption and watch the documentary and debate I posted. Then form your own conclusions.
I meant no disrespect or emotional harm to you or anyone posting here.
Peace,
The friendly neighborhood Michael
Pellaz
Tigron of Immanion
What, someone actually posted facts in a climate-change discussion? Heresy! Dangerous! Can't have that, now, nosir.
Why, the next thing ya know, someone will mention that the actual development area for oil drilling in the ANWR is a whopping 2,000 acres in one corner.....out of 19 million acres. Less than one tenth of one percent. About the size of a large subdivision. And a pipeline already exists for getting it to the States -- the Prudhoe Bay line. But I digress.....
[ http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/ ]
Why, the next thing ya know, someone will mention that the actual development area for oil drilling in the ANWR is a whopping 2,000 acres in one corner.....out of 19 million acres. Less than one tenth of one percent. About the size of a large subdivision. And a pipeline already exists for getting it to the States -- the Prudhoe Bay line. But I digress.....
[ http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/ ]
MetalPrincess8
KEEP IT METAL!!
Maybe doll was out of line, but I never implied you were "my" doll
I am completely on your side with this issue and went out of my way to defend you. I'm baffled as to why you'd think I copy/pasted my information from a liberal activist site. Last I checked, all liberal activist sites firmly believe industrial CO2 is the primary driver in Earth's rising temperature. I stated that it is not. Besides, this isn't a liberal/conservative issue. I'm not arguing for or against government regulation of emissions for private industry.
I'm arguing that industrial CO2 does not impact global or local temperature.
And since you don't want me to be your friend, I don't see why I should announce what I do for a living. Read what I wrote. Click on the study regarding UV radiation absorbption and watch the documentary and debate I posted. Then form your own conclusions.
I meant no disrespect or emotional harm to you or anyone posting here.
Peace,
The friendly neighborhood Michael
Alrighty then...You're completely on my side with this issue? What issue? The only issue that I've been stating was that democrats scare people with these false facts about the environment just to get them on the dems side. Feel free to read my PM to you.
Wow. I honestly thought the whole premise of everything I posted was that liberal environmentalists use manipulated data on climate and CO2 to push a pro regulatory political agenda at the expense of the world's poor who can't afford "green" energy. You obviously didn't bother to read or watch anything I posted. I can't believe you still think I am arguing in favor of environmental regulations promoted by liberals and Democrats.
It's a shame you've shut your mind to information that supports everything you've said on "democrats scare people with false facts about the environment just to get them on the dems side." I didn't come out with that premise like you did, but it certainly is implied in my message.
Secondly (to reply publically to your PM), no, I am not a climate scientist. It's a subject I've studied for a long time, because I care about it. How does that make me unqualified to talk about global warming? Can nobody criticize the Iraq war unless they are a general? Can nobody argue against tax increases unless they are an economist working for the Fed? Can nobody argue against the act of abortion unless they are a woman capable of pregnancy? Can nobody critique a piece of music unless they are a musician?
Normally I ignore personal attacks and snooty little comments like "you're not my doll" (uh yeah...) etc. But, I do find it necessary to correct your misinterpretation of everything I've been saying. Let's try again:
- CO2 emissions (industrial gases) has no affect on climate; therefore policies which regulate CO2 emissions do not prevent climate change but raise the cost of energy for everyone, adversley impacting the world's poorest.
- When the global temperature increases, the temperature differences between the tropics and poles lessens and global climate becomes more stable (less hurricanes, storms).
- Malaria is not a tropical disease, because mosquitos (primary carriers) thrive in temperate/colder climates. A warmer planet will not result in increasing outbreaks of Malaria.
- The global temperature will not cause the polar ice caps to melt (they expand and contract by 3 during the summer/winter due to the tilt of the earth's axis). Furthermore, polar ice caps melting do not cause global sea levels to rise, because water has more volume in a frozen state than liquid. Sea levels can only rise through thermal expansion of the oceans which takes hundreds of years of increasing global temperature. Our coast lines are in no danger.
Michael
MetalPrincess8
KEEP IT METAL!!
Don't get your panties in such a wadd. I understand that you may have been studying this for quite some time...but you don't have to shove it down everyone's throats. That is a quality that most democrats have...hence me saying your points were like liberals. Yes, you can do all those things you listed and not be a rocket scientist to have opinions about them...but they are not SCIENTIFIC FACT like you are stating. So many scientists disagree about what you are stating. I neither agree nor disagree...my simple point is that you're acting like a democrat would when they are trying to get their point across...shoving it down everyone's throats. Makes me not even want to listen. Every time you post something in here it doesn't have to go on and on and on. Why do you feel the necessity to be so condescending? I have never once said to you that your information was wrong. All I said to you was that you sound like a lefty with how you come across to some people.
skyrefuge
Member
ha, I only made it to this thread by tracking MetalPrincess8's hilarious dig-up of that really old hi-hat thread on the main board, just so she could further stick it to The Michael (who I think she actually agrees with here, which makes it even funnier!)
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that I DID feel guilty about flying out to Portland for a day to attend a concert a couple weeks ago! Concern about being so incredibly wasteful almost held me back from going. So yeah, though I'm not about to buy carbon offsets, I *would* feel guilty about my carbon footprint if I was going to ProgPower. Which I suppose shouldn't be surprising, since I *am* the guy who rode his bicycle there one year.
A lot of the comments in this thread about guzzling gas almost express a level of pride, which is kind of sad. Whether or not global warming is a problem, isn't there some value in doing whatever you can to reduce your use of a finite resource? Even if you don't care a whit about how much of a scar you leave on the Earth in your lifetime, I'd think most people who aren't idiots would at least care about not throwing their money away!
Neil
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that I DID feel guilty about flying out to Portland for a day to attend a concert a couple weeks ago! Concern about being so incredibly wasteful almost held me back from going. So yeah, though I'm not about to buy carbon offsets, I *would* feel guilty about my carbon footprint if I was going to ProgPower. Which I suppose shouldn't be surprising, since I *am* the guy who rode his bicycle there one year.
A lot of the comments in this thread about guzzling gas almost express a level of pride, which is kind of sad. Whether or not global warming is a problem, isn't there some value in doing whatever you can to reduce your use of a finite resource? Even if you don't care a whit about how much of a scar you leave on the Earth in your lifetime, I'd think most people who aren't idiots would at least care about not throwing their money away!
Neil
Neil, you shouldn't feel guilty about CO2 emissions, because CO2 does not effect climate. CO2 is a harmless gas. It's CO and the other pollutants we need to worry about. My arguments are above for you to read.
You can chose to disagree with my logic based arguments above for whatever reason. That's your choice. At least read the other side with an open mind, is all I ask.
But let me ask you one question. If you are indeed a true believer that CO2 has a negative impact on climate, do you believe it's ethical for people to be selling offsets on the internet for CO2 emissions?. People make money off charities (even though they are "not for profit"). How is this any different than the Catholic Church in medieval times selling indulgences for sins of individuals made on earth? Carbon offsets are different from traditional charities. Charities are sold as an optional donation that is appreciated; you should not feel guilty if you chose not to donate to a charity. Offsets are sold as something you owe; the entire concept behind them is the sale of guilt relief.
Peronally, I find the carbon offset concept appauling (especially considering it's based on a lie). That's just my opinion. You're free to disagree, of course, but I hope you understand my reasoning.
The Michael
Though I'm more on Micheals side of this, I do agree that it's kind of retarded to go parading around cheering to the gods about driving an SUV 800 miles a day (though I know most of the people were joking). Not because I'm offended by their CO2 output, but because I'm the "cut costs wherever you can" type....I just feel bad for those people
skyrefuge
Member
heh...thanks. Let's see, there are so many reasons to choose from...how to pick? Probably the funniest is your repeated explanation that the melting of ice caps is nothing to worry about, because of the relative densities of liquid water and the ice currently floating on top of it. Problem is, no one ever said the melting of floating sea ice is a concern. It's the ice on LAND (Greenland, Antarctica, etc.) that's the issue.
If you completely misunderstand such a relatively simple concept, it makes it awfully hard to find anything else you say credible.
Let's see...if I believed that CO2 emissions have a negative impact on climate, AND I believed that buying carbon offsets would mitigate that effect, then of course I would believe the sale of carbon offsets is ethical.
Just as....if I believed that there was a God who was angered by "sinning", AND I believed that buying indulgences would mitigate that anger, then of course I would believe the sale of indulgences is ethical.
Because the effect of carbon offsets is testable.
Personally, I find the use of carbon offsets fairly stupid, for the same reason I would find indulgences stupid, even if I believed in their efficacy: the solution to burning too much fossil fuel (sinning) is not to balance it out somehow, it's to avoid burning it (sinning) in the first place!
Ha, what? Have you never seen a charity sales pitch then? I completely fail to see how the two are different; the purchase of voluntary, personal carbon offsets is just another form of charity, as far as I can tell. Except that I haven't yet had a sad-eyed kid come to my door and ask to contribute to his carbon offset fund, or I haven't seen a carbon offset bell-ringer outside a grocery store.
Neil
Skyrefuge,
Why the hostility and complete mischaracterization of my point of view? If the polar ice caps melt, the sea levels will not rise. Are you saying that they are, or are you switching to the Greenland northern sea ice/ cold front, shut down theory?
The melting of greenland is a separate issue you're bringing up. The land there is permafrost; the natural climate is arctic and pretty uninhabitable. I assume you're talking about the theory that when that if the ice melts, the cold water will change the temperature in the northern ocean waters and in turn change gulf streams, which will in turn change climate. Once people realized that polar ice caps melting will not cause global rises in sea level, the scientific community switched to this complicated theoretical weather model. I'm not convinced. Maybe you are. If CO2 had an impact on temperature, then maybe someone would be on to something.
But if Greenland became a habitable area for growing crops, would that not be a good thing? The vikings used to farm Greenland. Warmer weather is better for planet Earth. Bring it on!
Now, on to your disagreement regarding my distinction between generosity based charities and guilt based charities. You are totally off base here. Let's say I'm soliticing donations for a children's hospital. If I ask people to help contribute to my cause, that's legitimate. If I tell people that if they don't donate to my charity, the blood of dying cancer babies is on their hands, I've crossed the line.
Selling "carbon offsets" crosses that line. I find that practice quite comparable to the practice of sale of indulgences.
Do you really think the ancient Catholic church practice of selling indulgences was a legitimate way of soliciting charity? If so, it's no wonder you don't see eye to eye with me on this carbon offset nonsense.
The Michael
Why the hostility and complete mischaracterization of my point of view? If the polar ice caps melt, the sea levels will not rise. Are you saying that they are, or are you switching to the Greenland northern sea ice/ cold front, shut down theory?
The melting of greenland is a separate issue you're bringing up. The land there is permafrost; the natural climate is arctic and pretty uninhabitable. I assume you're talking about the theory that when that if the ice melts, the cold water will change the temperature in the northern ocean waters and in turn change gulf streams, which will in turn change climate. Once people realized that polar ice caps melting will not cause global rises in sea level, the scientific community switched to this complicated theoretical weather model. I'm not convinced. Maybe you are. If CO2 had an impact on temperature, then maybe someone would be on to something.
But if Greenland became a habitable area for growing crops, would that not be a good thing? The vikings used to farm Greenland. Warmer weather is better for planet Earth. Bring it on!
Now, on to your disagreement regarding my distinction between generosity based charities and guilt based charities. You are totally off base here. Let's say I'm soliticing donations for a children's hospital. If I ask people to help contribute to my cause, that's legitimate. If I tell people that if they don't donate to my charity, the blood of dying cancer babies is on their hands, I've crossed the line.
Selling "carbon offsets" crosses that line. I find that practice quite comparable to the practice of sale of indulgences.
Do you really think the ancient Catholic church practice of selling indulgences was a legitimate way of soliciting charity? If so, it's no wonder you don't see eye to eye with me on this carbon offset nonsense.
The Michael
skyrefuge
Member
How did I mischaracterize your point of view? You restate it right here, and it's flat wrong. Only a small part of the volume of the polar ice caps is floating sea ice. The vast majority of it is sitting on land in Antarctica, as well as a sizeable chunk sitting on Greenland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_cap#Earth
No.
No. I'm not talking about the melting of "Greenland", I'm talking about the melting of mile-thick layer of ice sitting on top of Greenland. If that ice melts, it will not simply stay on top of Greenland, creating a mile-deep swimming pool towering over the land. It will flow into the oceans, raising the sea level worldwide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
No. I'm still trying to explain a far simpler topic. One that really has nothing to do with global warming. It really only involves geography and the law of conservation of matter. If you take a big bag of ice, melt it, and throw it in your bathtub, the level of water in your bathtub is going to rise.
#1. I think you're the only "people" who believe that polar ice cap melting will not cause a global rise in sea level. Even the most ardent opponent of the global warming theory would not deny the connection.
#2. The scientific community did not "switch" to anything. The connection between polar ice cap melting and sea level rise is the same as it has always been.
#3. It's only your own misunderstanding that made you think that floating sea ice is all that scientists referred to when discussing the melting of polar ice caps. They knew all along that they were talking about the ice on land.
Neil
MetalPrincess8
KEEP IT METAL!!
UH-OH...I'm sensing some tension...better watch out, Neil!! The Michael will get the thread closed if you don't agree with him!!!
freakchylde
PPUSA Driver o' Doom!!!!!
While I could agree with the ice in the bathtub example (in regards to ice that's located on land, ergo not in the ocean already), the ice in the ocean would not fit into that example. Not sure if you were including that, which I don't think you were, but anyway...totally different laws of displacement at work on that one.
Skyrefuge,
I still believe you are wrong about any melting ice causing sea levels to rise. Still, you're entitled to that point of view. Remember this debate 30 years into the future. Industrial CO2 emissions will most likely be greater; the sea levels will not rise in volume. I promise you.
The scientific consensus was all about global cooling and a coming ice age in the 1970s, and in the '90s/'00s it was all about polar ice caps melting (i.e. Kevin Costner's flop Water World). The sea levels are supposed to rise due to thermal expansion of the oceans, which takes hundreds of years. Melting sea ice has nothing to do with that (basic physics).
The scientific community knows this. That's why it's not called global warming; it's called climate change now. Melting ice will cause a disruption of current weather patterns and we'll have more hurricanes, or so the argument goes. By 2010, that'll be the new adopted threat. Watch. I called it with this post Storms are caused by a temperature differences between the tropics and poles. In a warmer world, this difference will decrease.
It's been fun debating this with you. I promise I won't have this thread closed ;-)
Your friendly neighborhood Michael
I still believe you are wrong about any melting ice causing sea levels to rise. Still, you're entitled to that point of view. Remember this debate 30 years into the future. Industrial CO2 emissions will most likely be greater; the sea levels will not rise in volume. I promise you.
The scientific consensus was all about global cooling and a coming ice age in the 1970s, and in the '90s/'00s it was all about polar ice caps melting (i.e. Kevin Costner's flop Water World). The sea levels are supposed to rise due to thermal expansion of the oceans, which takes hundreds of years. Melting sea ice has nothing to do with that (basic physics).
The scientific community knows this. That's why it's not called global warming; it's called climate change now. Melting ice will cause a disruption of current weather patterns and we'll have more hurricanes, or so the argument goes. By 2010, that'll be the new adopted threat. Watch. I called it with this post
Storms are caused by a temperature differences between the tropics and poles. In a warmer world, this difference will decrease.It's been fun debating this with you. I promise I won't have this thread closed ;-)
Your friendly neighborhood Michael
skyrefuge
Member
I haven't been "debating" you. I've made no claims or predictions in this thread. I've simply been pointing out your lack of understanding of a single, basic topic, which makes it impossible to put any weight behind your opinions when it comes to more complex and indeterminate topics.
Remember, I'm not making any claims about the existence or rate of polar ice cap melting; I'm simply discussing the effect if such melting did occur, just as you are.
You said:
Here are your choices to explain that statement. Please tell me which one is true:
A. I stand by the statement. If the 25 million+ cubic kilometers of land-based ice in the polar ice caps was to turn to water, that water would not cause sea levels to rise. (and feel free to then explain where that water would go)
B. I was wrong. I did not know that the vast majority of ice in the polar ice caps is sitting on land.
Neil
Remember, I'm not making any claims about the existence or rate of polar ice cap melting; I'm simply discussing the effect if such melting did occur, just as you are.
You said:
Here are your choices to explain that statement. Please tell me which one is true:
A. I stand by the statement. If the 25 million+ cubic kilometers of land-based ice in the polar ice caps was to turn to water, that water would not cause sea levels to rise. (and feel free to then explain where that water would go)
B. I was wrong. I did not know that the vast majority of ice in the polar ice caps is sitting on land.
Neil
Evil Penguin
Member
Whether there is a real climate change or not, I'm still using this argument to travel to the Arctic next summer, before all the ice melts....which leads to another question. Should one feel guilty about flying to the Arctic to experience its wonder before it goes away? Or should one just sit at home and order an Arctic photography book from Amazon.com?
MetalPrincess8
KEEP IT METAL!!
Nah...go see the Arctic...sounds like a once in a lifetime type trip. It would probably take just as much energy (if not more) to get that book shipped to you as it would to just fly up there and see it for yourself. Don't deny yourself something as amazing as seeing the Arctic.
