Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Why pick on oil ? Is it because we have had too many wars over oil, because it is funding terroism, or because it is an easy target ? We will run out of all resources .

My opinion on renewable resources is that there is a system in place for dealing with changes . It is called money . Forced change has never succeeded . Look at the cities designer built around the world that remain under populated .

Quote:

I would personally take any societal negatives to wind mills and solar panels to the environmental costs of non-renewable resources, many of which we will run out of soon.

I would personally NOT take any environmental negatives to wind mills and solar panels to the societal costs of stopping non-renewable resources .

0 Replies

I can remember as a school boy being told oil will run out before the turn of the century . Just like GW enthusiasts said there would be no snow by 2015 .
http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/a/run_out_of_oil.htm

Quote:

The most naive way to make a prediction is to simply do the following calculation:

Yrs. of oil left = # of barrels available / # of barrels used in a year.

So if there are 150 million barrels of oil in the ground and we use 10 million a year, this type of thinking would suggest that the oil supply will run out in 15 years. If the predictor realizes that with new drilling technology we can gain access to more oil, he will incorporate this into his estimate of #1 making a more optimistic prediction of when the oil will run out. If the predictor incorporates population growth and the fact that demand for oil per person often rises he will incorporate this into his estimate for #2 making a more pessimistic prediction. These predictions, however, are inherently flawed because they violate basic economic principles.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Good point georgeob1 .

http://www.livescience.com/7980-creatures-build-thicker-shells-ocean-chemistry.html

Quote:

Scientists have worried in recent years that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is increasing acidification of the ocean, will cause shells of sea creatures to be thin and brittle, potentially threatening the entire ocean ecosystem.

So a new finding has surprised the heck out of them.

Some shell builders, such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters, unexpectedly build more shell when exposed to ocean acidification.

"Most likely the organisms that responded positively were somehow able to manipulate ... dissolved inorganic carbon in the fluid from which they precipitated their skeleton in a way that was beneficial to them," said Justin B. Ries, formerly of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and now an assistant professor in marine sciences at the University of North Carolina. "They were somehow able to manipulate CO2 ... to build their skeletons."

Surprise, Suprise, Surprise ! Nature doesnt collapse at the slightest change like the greenies have said it would now for years . The delicate nature of life...awwww ! Isnt that lovely ? And complete bullshit . Life is tough . It has survived many mass extinctions .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

I guess we should have let the ozone hole get wider and wider. Would only have fried a few Aussies at first...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

We had nothing to do with the Ozone hole . Ozone is constantly being formed in the earth's atmosphere by the action of the sun's ultraviolet radiation on oxygen molecules. Ultraviolet light splits the molecules apart by breaking the bonds between the atoms. A highly reactive free oxygen atom then collides with another oxygen molecule to form an ozone molecule. Because ozone is unstable, ultraviolet light quickly breaks it up, and the process begins again.

Other two main contributors in producing Ozone ? Smog and lightning . Smog that supposedly produces GW, and if GW takes place, the increase in storms will both produce Ozone .

Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) were not a good idea in the first place . Chlorine is not desirable anywhere in the atmosphere . Under ultraviolet radiation, the same radiation as pulls apart and then rebuilds Ozone, CFC's and HCFC's are also broken down . This means it has the potential to destroy large amounts of ozone as new chemicals can form whi9lst both are broken down, thus depriving us of the oxygen for the rebuild part of process . This potential was never proven as factual, the hole was sited as proof which is rubbish . The hole is still there, as it has been for more than 50 years that we know of . It grows and shrinks and does not change significantly in doing so .

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Okay so your brain fried already... Never mind!

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

So you are out of your depth .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Thanks for the laugh.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

do you know about the GRACE satellites and what they are telling us.

1 Reply

The Ozone hole set a precedent . No scientific proof, just do as we say, we are scientists and can bypass the democratic process, and once you have acted we will claim we cured it . God help us if anyone calls our bluff and nothing happens . We will have to say what little we did had a huge effect or they wont believe us next time .

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

do you know about the GRACE satellites and what they are telling us.

Not in regards to the Ozone layer, no, but if you mean about ice mass, yes .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Im sorry, I didnt wish to conflate the two. I didnt mean that GRACE had anything to mesure wrt ozone.
But, now that you mention it. With the inplementation of the Montreal Protocols by the industrialized world re: the manufacture and use of halons, do you know what has happened to the "ozone levels in the stratosphere of the high latitudes"?

As far as GRACE, you were poo pooing our abilities to measure such low levels of climate or sea level data, when GRACE is able to deternine with high repeatability the changes in masses of ice, ground water, surface water etc. no?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

do you know what has happened to the "ozone levels in the stratosphere of the high latitudes"?

Yes, the hole fluctuates like it has always done . We dont have enough data to decide with any accuracy what the real story is .

Quote:

As far as GRACE, you were poo pooing our abilities to measure such low levels of climate or sea level data, when GRACE is able to deternine with high repeatability the changes in masses of ice, ground water, surface water etc. no?

Yes, I was pointing out the difficulty in knowing what a measurement means because of the high variations normally occurring but only for the oceans . We had 10 years use out of it from 2002 to 2012 . Not enough to go by .

Of course a geologist knows about the length of climate cycles, and even if GW was about to be catastrophic, that is not enough time .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

. We dont have enough data to decide with any accuracy what the real story is

I think that is an assertion without any facts to support it. Weve only been able to accurately mesure the stratospheric chemistry with the development of high res insruments , SO'Like it always has done" doesnt go back much before the 1970's when the trend of the concentration of Ozone and halons was detectable. But I think we should look at the Montral protocols and the results(if any)

Quote:

I was pointing out the difficulty

"difficulties" are what science tries to address. Over time weve gotten really good at measuring stuff FROM SPCE like the masses of yearly ice that is lost all over the planet. THE GRACE satellites do it in a neat way that I dont think you or I can really deny .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

THE GRACE satellites do it in a neat way that I dont think you or I can really deny .

They have put another lot up there ? I thought they didnt . They are due to burn up this year . Anyway, measuring lost ice is probably more accurate then measuring sea level . At least the ice doesnt change height so much .

Quote:

I think that is an assertion without any facts to support it.

Thats my line . Measuring the ozone hole for a very short time, coming up with one way it might grow larger and then declaring the whole ozone layer to be in danger is pure green hysteria .

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

They have put another lot up there ? I thought they didnt . They are due to burn up this year .

Or next year, they say here. Potsdam will run GRACE-FO from 2017 more or less on their own.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

they measure gravity acceleration that is reflective of the mass on the planet and includes ice, soil, and ground water and surface water.
Were talking about a millionth of a miligal per meter of mass.
Its like measuring the thickness of a human hair across a room using a laser. Its highly repeatable and is easily calibrated Thwo satellites in a do-si-do about each other and as one is affected by its slight change in orbit due to the change in the mass underneath, theother records that change and send the news home. So theres several models that use this (Its kinda like LIDAR which records reflected laser light at about 10 levels of reflection), except this only records mass changes from directly above(there is no error of scan angle like radar , mass readings are all at right anges direct to the center of the planet.

Quote:

pure green hysteria

When did we start pumping halons into the atmosphere ?? I think youve gotta admit that these chemicals had no reasn for even being till the WWII and later era. So talking about "changes as theyve always been" is talking about a series of chemicals that werent even created until the very late 19th century and had no real use (and need for manufacture) until we replaced ammonia with other chemicals in freezers and insecticides and construction and insulation and foamy plastics

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Ionus, youve not gotten back with some opinion about ocean pH changes.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

How wide is the surface area measured and did the satellites cover the entire earth or was some estimated ? My limited knowledge of orbits suggests they didn't measure everything due to the number of satellites and orbits required .

Quote:

I think youve gotta admit that these chemicals had no reasn for even being till the WWII and later era.

As I said before, chlorine is just a very nasty chemical and should never have been used in the first place . Taking it out of production was a good thing .

Quote:

So talking about "changes as theyve always been" is talking about a series of chemicals that werent even created until the very late 19th century

Which is not relevant unless you assume damage is being done to the ozone layer . We did not have enough information to determine that . We observed a hole and it grew bigger, unless it was growing smaller . But it didnt seem to like staying the same size and that fits in with what we know of the natural process . Nothing to do with man can be proven .

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Ionus, youve not gotten back with some opinion about ocean pH changes.

Actually I did .
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-868#post-5962052

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know