OT: 35% More CO2

Because the guy is so dumb he doesn't know the difference between a claim and a report. I simply reported what was said on the news. In some respects reporting what was said on CBS is a citation. But I'm sure that sort of thing is way beyond his level of understanding.
Hawke
Reply to
Hawke
Loading thread data ...
Look at that he's quoting from data that is at least seventeen years old. My, that's really cutting edge science. But lets just look at it logically. Humans have been deforesting the planet for several hundred years. In North America alone there were dense forests all the way from the east coast to the Midwest. They have all been cut down. The Amazon rain forests are being cut at a rapid pace and at the same time billions of humans have been born and have been burning unbelievable amounts of fossil fuels. Put the production of millions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere every year with the deforestation of the planet and how could you not have an increase of CO2?
Hawke
Reply to
Hawke
You know, all the guys who question the facts about global warming and the scientists with Ph.Ds up the ying yang are right winger types. Boy are they skeptical. They don't accept a word or believe anything without tons of citations and reams of proof, and then they're still not sure to believe it. But let an uneducated talk radio guy like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh say something and they accept it as if it came from Jesus himself. There is no question of any of it as long as it comes from one of their conservative heroes. Funny really. Too bad they don't use the same sense of distrust when it comes to their radio icons. Rush could tell them the moon is made of green cheese and that would be it. They would go to their graves thinking the moon was made of cheese. Makes one wonder what makes people act like that.
Hawke
Reply to
Hawke
Ayup, and now they are saying that hurricane Dean is headed for the Gulf coast. Where do they get off saying stuff like that. You can't believe anything they say right? They're probably making that up and the scientific report that told about the increase in CO2, why, that's probably just made up too. It was probably done by liberal scientists anyway. Why do they even have network news when none of it is ever true?
Hawke
Reply to
Hawke
Many years ago my dad had the flu, sick as a dog. I came into the parents room as dad had mom's new digital thermometer in his mouth. I said to mom: "I borrowed your new digital thermometer yesterday." And while looking dad in the eye, I said: "Oh, it's an oral thermometer tooooo?" I'd have sold my soul for a camera at that instant.
Reply to
Tom Gardner
"Hawke" wrote
It's for people like you, Hawke. And, in case you haven't heard, the current hurricane, like all others, is being caused by George Bush in conjunction with the oil companies to drive up gas prices.
Steve
Reply to
SteveB
Dean is headed in the general direction of the Gulf of Mexico (they all do at first), but nobody can predict with any certainty where it will actually go. Hurricanes are like a knuckleball with spit on it, nobody has a clue where it will end up. If you will recall, previous hurricanes have gone straight when the climatologist said they would curve, have curved when they said they would go straight and have completely hooked back upon themselves. The only thing you can really do is sit back and wait and see. The forecasts of hurricane direction are only good for the 12 hours preceeding the storm. Beyond that it's anybody's guess where the things will go, or how many there will be, or how strong they will be.
Jim Chandler
Reply to
Jim Chandler
Next you'll be mentioning the... the.... the.... dreaded 'GEE' word...it's it's a greeeeenhouse gas, oh my god run for it!!!
Then the VLA, the Vegetable Liberation Army, a radical PETA splinter group will be calling for the destruction of all greenhouses as these structures surly must be the source of these dreaded gases. But first we'll have to repatriate all the plants back to their native habitats of course.
Atmospheric CO2 levels are way below 500 ppm, farting cows would seem to be a bigger problem.
I can't say one way or the other about the whole 'global warming' issue, but I do know the news media loves to stir up a little mass hysteria whenever it can.
Oh well...
Paul
Reply to
Paul
As Gunner says, they're all faith-based believers.
I have to plead agnosticism on this issue. I certainly don't know enough about the science to have much of an opinion.
It's sometimes entertaining to see Larry or one of the other skeptical libertarians try to make a scientific case opposed to the mainstream global-warming scenario. They're smart guys, but they aren't that smart about all of the subjects on which they hold forth. And it's obvious from the way they select their "evidence" that their method is "draw conclusions first, and then find some data that seems to support it." Today, finding such data is almost always easy.
The entire herd of keyboard-tapping Googleists have really changed the tenor of these discussions. Today, you can find some smoke-blowing "authority" to support any position on any issue. It's a piece of cake to confound logic, legitimate research, and a century of serious science on anything, if you think your audience doesn't know any more than you do, and doesn't have tens of hours, the research skills, nor the inclination to go look it all up and study enough to know what they're talking about.
It even works on simple subjects, like the definition of "atheist," if they can blow enough smoke, repeat their baloney a hundred times, and ignore something as simple as following-through on the definitions of a few key words.
I know Gunner's methods (he's improved his methodology and he's lightened up, but I don't know if he's just mellowing with age) and I've been observing Stuart's. Stuart is still in a fairly primitive stage, in which bluster is an essential ingredient of his method. For example, he's Googled enough to know there are prescriptive dictionaries and descriptive ones, and that the old-time grammarians scoff at the descriptive ones. But he didn't read enough to learn which was which -- he got Webster's exactly backwards -- and he probably doesn't know that almost everything is going descriptive (including the holy grail of American scholarly style, the Univ. of Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition, and the Oxford English Dictionary), nor why that is so. He didn't expect that a member here has been involved with this subject on an almost daily basis for over 30 years, as an editor for one of the world's largest publishers and also the world's fourth-largest medical/science communications agency. Stuart started with the bluster and opprobrium but, you may have noticed, he suddenly stopped short and reverted to his original, less academic assertions.
My guess is that he Googled some more and found out that he had it upside-down. The interesting thing to observe about Stuart's approach is that his reaction in these cases is to ignore the issue and turn up the bluster another notch, apparently hoping to distract attention from the fact that he's just stuck his foot about 18 inches down his throat.
There was a time when these discussions were carried on in the spirit of learning and sharing information, but ideology seems to have permeated everything and turned most discussions into a battle. "Google is your friend," Gunner used to say. In fact, it can work either way. It can be your friend if you're honestly trying to uncover the facts. Or it can be just the friend you need if you need logistic support for a misdirected argument, one who supplies your ammunition so you can keep shooting no matter whether your point is based on good judgment or just an ideological commitment. It's not nearly as informative about facts but it gives us some insights into human nature.
-- Ed Huntress
Reply to
Ed Huntress
Hurricanes themselves are the fault of liberals, God's payback for granting women the right to vote. There were no hurricanes before the 19th Amendment was passed. You can look it up on Google.
-- Ed Huntress
Reply to
Ed Huntress
Dance boy...dance. Keep clogging and hope no one noticed that you avoided the fact that your media butt buddies are not to be trusted.
Gunner
Reply to
Gunner
.
Unfortunately, that is a load of crap, and it is rapidly edging out "I won't cum in your mouth" as the world's second most repeated lie.
The USGS has this to say about it;
formatting link
The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo was the world's largest in more than half a century and probably the second largest of the century. Its roughly 5 km3 of erupted magma is an order of magnitude greater than the volume of magma erupted in 1980 from Mount St. Helens but is smaller than the 13+-3 km3 (DRE) of ignimbrite and fall deposits from the 1912 eruption of Novarupta, Alaska (Fierstein and Hildreth, 1992). The climactic eruption injected approximately 17 Mt of SO2 into the atmosphere (Gerlach and others, this volume), generating atmospheric and climatic effects that are likely to persist for several years (Hansen and others, 1992). Gerlach and others (this volume) concluded that virtually all of this SO2 as well as Cl, CO2, and an appreciable volume of water (approximately 96 Mt) had accumulated prior to eruption in a vapor phase in volatile-saturated magma of a crustal reservoir. A large additional volume (about 6.25 wt%) of water was in solution in the melt phase of the magma reservoir. Gerlach and others estimate that, in addition to the measured 17 Mt of SO2, the eruption of approximately 5 km3 of magma was accompanied by release of at least 491 to 921 Mt of H2O, 3 to 16 Mt of Cl, and 42 to 234 Mt of CO2.
formatting link
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities. Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)
formatting link
Sulfate aerosol formed in the stratosphere from sulfur dioxide in the Pinatubo cloud increased the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space. Consequently, the Earth's surface cooled in the three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees ( Fahrenheit scale) at the height of the effect.
So, to recap.
The average annual CO2 output of all volcanic activity is estimated to be about .75% of man's output.
Mt Pinatubo, (the largest volcanic eruption in 50 years) produced less than 1% of man's annual output.
And finally, Large volcanoes do affect global climate, but they spew other stuff that blocks sunlight. As a result, they lead to global cooling, not global warming.
I do agree with the tree stuff, though. But you have to stop buying cheap Chinese hardwood products as well.
Paul K. Dickman
Reply to
Paul K. Dickman
You know, all the guys who promulgate the speculation-masquerading-as-facts about global warming are left winger types. Boy are they credulous. They accept and believe everything without any citations or proof at all, and they're sure to believe it even in the face of contrary evidence.
But let an uneducated politician like AlGore say something, and folks like Pigeon accept it as if it came from Jesus himself. There is no question of any of it as long as it comes from one of their liberal heroes. Funny really. Too bad they're so gullible on everything. AlGore could tell them the moon is made of green cheese and that would be it. They would go to their graves ... etc etc.
Reply to
Doug Miller
The essential point that you're missing here, Pigeon, is that CBS News is about as credible a source as the National Enquirer or The Onion.
Reply to
Doug Miller
Gee, ED my muscle cars caused all of this GW crap am I sorry, hell no it's been the coolest summer in TX in many years & my electric bill shows that, got to do another burn out to help . It's only 87 degrees right now at 12:00 noon. Used to be about 105+.
Reply to
Why
Funny, ED, but think about this maybe GW is caused by to many F'in people, you see people are what 98.7 degrees? Put 100 in a room & it gets hotter, well add a couple of many of billions of people & it should make the globe warmer. The truth they don't want to say, after all who will pay for the carbon credits? Follow the money ED, you saw that in the big Pharma drug deal in washington. One place on the internet said if I would send them 50.00 I will be forgiven for driving 3 muscle cars for 6 months! I guess they will send ice cubes to the sky. ED you are even older than me, remember the ice age we were going to in 1974, it's all BS that someone makes money off of it.
Now the cities are even getting into it having to raise fee's to help fight GW, free money. BTW have you paid your "Carbon tax" for your lathe? .
Reply to
Why
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:53:09 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, Why quickly quoth:
Southern Oregon is experiencing a 20% cooler summer this year. I love it! Today it's 80F (26.7C for you furriners), last year on this date it was 98F (36.7C for the aliens. ;)
Not that this has anything more in common with GW(kumbaya) than some silly and inaccurate climate models they're praying to.
Reply to
Larry Jaques
After a Computer crash and the demise of civilization, it was learned Gunner wrote on Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:16:53 -0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
When was "CO2" discovered? That is to say, when was the molecular compound "carbon dioxide" recognized to be the product of combustion & metabolism, as opposed to "phlogisticated air"? Considering that oxygen was discovered by Lavoisier in 1778 (Priestly had discovered "dephlogisticated air" in 1775), was "carbon dioxide" even known of in the 17th century? Can't measure what you don't know exists, ya reckon?
pyotr
-- pyotr filipivich "Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. " Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD (A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
Reply to
pyotr filipivich
Hey! They're the ones making the outageous claim, let them back them up!
What are their sources? Where did they get their numbers? Did they cherry-pick the historical data? Exactly what scientific method did they use to reach this hysterical, alarmist conclusion?
Show me your sources, please, and not "CBS News".
Thanks, Rich
Reply to
Richard The Dreaded Libertaria
Because you're the one making the alarmist claim.
Hope This Helps! Rich
Reply to
Richard The Dreaded Libertaria

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.