CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17591
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:48 am
 


Quote:
Acid rain was the result of particulates like sulphur released from the stacks of industry. You haven't heard of it lately because when regulations came out that sulphur (mercury etc.) was no longer allowed in industrial exhaust, acid rain stopped.


On a serious note thanks that makes sense on why we are no longer seeing acid rain as a threat.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:52 am
 


stratos wrote:
Quote:
Pinatubo emitted about 42 million tonnes of CO2 in 1991


Thanks found a few articals on this. Question is it talked about "Sulfuric gases convert to sulfate aerosols, sub-micron droplets containing about 75 percent sulfuric acid." I recall a lot of concern about sulfur acid rain back in the early 80's but that seemed to have died out quickly. Is this also related to Global warming? I've not seen or heard anything about acid rain as a result of Global warming.


We mostly licked the acid rain problem with stack emission control technology (sulphur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and other industrial operations were the main cause). It's not so much an issue anymore in developed countries.

AS a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, you will get increased CO2 in the ocean as well. CO2 mixes with water to form carbonic acid. So acidification is an issue with global warming too. On the plus side, carbonic acid is not nearly as strong as sulphuric acid, and CO2 in the ocean is CO2 that's not heating up the planet. It still could be bad though; some predict a negative impact on ocean coral.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33120
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:56 am
 


stratos wrote:
Quote:
Imagine if we oulawed pollution entirely?



We would all live like the Ammish :D


False assumption. I said pollution, not technology. Industry has the tech to return the air and water they use to the same condition they borrowed it in, they just have no incentive to do so. It's cheaper to spew gases and effluent than it is to clean it up first.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24046
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:12 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:

The whole "urban heat island effect" for example. This is the idea that there has been no warming, and the measured increase in temperature is due the lcoations of teh thermometers doing teh measuring. Tons of stuff over the years on WUWT.

Same with the various algorithms run on the raw temperature record--there have been tons of articles on that on WUWT, the base case being that NASA et al are amnipulating the raw data to indicate warming when there hasn't been any.

And why doesn't Watts say on his "About" page what his position is, seeing that the entire blog is about global warming?


I think I get what you're saying. You're saying that because he questions the amount of warming, and the accuracy of the temperature records you want to know if he believes there's been any warming at all, or if there can be an anthropogenic element.

As a regular reader I would answer yes. That would be my understanding based on a general gestalt, although I'm pretty sure he's explained his specific position there.

However did you read the FAQs? He's explaining how he became a skeptic.

Quote:
In a short essay published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 1996, Mr, Goodridge demonstrated that California counties warming rates varied with population, and when I saw this graph from his BAMS paper, that was the moment when I really began to question if the observed surface warming was really a signal of CO2 or an artifact of UHI and population growth.


So that's what he wonders about.

Nevertheless most of what I've read that tells me there's been at least some warning, or there can be various anthropogenic influences positive and negative, or there was a long term warming trend following the little ice age, and there is a radiative change, but the idea of radiative transfer between elements creating positive feedbacks is dodgy originated from links I got at Watts. So I put it to you that that's the message emanating from that site. Anthony doesn't seem to mind. We know that much.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:41 am
 


stratos wrote:
Quote:
Condescending? If you had two brain cells to rub toegtehr, you'd realize that I'm not condescending.

And you can take your accusations of profanity and shove 'em up yer fucking ass.



[bash]

:lol:

P.S. Edit
odd your LOL's did not transfer over but I seen em there and posted this with a smile.


Good man! cheers. [B-o]


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33120
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:47 am
 


stratos wrote:
Quote:
""Texting and Drviing is worse than drinking and driving."


Who ever said that needs smacked really really hard.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-dr ... e14036779/


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:56 am
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
I think I get what you're saying. You're saying that because he questions the amount of warming, and the accuracy of the temperature records you want to know if he believes there's been any warming at all, or if there can be an anthropogenic element.


Basically, that's what I'm saying, yeah. I never checked the faq though.

Makes you wonder: If me and (say) Lomberg basically have the same view from a technical and policy perspective, why we are on opposite sides of the debate.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17591
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:07 pm
 


DrCaleb wrote:
stratos wrote:
Quote:
""Texting and Drviing is worse than drinking and driving."


Who ever said that needs smacked really really hard.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-dr ... e14036779/


"Cellphones kill more drivers than booze does, police say, ahead of weekend crackdown Add to ..."

I'm sorry but without a lot of data to back this up I say BS. Don't get me wrong talking on a cell phone and or Texting is dangerous as hell but drunk drivers cause more deaths then Cell phones. Yes I would smack the cop who said it same as the old line you used to hear "yeah the cop said I was lucky I was not wearing my seat belt. I got thrown from the car thats why I lived."


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24046
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:14 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
N_Fiddledog wrote:
I think I get what you're saying. You're saying that because he questions the amount of warming, and the accuracy of the temperature records you want to know if he believes there's been any warming at all, or if there can be an anthropogenic element.


Basically, that's what I'm saying, yeah. I never checked the faq though.

Makes you wonder: If me and (say) Lomberg basically have the same view from a technical and policy perspective, why we are on opposite sides of the debate.


What is it they call people like Lomberg and Judith Curry. Is it luke warmer? Maybe you're a luke warmer.

Curry gets her designation by being willing to listen to both sides. Lomberg gets his by saying yeah there's warming, and maybe it could become a problem, but adaptation not mitigation.

Either of those a climate skeptic views as a good start. Warmists view them as heretics.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33120
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:19 pm
 


stratos wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
stratos wrote:
""Texting and Drviing is worse than drinking and driving."

Who ever said that needs smacked really really hard.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-dr ... e14036779/


"Cellphones kill more drivers than booze does, police say, ahead of weekend crackdown Add to ..."

I'm sorry but without a lot of data to back this up I say BS. Don't get me wrong talking on a cell phone and or Texting is dangerous as hell but drunk drivers cause more deaths then Cell phones. Yes I would smack the cop who said it same as the old line you used to hear "yeah the cop said I was lucky I was not wearing my seat belt. I got thrown from the car thats why I lived."


I'm of the opinion that some people are in a better position to take their daily experiences and summarize them. On Syria for example, if Doctors Without Borders say they had 1500 people die in hospitals manned by them from chemicals - I will believe them long before I would believe any government on the face of this earth. If people who study the climate say it's changing, I tend to believe them. If cops say they attend more fatal accidents involving texting and driving than alcohol . . .

I do a lot of driving, and I do tend to believe that impaired driving is dangerous, but not even looking toward the front of the vehicle and out the windshield has got to be more dangerous.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63843
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:28 pm
 


DrCaleb wrote:
If people who study the climate say it's changing, I tend to believe them.


Myself, if people who study the climate and whose careers hinge on receiving grants from politically motivated organizations and government agencies pronounce that their science supports a political ideology that existed before their science came along then I'm not so inclined to believe them.

Like I posted earlier, be it global cooling or global warming it is suspect to me that both theories hailed from the left of the political spectrum and that both theories have exactly the same proposals forwarded as solutions to the 'problems'.

Sorry, not buying it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:35 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
What is it they call people like Lomberg and Judith Curry. Is it luke warmer? Maybe you're a luke warmer.

Curry gets her designation by being willing to listen to both sides. Lomberg gets his by saying yeah there's warming, and maybe it could become a problem, but adaptation not mitigation.

Either of those a climate skeptic views as a good start. Warmists view them as heretics.


Well, I was a luke warmer way before it was cool to be a luke warmer. ha ha ha.

I agree: adaptation, not mitigation. Especially for Canada, where effects are not predicted to be catastrophioc. Pine beetle in the boreal forests will suck, but we can live with that. With the exception that we pluck the low hanging fruit. We could probably address 80% of the problem with 20% the cost and effort.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63843
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:00 pm
 


The boreal forest problem has a simple solution (along the lines of adaptation):

Plant beetle resistant trees. :idea:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12434
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:30 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Funny thing is, their 'solutions' to cooling and their solutions to warming are identical: Ending Western industrial civilization.

Seems to me they have an agenda looking for a justification.

But Western Industrial civilization cannot be maintained. It doesn't need to be ended, but it must be changed. Our planet can't sustain 1B Westerners, how the hell can we expect it to sustain the other 5B that are just starting to industrialize?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42402
PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:40 pm
 


Lemmy have you been naughty?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 164 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 6  7  8  9  10  11  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.