They "lost" the heat. (Rant)

Ok now I am convinced Global warming is a sham.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/19/missing-global-heat-may-hide-in-deep-oceans

I was kind of a fence sitter, leaning toward it making sense (my own pollution = generally EVIL perspective).

Now...I call BULLSHIT. It's hiding in the oceans...really. Oh and what they'll need billions to find the lost "heat"? Fuck me....

Can we make some other stuff a real environmental priority now. You know the shit synthetic food they make us eat and the floating islands of fucking disgusting garbage in the oceans and getting Africa and India and other shitholes generally prosperous so they stop having so many neglected children. A multitude of SOLVABLE problems to work on rather than this Bogey man of a NONSOLVABLE MACRO ISSUE. Which is actually probably even bullshit...so it seems.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

About 4,000 Toxic Chemicals Are Found in the Air We Breathe

A new research has assessed how easily a chemical travels from the lungs into the air versus how easily it dissolves in fats and water. It appeared that thousands of contaminants can build up in air-breathing animals, if not water-breathing ones.
Many chemicals that dissolve relatively easy in water can persist in the air, accumulating "specifically in nonaquatic food webs: mammals, birds, human beings. In mammals and humans, we don't breathe water, we breathe air," said lead researcher Frank Gobas, an environmental toxicologist at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia.


His team checked about 12,000 chemicals under review by the Canadian government to assess their environmental and health effects; about 30 % of them could be stored by air-breathing organisms. One example is the pesticide lindane, employed on crops but also to treat head lice, which does not accumulate in fish but it does in Canadian wolves that had eaten caribou, which in turn had been feeding on lichen.

"About one third of all the commercial chemicals that are in use right now belong in this group of chemicals that are potentially biomagnifying. In Canada, it will be three to four thousand. And our list of chemicals is small compared to the list of chemicals in the U.S. and E.U. The total chemical count could reach as high as 10,000 worldwide, though most, if not all, will prove benign because many may be broken down by cellular processes." said Gobas.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So global warming doesn't exist . . .

So global warming does exist but it's insolvable.

I think it's positions like this that make it difficult to take climate change deniers seriously.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you bother to check, this has been coming for some time. From Real Climate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/ocean-heat-content-increases-update/

 

I think it's a valid hypothesis, but no fucking way is it a proven theory.

Now IF it even is true. There is nothing we can do about it. Fix what we can fix and then maybe we might have a population eager to take something as opaque as "Global warming" on.

 

What are you arguing here? There are four things that are proven:

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2) If you increase CO2 in the atmosphere, all things being equal, global temperatures will rise.
3) We have increased CO2 concentrations by 50% over the past 150 years.
4) Temperatures have increased around 1.5F in the same time period.

These together is what is termed "global warming" (or "climate change" if you want the more PC version.)

Sure we can. We can stop emitting CO2 and eventually CO2 levels will drop to their original levels, restoring the original heat balance. Now, you can make the argument that we don't WANT to do it (it's too expensive, it's too hard, whatever) and we should live with the warming - but that's a very differnt argument than "it's all a scam."

We've fixed a lot in the past 50 years. The ozone hole has started to close. Acid rain in the US is down significantly. LA has between 50 and 90% less pollution than it did 40 years ago. We can do the same with CO2 levels if we choose to.

Or we can choose not to, and decide to accept the consequences.

 

Do you know why the ozone layer got fucked? HINT : it wasn't aerosol cans.

 

Look fighting pollution and fighting global warming is nearly the same thing.

If you tell someone to stop driving the fucking gas guzzeler so their kid doesn't get cancer, I guarantee you it will work better than saying.... OH FUCK NOOOOSS the TEMP will be 1.5F HOTTER IN A HUNDRED YEARS SKY IS FALLING AD NAUSEUM ETCTETCTETC

 

Global Warming? or Climate Change?

 

Agreed. It was a wide variety of chlorine and bromine containing compounds - cleaners, A/C refrigerants, inerting gases etc. The Montreal Protocol has succeeded in reducing the use of these compounds, and as a result stratospheric chlorine has started dropping.

In some cases, like reducing coal burning, agreed.

Driving a "gas guzzler" doesn't give anyone cancer, nor does it make the sky fall - so if you use either one of those arguments I'd expect you to be (rightly) ignored.

 

Yes it does. Smog definitely causes cancer.

Atmospheric nuclear testing started and made the largest contribution(by starting it) to the hole in the ozone layer. Events like this will kill man far more quickly than global warming. We need to fix other shit FIRST.

 

Really? how? The ozone hole opened over antarctica. There were no test sites anywhere near that:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

1945 until 1998

 

Particulate pollution (which is one component of smog) definitely causes cancer. However, cars do not emit particulates. Diesel trucks do, but they have gotten better since the introduction of ULSD. Too often, cancer studies do not differentiate these from other components of smog, like ozone. From a report on a recent EPA study:
===================
Local air regulators criticized the most sweeping study of the nation's air to date for failing to include cancer-causing diesel among the toxic chemicals considered. Diesel particulates act like microscopic suitcases for toxins like benzine that can lodge deep within the lungs.

"It really does not give the full picture of the most serious source of toxic air pollution in Southern California, which is diesel soot," said Sam Atwood, spokesman for the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
==================
From another report:
==================
It concluded that 84 percent of the risk is from diesel exhaust from trucks, ships and locomotives, with 10 percent from cars and 6 percent from industrial sources.
==================

That, of course, includes cars from 1970's-era clunkers to modern cars. Since modern cars emit basically nothing except CO2 and water, focusing on them will do almost nothing to reduce risk.

Also interesting is that the highest nonsmoking lung cancer rates are not in areas with horrendous smog problems (like LA) - they are in places with visibly "cleaner" air, like Kentucky. The air looks better, but since coal power plants generate tremendous amounts of pollution there, the risk is far higher.

Nope. Nuclear testing doesn't "blow holes" in the ozone layer or anything like that. The ozone hole is primarily over Antarctica; no nuclear testing has been done there. Indeed, the ozone layer is strongest in areas that have seen nuclear testing.

That's what I'm saying. We did. Modern cars are fixed from a cleanliness perspective. They still emit CO2, though, which is contributing to global warming.

 

No, you're very correct, by the numbers, it's a scam. From what I hear, the most significant source of "greenhouse warming," is again, water vapor.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

Whether global warming exist or not....
Hmmm.....

I have 3 children and would like to leave them a planet. From that perspective I hope mankind errs on the side of caution.

On any proposed event that could kill millions I hope we err on the side of caution.

For that reason alone I will wave my global warming banner high as I can.

Besides; it is not like we are changing anything. I have heard recommendations that we have white roofs and white roads to reflect sunlight back into space, but then hear nothing else.
http://www.physorg.com/news140875649.html

The only reason we are looking for more fuel efficiency is because of gas prices. It has nothing to do with Kyoto. People don't care about anything enough to affect politic change in North America.

Again; I am arguing for global warming as it seems only prudent to err on the side of caution.

Think of this though.
- Look at all the cities, roads, homes, farms, chemicals in use, endangered and extinct species.
- Look at 600 000 000 cars and trucks that drive daily adding smog to our atmosphere.
- Look at 6,775,235,700 people eeking their way through life.

Is not any of the above or a combination of it all bound to be hurting our planet?

It doesn't matter if people believe in global warming or not, if a politician banned us from driving cars that used too much gas, or told us we had to live without air-conditioning we would just vote them out. Politics is set up so that we vote for people who give us what we want.

Why else would the best liars/actors win elections?

 

?? Of course. Indeed, it is responsible for about 95% of our greenhouse effect. This is a good thing; we'd all likely be dead if not for the retention of heat by water vapor. Many other gases (methane, ozone, CFC's) also contribute to the greenhouse effect.

But we're not changing the amount of water vapor by any significant amount. We ARE changing the amount of CO2. Which is why we are seeing a rise in temperature due to our emissions.

 

Ha ha, like that would have a measurable effect. It's the sun and the Earth's position in the system that determine it's weather.

You have no evidence that the rise in atmospheric temperature is due to our emissions and not due to a rise in atmospheric water vapor. Therefor, this is a statement of correlation, not causation. Look up the difference.

 

Seriously? You are arguing that no nuclear tests occurred over antarctica so the hole could not have been made by them? LOL and what horrible things ARE happening in Antarctica, population less than 1000 to MAKE it happen?

Anyway high Atmospheric NUCLEAR testing started the hole. The "hole" coalesces over Antarctica as a result of ozone lost elsewhere. Just like in the conventional reason for the causes. I only argue the man made cause is different not the chemistry.

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/88Hampson.html

 

Arrg ok maybe I was easily taken out of context(for not being totally clear), but please don't do this on purpose or I will start ignoring.

It didn't BLOW HOLES in the ozone layer. It CAUSED the change that started the hole...better? Now read the link in my last post.