Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change

[*michaelsean*]

(04-19-2016, 11:14 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Reducing carbon output at this point can help keep things from getting as bad as you claim.  In fact I heard this exact same argument made about fluorocarbons and the hole in the Ozone.  But that problem is fixing itself since we changed our behavior.


I have often wondered what tack the deniers would take when they are eventually proven wrong.  Now I know.  They will admit that man is contributing to climate change, but they will just say that it too late to make any difference.

"Why get people to stop smoking when we can just sell them all iron lungs."

One of the reasons I denied it was because of   nonsensical moves to change it.  I thought they can't be serious because if what they say is true, reducing carbon emissions by 5% or whatever is spitting in the ocean.  It's already over, and they should be focusing on surviving in the new world.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-19-2016, 10:47 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Like I said, it's already a done deal.  CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for centuries, and with temps lagging, eliminating all fossil fuels today would not stop the warming.  Of course fossil fuels will still be burnt, and reducing them by these low numbers will do nothing seeing as reducing them by 100% would still result in temps rising.  Then we have the methane being released in the Arctic which is worse than CO2.  Then we have the oceans eventually releasing stored up heat and CO2.  The leaders are better off preparing everyone for the new world.  The old one is going to disappear.

Yea screw it all. The sun will one day swell so much life on earth will be impossible. Why even fight it. Whats the point of trying. When the going gets tough we give up. No looking for solutions or trying to make a difference when we can just be content with the destruction of our planet and wait for the new world order to tell us what to do...

Da fuq kinda coward shit is that?

[*michaelsean*]

(04-19-2016, 02:18 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Yea screw it all. The sun will one day swell so much life on earth will be impossible. Why even fight it. Whats the point of trying. When the going gets tough we give up. No looking for solutions or trying to make a difference when we can just be content with the destruction of our planet and wait for the new world order to tell us what to do...

Da fuq kinda coward shit is that?

OK well give me the solution or a hint of the solution.  The last time the Earth had this level of CO2, the temp was 11f higher than it is now.  So either CO2 has no effect, or the train has already left the station.  CO2 doesn't dissipate much in a couple of years or even decades so unless you have a way of drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere and doing God knows what with it, you are arguing against math.

[SteelCitySouth]

(04-19-2016, 02:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: OK well give me the solution or a hint of the solution.  The last time the Earth had this level of CO2, the temp was 11f higher than it is now.  So either CO2 has no effect, or the train has already left the station.  CO2 doesn't dissipate much in a couple of years or even decades so unless you have a way of drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere and doing God knows what with it, you are arguing against math.

Well you gotta ask yourself what percentage of animal are still around from that period of time?  Once you do that you then have to decide if you feel we would be a part of the lucky percentage that gets to stick around when it returns.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-19-2016, 02:29 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Well you gotta ask yourself what percentage of animal are still around from that period of time?  Once you do that you then have to decide if you feel we would be a part of the lucky percentage that gets to stick around when it returns.

Yes because  it won't sneak up on us, and we aren't stuck in one area, and we can think.   I believe the human race will come out OK in the end.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-19-2016, 02:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: OK well give me the solution or a hint of the solution.  The last time the Earth had this level of CO2, the temp was 11f higher than it is now.  So either CO2 has no effect, or the train has already left the station.  CO2 doesn't dissipate much in a couple of years or even decades so unless you have a way of drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere and doing God knows what with it, you are arguing against math.

Thats like a fat dude with high blood pressure and diabetes. Oh it would take a little bit of hard work and self control to fix my health. Well F it. Not worth trying.

Idk. Maybe people doing geoengineering figure something out. Maybe we really do have something with HAARP and can control weather. Maybe we have more plants that breath and store CO2 than there was in your scenario. Maybe there is a new algea that can do something with the CO2 turning to carbonic acid in the ocean. Maybe the earth has a natural buffer system that holds off the rapid rise long enough for us to make a difference.

Basically anything is better than acting like an iraqi soldier in a fight against Isis

[*michaelsean*]

(04-19-2016, 02:47 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Thats like a fat dude with high blood pressure and diabetes. Oh it would take a little bit of hard work and self control to fix my health. Well F it. Not worth trying.

Idk. Maybe people doing geoengineering figure something out. Maybe we really do have something with HAARP and can control weather. Maybe we have more plants that breath and store CO2 than there was in your scenario. Maybe there is a new algea that can do something with the CO2 turning to carbonic acid in the ocean. Maybe the earth has a natural buffer system that holds off the rapid rise long enough for us to make a difference.

Basically anything is better than acting like an iraqi soldier in a fight against Isis

Oh something may come along I suppose, but there isn't even the beginning of anything right now that I've been able to find.  If that natural buffer exists then great, but I've never heard anyone propose that possibility.  The problem is what is there right now.  If we cut emissions to zero, and there were no natural spikes, we would still have a major problem.  Temps lag CO2 by up to half a century.  

[SteelCitySouth]

(04-19-2016, 02:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes because  it won't sneak up on us, and we aren't stuck in one area, and we can think.   I believe the human race will come out OK in the end.  

Maybe.

[Vas Deferens]

(04-19-2016, 02:18 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Yea screw it all. The sun will one day swell so much life on earth will be impossible. Why even fight it. Whats the point of trying. When the going gets tough we give up. No looking for solutions or trying to make a difference when we can just be content with the destruction of our planet and wait for the new world order to tell us what to do...

Da fuq kinda coward shit is that?

Same line of thinking that leads to people wanting to just throw all our trash into space rather than deal with the root of the issue.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-19-2016, 03:15 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Maybe.

I certainly don't have any proof.  Hell I don't have proof that what they say will happen will happen, so maybe it just gets nicer out, but seeing as I have zero ability to read a scientific paper, I have to go on what others say it says.  

[*michaelsean*]

(04-19-2016, 03:19 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Same line of thinking that leads to people wanting to just throw all our trash into space rather than deal with the root of the issue.

Do what you will.  I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do or not do, I'm just saying that there should be some attention paid on what is coming.  What is there right now is a pretty big problem.  We are going to go over the 2 degree Celsius threshold, barring something like what Nati suggested being invented.  

[fredtoast]

(04-19-2016, 03:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh something may come along I suppose, but there isn't even the beginning of anything right now that I've been able to find.  If that natural buffer exists then great, but I've never heard anyone propose that possibility.  The problem is what is there right now.  If we cut emissions to zero, and there were no natural spikes, we would still have a major problem.  Temps lag CO2 by up to half a century.  

You have to be kidding.

You have never even looked for any proposals to control global warming, so how could you have heard of any of them.  there have been lots of studies on things like creating sulphur dioxide screens in the atmosphere to reflect the heat of the sun reaching the earth. 

But that would cost some money, and you would rather just give up and let your gets roast than spend any money to develop an answer to global warming.

But that is not surprising considering that for years you refused to even acknowledge that man was contributing to global warming.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-19-2016, 03:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You have to be kidding.

You have never even looked for any proposals to control global warming, so how could you have heard of any of them.  there have been lots of studies on things like creating sulphur dioxide screens in the atmosphere to reflect the heat of the sun reaching the earth. 

But that would cost some money, and you would rather just give up and let your gets roast than spend any money to develop an answer to global warming.

But that is not surprising considering that for years you refused to even acknowledge that man was contributing to global warming.

You mention sulphur dioxide screens and ask if I'm kidding?  OK then. And I don't know where you get money being a concern of mine.

[fredtoast]

(04-19-2016, 03:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You mention sulphur dioxide screens and ask if I'm kidding? 

Yes I do.  

Why do you disparage a theory you know absolutely nothing about?

At one time there was no known vaccine for polio.  Good thing research scientists don't think like you.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-19-2016, 03:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes I do.  

Why do you disparage a theory you know absolutely nothing about?

At one time there was no known vaccine for polio.  Good thing research scientists don't think like you.

From a post full of non sequiters to one making an assumption based on nothing. You're on a roll.

[fredtoast]

(04-19-2016, 04:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: From a post full of non sequiters to one making an assumption based on nothing.  You're on a roll.

Two straight posts without addressing anything I said.

You should treat this argument the way you do global warming.  Give up just because you have no answers.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-19-2016, 04:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Two straight posts without addressing anything I said.

You should treat this argument the way you do global warming.  Give up just because you have no answers.

You didn't say anything to address.  Non sequiters and an assumption.    Now the fact that you said I would be against it because of money leads me to believe that you really don't know anything about it.

Now would you like to discuss sulfur dioxide with me as you would with other people, or will you continue to act like you are because for whatever reason you find it difficult to be civil to me.

I'll start:

It could very well destroy the ozone layer.
 you would have to do it continuously-nobody has the first idea of what injecting that much into the atmosphere could do
Significant acid rain
No way to test it
severe drought
The ice caps would still melt
Regional climates will be affected
And what happens if you are forced to stop? Oh yeah, everything that was predicted is accelerated and worse.

[*bfine32*]

(04-19-2016, 03:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You have to be kidding.

You have never even looked for any proposals to control global warming, so how could you have heard of any of them.  there have been lots of studies on things like creating sulphur dioxide screens in the atmosphere to reflect the heat of the sun reaching the earth. 

But that would cost some money, and you would rather just give up and let your gets roast than spend any money to develop an answer to global warming.

But that is not surprising considering that for years you refused to even acknowledge that man was contributing to global warming.

Hell, you doubt Trump can build a wall across a little strip of Mexican Border without it causing the US Billions. But you think we can build a screen for the world.

[fredtoast]

(04-19-2016, 05:25 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'll start:

It could very well destroy the ozone layer.
 you would have to do it continuously-nobody has the first idea of what injecting that much into the atmosphere could do
Significant acid rain
No way to test it
severe drought
The ice caps would still melt
Regional climates will be affected
And what happens if you are forced to stop?  Oh yeah, everything that was predicted is accelerated and worse.

Could you post a link, because almost all of this is complete BS

Paul Crutzen who won the 1995 Nobel prize for his work on atmospheric ozone depletion supports the idea of a sulphur dioxide blanket and claims that the damage to the ozone layer would be minimal.  

A report from the National Academy of Science in '92 addressed the idea of a sulphur dioxide shield based on the research of Mikhail Budyko.

Noted  American astrophysicist Lowell Wood (famous for breaking Thomas Edisons record for most patented inventions) whose PhD thesis from Cal Berkeley was on Hyperthermal Processes in the Solar Atmosphere also supports  the theory of sulphur dioxide shield.  

This idea has also been supported by Nathan Myhrvold who is the former Chief Technology Officer at Microsoft.  He calculated that a flow of as little as thirty-four gallons per minute injected into the upper atmosphere above the polar caps would be sufficient.  It would create a blanket around the entire earth in only about 10 days time.


So if you want to smugly dismiss this idea as a joke why don't you contact these guys and tell them how stuoppid they are.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-19-2016, 06:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Could you post a link, because almost all of this is complete BS

Paul Crutzen who won the 1995 Nobel prize for his work on atmospheric ozone depletion supports the idea of a sulphur dioxide blanket and claims that the damage to the ozone layer would be minimal.  

A report from the National Academy of Science in '92 addressed the idea of a sulphur dioxide shield based on the research of Mikhail Budyko.

Noted  American astrophysicist Lowell Wood (famous for breaking Thomas Edisons record for most patented inventions) whose PhD thesis from Cal Berkeley was on Hyperthermal Processes in the Solar Atmosphere also supports  the theory of sulphur dioxide shield.  

This idea has also been supported by Nathan Myhrvold who is the former Chief Technology Officer at Microsoft.  He calculated that a flow of as little as thirty-four gallons per minute injected into the upper atmosphere above the polar caps would be sufficient.  It would create a blanket around the entire earth in only about 10 days time.


So if you want to smugly dismiss this idea as a joke why don't you contact these guys and tell them how stuoppid they are.

I'm not smugly dismissing anything, but Ive read enough about it to know it's a catastrophe waiting to happen. Im on my phone right now so I cant really find and link, but it's pretty easy to find. I'd be happy to have someone find a way to prove it will only have minor side effects because it seems it would work, as long as you don't stop.