|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2014 2:33:59 GMT
Many of the crowd who visite the nuclear advocate pages are already convinced that Carbon Dioxide is a serious green house gas that will eventually raise the earths temperatures if it is allowed to increase at current levels. Others see it as a kind of deception that is forced upon us to disrupt the social order and bankrupt our countries leaving us vulnerable to more corporate and some kind of elite dictatorship. Feel free to debate that and other aspect here. LINK TO LONG POST HERE |
|
|
|
Post by Eric Hanson on Jan 6, 2014 6:11:17 GMT
So Alex, anyone who ever worked in the oil industry is suspect, eh? Typical smear tactics. I see from your "Activist Profile" that you are an engineer and mathematician. All well and good. My family is full of engineers, all of whom are global warming skeptics by the way. But an engineer and mathematician should not presume to lecture a geologist on the topic of geology. Your next tactic is to over-complicate the issue and drown it in details. Baffle 'em with BS. Another typical tactic. It doesn't have to be complicated, Alex. The simple fact is that there is nothing unusual about the current rate and magnitude of climate change. It has all happened before and the oceans have survived quite well. Here is a relevant quote. "In light of the above observations, and in conjunction with all of the material presented in this review, it is clear that climate-alarmist claims of impending marine species extinctions due to increases in both temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration are not only not supported by real-world evidence, they are actually refuted by it." scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/co2_coral_warming.html www.keenforgreen.com/b/activist-profile-dr-alexander-cannara |
|
|
|
Post by DrAlexC on Jan 6, 2014 7:19:27 GMT
"climate-alarmist" -- Eric, calling schoolyard names suggests you know you have no ar
Come back when you';ve figured out how the Devoian CO@ elevation might not have lowere pH much below today's -- or , ask a physiccal chemist, or engineer.gument.
You already have documents provided that make this statement of your false: "...claims of impending marine species extinctions due to increases in both temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration are not only not supported by real-world evidence, they are actually refuted by it."
And the weak, interest-group, unreviewed links you do provide have no scientific support.
But I do like you dispolaying the standard ploy of the climate denier & fact-avoider -- playing the victim.
Since you have a Bachelor's degree in Geology you're somehow an oceanic chemist/biologist?
You were left with a list of things you didn't appear to know about the Devonian, which you used as a CO2 crutch. Where are the answers, Eric? Come back when you've discovered why Devonian CO2 elevation might not have reduced pH much below today's -- maybe ask a chemist/engineer or ocean biologist?
Is it possible that a Petroleum Geologist might not know as much as he thinks? Maybe he needs to study more real science and engineering?
By the way, since you looked me up. Look up the security & espionage term "honey pot" By using what you found of me on the Internet, you fell into so basic a trap. Now we all know you'll believe whatever you think suits you, even if its source is some Internet link. Funny how the only other folks falling into my honeypot have been petro geologists :]
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric Hanson on Jan 6, 2014 10:09:49 GMT
Alex, First of all, I did not use the term climate-alarmist. It is merely part of the quote I posted by Craig Idso. But I don't see why you would object to the term. It is accurate. You have used the term climate denier in reference to me. Secondly, I am not an oceanographer or oceanic chemist/biologist. Neither are you. So we can trade references all day. It comes down to your reference vs. mine. I have provided several references showing that ocean acidification is just more over-hyped scare tactics on the part of CAGW believers. Much like your horror stories of 2 foot dragonflies that will be coming back pretty soon, not that such a tale would scare anyone over the age of 10. Here is another quote on ocean acidification, also from Craig Idso, via Judith Curry's website. Feel free to follow up the links. "In conclusion, based on the many real-world observations and laboratory experiments described above, it is clear that recent theoretical claims of impending marine species extinctions, due to increases in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration, have no basis in empirical reality. In fact, these unsupportable contentions are typically refuted by demonstrable facts. As such, the NRDC’s portrayal of CO2-induced ocean acidification as a megadisaster-in-the-making is seen, at best, to be a one-sided distortion of the truth or, at worst, a blatant attempt to deceive the public." judithcurry.com/2013/07/19/ocean-acidification-discussion-thread/By the way, what makes you think I am a petroleum geologist? Here is a question for you to ponder. How do you explain that the climate models that CAGW believers depend on have either all failed or are on the verge of failure? www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2012/12/18/the-uns-global-warming-forecasts-are-performing-very-very-badly/ |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Brown on Jan 6, 2014 13:54:06 GMT
Alex,
Anyone who is prepared to examine the absorption coefficients and infrared spectra of atmospheric gases can see that anthropogenic CO2 cannot have any significant effect unless there is a large positive feedback effect. Naturally caused thermal cycles have enormously greater effects than CO2 of anthropogenic origin, which are lost in the general background fluctuations. Such a feedback effect has been comprehensively dismissed by experts with no political or vested interests. Appropriate literature is legion for those who care to examine the fundamentals. Readers here, who have not seen the following publications, might like to visit at the NIPCC 1000+ page report with 20 page summary (http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/ccr2physicalscience.html ) and/or “The Neglected Sun” by Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt. There is more to be said, but these publications do put a finger on the real issues.
CO2 does some beneficial effects. However, my main concern is that alarmists are causing the cost of power to rise unnecessarily, to the disadvantage of all users and especially of the impoverished. The are certainly not helping the World economy.
In case this suggests otherwise, I am strongly in favour of nuclear power but not for any reasons associated with CO2. Forward looking people will see that there is large development potential for advanced nuclear power stattions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2014 19:17:59 GMT
|
|
