How Al Gore celebrated "Earth Hour"

[dwightdmagee]

When is was young, I asked myself ...

Self, would you rather live 65 Sammy Davis Junior years or 85 Ken Starr years?

Your choice.

[radmanly]

Originally Posted by technojunky

According to NASA, the top reason for global warming is currently hypothesized to be the sun getting hotter.

That's funny. NASA says the exact opposite:

It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.

"This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

And:

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.

Mars is experiencing more warming than us.

Wrong.

Also, from NASA climatology research: Top source of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere... you ready? VOLCANOS! A single volcanic eruption produces more CO2 than the past hundred years of humans driving their cars.

Not according to the US Geological Survey:

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)!

Which source of greenhouse gasses would be the most effective to control? Cows. Beef and dairy farms across the world. Cow farts and cow "pies" give off high ammounts of gaseous methane. As a greenhouse gas, methane is more than 23x worse than CO2. Increasing demand for beef and dairy products over the past decades have caused growth in those industries.

True, but the atmospheric concentration of methane is much smaller than carbon dioxide so CO2 is still the primary problem.

I just thought I'd throw that out there, see what you guys had to say. Play nice!

Well, I hope you haven't turned that paper in because most of your "facts" are completely wrong. So far, you're earning a big fat "F."

[dwightdmagee]

Well, Radmanly, at least now you have somebody else to play with.

[Franc Rauscher]

Originally Posted by technojunky

Not sure if it's been mentioned already, as I havn't read through all 8 or 9 pages of posts, but I'd like to make a quick little remark, given I had to write a paper on global warming after being forced to sit through Gore's fear-mongering film.

According to NASA, the top reason for global warming is currently hypothesized to be the sun getting hotter. Mars is experiencing more warming than us. Maybe Mr. Gore can tell us how much greenhouse gasses those martians are producing

Also, from NASA climatology research: Top source of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere... you ready? VOLCANOS! A single volcanic eruption produces more CO2 than the past hundred years of humans driving their cars.

Which source of greenhouse gasses would be the most effective to control? Cows. Beef and dairy farms across the world. Cow farts and cow "pies" give off high ammounts of gaseous methane. As a greenhouse gas, methane is more than 23x worse than CO2. Increasing demand for beef and dairy products over the past decades have caused growth in those industries.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, in a report called "Livestock's Long Shadow," says, "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."


I just thought I'd throw that out there, see what you guys had to say. Play nice!

How dare you come in here at the age of 18 and mess up our discussion with the facts.

Now, Radmanly is gonna make you prove your wild @ss assertions and I am obliged to support you.


'cause you are right.

Thanks, I guess.

roadster with a stick

[Franc Rauscher]

Originally Posted by radmanly

True, but the atmospheric concentration of methane is much smaller than carbon dioxide so CO2 is still the primary problem.


Well, I hope you haven't turned that paper in because most of your "facts" are completely wrong. So far, you're earning a big fat "F."

Sorry pal, Methane concentrations in the atmosphere ar 1745 parts per billion. CO2 is at 365 parts per billion.
Sunspot activety is extremely low. That means a radiation of more Solar heat. Spent the last weekend at the "bunkhouse lab" getting a direct NASA feed. Your data is possibly old?!?
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/04...-the-sunspots/

In 2008, there were 200 days without sunspots. Very low number.



I'm sure glad you'r not his teacher.

I'll step back and let the kid pick at the rest.


roadster with a stick

[radmanly]

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

How dare you come in here at the age of 18 and mess up our discussion with the facts.

Now, Radmanly is gonna make you prove your wild @ss assertions and I am obliged to support you.


'cause you are right.

Thanks, I guess.

roadster with a stick

What happened to "We are done?"

[radmanly]

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

Sorry pal, Methane concentrations in the atmosphere ar 1745 parts per billion. CO2 is at 365 parts per billion.

Sorry, pal, but the atmospheric CO2 concentration is 385 parts per MILLION, not billion. You and your new friend are wrong by three orders of magnitude.

Sunspot activety is extremely low. That means a radiation of more Solar heat. Spent the last weekend at the "bunkhouse lab" getting a direct NASA feed. Your data is possibly old?!?
Where Are All the Sunspots? | Universe Today

Your own link says you're wrong:

Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft have also shown that the sun’s brightness has dimmed by 0.02 percent at visible wavelengths and a whopping 6 percent at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996.

The Sun is dimmer, not brighter.

I'm sure glad you'r not his teacher.

As you're 0 for 2 in this post, you should quit now before you lower this kid's grade any further.

I'll step back and let the kid pick at the rest.

Yeah, I'm particularly interested to see how he shows that the USGS is wrong on volcanoes.

[radmanly]

Originally Posted by dwightdmagee

Well, Radmanly, at least now you have somebody else to play with.

The fun never ends!

[Franc Rauscher]

Originally Posted by radmanly

What happened to "We are done?"

Don't be a SA.
I told you,"unless somebody else joins in,"

You are right about the PPM, I only looked at (or misread )one source. I generally check two. My bad.

Which leads the question, if methane concentrations are so insignificant, why are we worried about it?
CO2 is only 0.0385 % yet methane is 0.0001745% with a half life of 7-12 years tops.
The more we drain wetlands, the less methane is produced.
Why are we worried and why are we spending taxpayer money to replenish the wetlands that produce this dangerous green house gas?


franc

[radmanly]

Sure. Face it. You just can't quit me.

Now, about those three orders of magnitude...

[Franc Rauscher]

Originally Posted by radmanly

Sure. Face it. You just can't quit me.

Now, about those three orders of magnitude...

Check my edited post

[radmanly]

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

You are right about the PPM, I only looked at (or misread )one source. I generally check two. My bad.

Let's hope technojunky fixed that and the other errors before turning in his paper.

Which leads the question, if methane concentrations are so insignificant, why are we worried about it?

It's not insignificant but it's not the dominant greenhouse gas, either.

CO2 is only 0.0385 % yet methane is 0.0001745% with a half life of 7-12 years tops.

I don't know what you mean by "half life." Methane is not radioactive.

These gases' absolute concentrations don't say anything about their greenhouse potentials. Most of the atmosphere is transparent to infrared and therefore irrelevant when discussing the greenhouse effect.

The more we drain wetlands, the less methane is produced.
Why are we worried and why are we spending taxpayer money to replenish the wetlands that produce this dangerous green house gas?

Wetlands provide a variety of other ecological services that more than make up for their methane emissions. If we have a problem with methane, it's not because of wetlands. Those wetlands and their methane emissions got along with the climate system just fine for eons before humans came along.

[oledoc2u]

I am going to raise more cattle....and eat more onions...LOL OH< we should do away with more humans...they're the problem...

[Franc Rauscher]

Originally Posted by radmanly

Let's hope technojunky fixed that and the other errors before turning in his paper.



It's not insignificant but it's not the dominant greenhouse gas, either.



I don't know what you mean by "half life." Methane is not radioactive.

These gases' absolute concentrations don't say anything about their greenhouse potentials. Most of the atmosphere is transparent to infrared and therefore irrelevant when discussing the greenhouse effect.



Wetlands provide a variety of other ecological services that more than make up for their methane emissions. If we have a problem with methane, it's not because of wetlands. Those wetlands and their methane emissions got along with the climate system just fine for eons before humans came along.

I thought you were the expert on greenhouse gases. Would you mind looking Methane up. Methane breaks down naturaly in the atmosphere. One of the by products; CO2. takes 7 years or so but the effect in the atmospheric chemistry suggests 12 years.
Or it goes boom when exposed to a naked flame. That is a bit quicker.

The term "Half-life" has nothing specificly unique to do with radioactivety.

You might spend time on wetlands. Aside from their wildlife benefits, water quality, and improvement of flood control they are huge CO2 sinks. I have relatives in agriculture who are giving up large tracts of farmland to the government, not always willingly, specificaly for this purpose.

My advice to Technojunky is that he remember that there are two issues here.

There is the scientific one where in the scientists outside the political are still researching and debating the science. Then there is the political one where in the scientists and the politicians are telling us their conclusions; ie, the sky is falling and we will all die.

The UN is the dominant political force in this debate, and we all know how honest , reliable and un-corrupted that body is. Right now they are saying "give us your money or you are going to die."

Never trust the intentions of anybody who demands "give me your money or you are going to die." 9 out of 10 times, they are thieves.


roadster with a stick

[radmanly]

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

I thought you were the expert on greenhouse gases. Would you mind looking Methane up. Methane breaks down naturaly in the atmosphere. One of the by products; CO2. takes 7 years or so but the effect in the atmospheric chemistry suggests 12 years.

Methane does have an atmospheric lifetime but that's not the same thing as a "half life."

The term "Half-life" has nothing specificly unique to do with radioactivety.

Yes, it does. See for yourself.

You might spend time on wetlands. Aside from their wildlife benefits, water quality, and improvement of flood control they are huge CO2 sinks. I have relatives in agriculture who are giving up large tracts of farmland to the government, not always willingly, specificaly for this purpose.

Wetlands are great. We need more of them.

There is the scientific one where in the scientists outside the political are still researching and debating the science. Then there is the political one where in the scientists and the politicians are telling us their conclusions; ie, the sky is falling and we will all die.

Nonsense. If there were a raging debate over the causes of global warming, there would be some evidence for it in the scientific literature. You'd see papers from competing camps all offering plausible explanations. This is not what's happening. When you actually look at the professional scientific literature, you find a strong consensus:

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

The scientific debate now is over the speed and consequences of global warming, not its cause. There are NO plausible natural explanations for global warming. Deniers want to create the illusion of dispute to forestall any attempts to address the problem. That their arguments are built on long-discredited factual and conceptual errors doesn't bother them a bit. They're trying to win a political, not scientific, argument. Of course, real scientists see right through such garbage which is why this "debate" is largely limited to conservative newspapers and magazines--where heads are soft and standards are low.

The UN is the dominant political force in this debate, and we all know how honest , reliable and un-corrupted that body is. Right now they are saying "give us your money or you are going to die."

I don't believe the UN is asking for anyone's money. They have no power to tax or regulate. I also find it amusing that you distrust the UN but believe oil company-funded public relations campaigns without question. The oil companies have tens of billions at stake in promoting the status quo yet you don't seem to question their motives or conclusions at all.

Never trust the intentions of anybody who demands "give me your money or you are going to die." 9 out of 10 times, they are thieves.

Nor should you trust companies or right-wing ideologues with vested interests in the outcome of a debate. The oil companies lie just like the tobacco companies.

[technojunky]

The paper was 3 years old, and I got an A. But that's beside the point.

You got me on the volcano thing. The source I had cited for that no longer exists... probably because it was wrong

as for the sun getting hotter, try reading what American Thinker has to say about it. The article talks about the warming on Mars and it's relation to the warming of Earth.

And no, the U.N. can't tax us, but Obama can. He spearheaded a bill through congress to send 845 billion taxpayer dollars to the U.N. Maybe you missed that one?

[radmanly]

Originally Posted by technojunky

The paper was 3 years old, and I got an A. But that's beside the point.

Well, that's unfortunate. Perhaps it was for a creative writing, not science, class.

as for the sun getting hotter, try reading what American Thinker has to say about it. The article talks about the warming on Mars and it's relation to the warming of Earth.

The article has several flaws. First, I find it amusing that global warming deniers tell us we don't have enough data to say anything about Earth's climate but they think we have enough data to make pronouncements about Mars. Do they really think we have a longer climate data set for Mars than for Earth?!?

Second, the warming Mars claim is specious. If you follow the link in the blog post, it goes to this article which pretty much demolishes the claim:

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

Deniers try to claim that Mars is warming due to the Sun and that's what's causing Earth to warm. The problem is that hypothesis is not supported by the evidence:

The sun's changing energy levels are not to blame for recent global warming and, if anything, solar variations over the past 20 years should have had a cooling effect, scientists said on Wednesday. Their findings add to a growing body of evidence that human activity, not natural causes, lies behind rising average world temperatures, which are expected to reach their second highest level this year since records began in the 1860s.

If the solar claim were true, why isn't there warming on Venus? Or Jupiter? Or our own moon? This is exactly the kind of claim that circulates in the ignorant right-wing blogosphere but goes nowhere in the legitimate scientific community.

And no, the U.N. can't tax us, but Obama can. He spearheaded a bill through congress to send 845 billion taxpayer dollars to the U.N. Maybe you missed that one?

$845 billion? Where do you get that number from?

[Franc Rauscher]

Originally Posted by technojunky

The paper was 3 years old, and I got an A. But that's beside the point.

You got me on the volcano thing. The source I had cited for that no longer exists... probably because it was wrong

as for the sun getting hotter, try reading what American Thinker has to say about it. The article talks about the warming on Mars and it's relation to the warming of Earth.

And no, the U.N. can't tax us, but Obama can. He spearheaded a bill through congress to send 845 billion taxpayer dollars to the U.N. Maybe you missed that one?

Score two for the youngster.
Your teacher was either open minded or a rare educator. Congrats on your score.

And yes, the UN can tax us, indirectly as you pointed out and by the implementation of treaties such as the Kyoto Accords that forces us to spend tax monies, and private capitals, to comply.

Radmanly, if you use a dictionary
"Half-Life" the time required for the disappearance of one half of the initial quantity of the substance undergoing a chemical or nuclear reaction. The time required for half the amount o a substance to be eliminated, metabolised, etc after it has been introduced into an organism.

ie; It is not specificaly unique to radioactivity.

roadster with a sick

[radmanly]

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

Score two for the youngster.

Let's see...wrong on volcanoes, wrong on the relative concentration of methane, wrong on solar trends. That sounds like 0 for 3. Or are grades based on the rote repetition of right-wing myths?

The saddest part of this is at no time do deniers ever look at their litany of errors and reconsider their views. They put out one howler after another and then say Al Gore doesn't know what he's talking about. What insufferable cretinism.

Your teacher was either open minded or a rare educator.

How is believing demonstrably false things a sign of an open mind?

And yes, the UN can tax us, indirectly as you pointed out and by the implementation of treaties such as the Kyoto Accords that forces us to spend tax monies, and private capitals, to comply.

The UN doesn't "implement" anything. It's up to individual member states to sign on to treaties. If you think the UN can impose treaties on unwilling member states, you know even less about it than you do about the climate.

Radmanly, if you use a dictionary

I did. Isn't that what dictionaries are for?

"Half-Life" the time required for the disappearance of one half of thethe initial quantity of the substance undergoing a chemical or nucleur reation. The time required for half the amount o a substance to be eliminated, metabolised, etc after it has been introduced into an organism.

You just made that up. Or am I to believe that dictionary authors can't spell "nuclear" and "reaction?"

ie; It is not specificaly unique to radioactivity.

"Half-life" is used to describe nuclear decay. Nobody uses it to describe the atmospheric lifetimes of chemicals. This is yet one more sign of the scientific ignorance that infuses the global warming denialist camp.

[Franc Rauscher]

Originally Posted by radmanly

Let's see...wrong on volcanoes, wrong on the relative concentration of methane, wrong on solar trends. That sounds like 0 for 3. Or are grades based on the rote repetition of right-wing myths?

The saddest part of this is at no time do deniers ever look at their litany of errors and reconsider their views. They put out one howler after another and then say Al Gore doesn't know what he's talking about. What insufferable cretinism.


How is believing demonstrably false things a sign of an open mind?


The UN doesn't "implement" anything. It's up to individual member states to sign on to treaties. If you think the UN can impose treaties on unwilling member states, you know even less about it than you do about the climate.


I did. Isn't that what dictionaries are for?


You just made that up. Or am I to believe that dictionary authors can't spell "nuclear" and "reaction?"


"Half-life" is used to describe nuclear decay. Nobody uses it to describe the atmospheric lifetimes of chemicals. This is yet one more sign of the scientific ignorance that infuses the global warming denialist camp.

Aside from practica, daily use, I used Webster's, but perhaps you used a progressive dictionary. Here is wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
The term is in third paragraph and highlighted, just for you. And apparently wiki contributors thought it appropriate in relation to greenhouse gases. Now, who would they be?

So no, I didn't make it up.

I have found the term "half-life' repeated often in non nuclear publications in the science, pharmacuetical and chemical world. Perhaps you should read something besides the Marvel comics. If, you won't even look it up in the dictionary, but insist I am stating a falsehood, who has the closed mind?

As to being wrong on the three points, that is your conclusions, not fact. The data is what it is, how it affects the climate is still the question, to most of us. For those with the AWG cause, CO2 is it, period. Sadly, for their argument, climate is far more complicated.

Most of the so called deniers, are not denying the science, only the conclusions or the remedies.

You on the other hand, blindy run with the lemmings. I have no problem with that, give them all your money. But please, keep your hands out of my wallet.

Your slip is showing again.


roadster with a stick