RE: Climate Change (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 2:33:56 AM)

Layman's theory - In Startrek they had a salt shaker that was performing non-invasive medical evaluations

Scientific theory - How would we make that work?

Fact - We have MRI's, CT's, etc. And we are looking for more.

How many millennium did the world be flat according to science and how many is it "round?"

Science is an evolution of all three.



Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 4:47:26 AM)

No, Layman's theory: I predict I won't magically float away free from gravity

Scientific theory: we know based on the evidence that we don't float away, this is the explanation why

Fact: We won't float away

Science is the evolution of theories, if a better theory comes along that better explains the reasons we're seeing the evidence we're seeing, then that would become the prevailing scientific theory over the others. Or if evidence exists that shakes up the foundations of a theory, then a new theory or an addition to the old one would be required that would explain this new piece of evidence.



WOLFMANKAYL -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 5:55:48 AM)

Co2 is good for the planet. Humans make very little compared to the earth itself. Climate change alarmists are the "useful idiot" tools of a globalist agenda for increasing u.n. (and general governmental) power and fast tracking world government plans. Most of the claims made on the media about climate change are total propaganda horseshit. The truly serious damage being done is by the dirty coal in China, g.m.o., glyphosates, chemspraying and scalar devices. And believe it or not, we earthlings do really have way more important things to worry about right now.


Oh, and if my comment isn't playing by anybody's rules, too bad, I tell truth.



Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 6:40:04 AM)

Wrong, you speak your truth, the one in your head. You don't speak about the facts.

Naturally the earth has maintained an average concentration of CO2 between 180 and 280 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere for the last 800,000 years.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5958/1394.abstract

The natural CO2 has a certain ratio of isotopes which is different from the CO2 released from humans, which allows us to determine how much of the CO2 is naturally produced by the carbon cycle, and how much is from human impacts. This ratio has changed quite a bit thanks to human impacts in favour of fossil fuels. A lot of the Co2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels.
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

As of February, the natural balance of 180 to 280 doesnt exist anymore, with the global CO2 concentration being around 400 ppm. This wouldn't be where it is if not for roughly 30 billion metric tons of CO2 being released into the atmosphere world wide.
http://co2now.org
http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/

Natural sources such as volcanoes only produce up to 242 million tons of CO2 each year, which is incredibly small when compared to the 30 billion tons produced by humans each and every year. Do the math and the result is that 242 million is 0.806% of the amount of CO2 emitted by humans each year. Pretty insignificant by comparison.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181810200070X
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm

Also, CO2 is good in moderation, it keeps our planet's climate at a temperature comfortable for life to exist, and it provide nutrients for some forms of life to thrive. But too much of anything is bad. You can drink too much water and die from it, you can eat too many fatty and sweet foods and die from that, you can cut yourself on class but impale yourself on a piece big enough and you die. But when it comes to CO2 feeding plants, you need to understand that plants dont survive on CO2 only, they require other nutrients in the soil, as well as water. But lets say those factors dont change, how will the CO2 increase plant growth or metabolism? Simply put, it doesn't.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

Your comment plays by your own rules obviously, but it's not in anyway scientific or truthful. Making a claim requires one to back up the claim with credible sources, since you have failed to do so at all, it shows you dont understand science and you really dont understand the topic at hand. I'd recommend going back to school, they often do a chemistry project where you simulate a greenhouse environment, should help you understand the effect CO2 and other greenhouse gases have on our atmosphere.

Good day.



KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 7:51:38 AM)

Is that why we have CO2 on our gas meters? Cause it does good? LOL



Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 8:12:07 AM)

Lol, I wouldn't know, I don't really know much about gas meters, just the science behind CO2 and climate change [:D]



KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 8:15:58 AM)

You monitor for CO2 because it is naturally ocurring in the gorund and every time you send a human in there he could die



Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 8:51:44 AM)

Ah okay, ya that totally makes sense, although I wonder if pockets of CO2 are more common than other gases, might be something I'll look into in my spare time.

Actually that reminds me of another solution researchers have proposed, which involves pumping the CO2 underground where it won't affect the climate. Personally I'm a little iffy on the whole idea, especially when there's the possibility it might escape. Just food for thought.



KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 9:01:28 AM)

I think it is natural gas that they are considering doing that to here. We have a huge salt deposit below ground that they want to hollow out and use.



Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 9:21:50 AM)

To store natural gas? I thought you guys wanted to extract it for a profit, not store it underground. It's much cleaner than most carbon fuels and doesn't act as a greenhouse gas from what I understand.



KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 9:35:42 AM)

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/10266/report/0

Next up is Propane BBQ emission control by the EPA

http://www.azcc.gov/Divisions/Utilities/gas/2011%20Winter%20Preparedness/Natural%20Gas%20Storage%20APS.pdf

Yes we are considering natural gas storage.



Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 9:44:49 AM)

With the first link it seems like they're just trying to limit the production of larger particulates produced by grills, not necessarily methane emissions. If anything suspended particulates are worse for local climate since they produce smog and other potentially dangerous contaminants that may affect lung function. CO2 just causes a warming affect and indirect damage, which is probably why there's more resistance to changing our production of it.

As for the second link, that's interesting. Although I'm still not 100% understanding it, would they store it and then take the natural gas back out when it's needed? Seems kinda backward considering they went to all that effort to frack and extract the natural gas just to end up putting it back in the ground.



KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 10:00:51 AM)

Because it is cheaper to mine the salt and sell it, then use the cavity for storage where there is less potential for explosion than from above ground storage facilities. Then, as needed, redistribute it to the Valley of the Sun or to the Las Vegas Valley



Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 10:43:54 AM)

Ah okay, huh, that's honestly a really smart idea. I guess they'd just have to keep a close eye on it to ensure nothing goes wrong.



KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 1:12:48 PM)

It would be above UEL so no problem and about 3000 feet (more or less) below grade so again no problem.



PeonForHer -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 3:53:16 PM)

quote:

Playing the "denier" card is the functional equivalent of crying "heresy!"


Not really, in this case, K. Stating heresy, throughout history, has generally been an uncomfortable thing to do. In the past it led to anguish, pain and sometimes even the execution of the heretic concerned. However, when climate-change-deniers claim that they're 'heretics' ('free thinkers', 'mavericks' - pick the heroic and John-Wayne-ish term of choice), they seem to me to be doing it in order to restore their comfortable view of the world, with the range of problems that they know and understand and the range of cherished solutions to those problems.



Aylee -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 4:24:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Playing the "denier" card is the functional equivalent of crying "heresy!"


Not really, in this case, K. Stating heresy, throughout history, has generally been an uncomfortable thing to do. In the past it led to anguish, pain and sometimes even the execution of the heretic concerned. However, when climate-change-deniers claim that they're 'heretics' ('free thinkers', 'mavericks' - pick the heroic and John-Wayne-ish term of choice), they seem to me to be doing it in order to restore their comfortable view of the world, with the range of problems that they know and understand and the range of cherished solutions to those problems.


There have been calls for the death or imprisonment of the "deniers," so not really that far off.



PeonForHer -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 4:35:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
There have been calls for the death or imprisonment of the "deniers," so not really that far off.


I think it's still *quite* far off, Aylee, on account of it's never happened nor is ever likely to, except in the minds of the most looney and paranoid deniers. Mind you, I've been warned in the past that I don't quite understand the character of American politics, how things work your side of the pond, my narrow assumption of what the word 'civilised' means, and so forth.



dcnovice -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 4:42:45 PM)

quote:

There have been calls for the death or imprisonment of the "deniers," so not really that far off.

Good heavens! From whom?



PeonForHer -> RE: Climate Change (3/17/2015 4:48:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

There have been calls for the death or imprisonment of the "deniers," so not really that far off.

Good heavens! From whom?


I am equally alarmed, DC. Further, our deniers on this thread are all lovely people - will we be complicit in a grave crime if we fail to notify the relevant authorities of their stated views and risk harsh punishment ourselves?



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625