Why Global Warming does not bother me.

[mistermack]

Wow, you obviously mean it.
However, whatever 2012 turns out like, will not affect the previous ten years or so. Year 11 doesn't change years 1 to 10.
Facts are what they are.

[pErvinalia]

Wow, you obviously mean it.
However, whatever 2012 turns out like, will not affect the previous ten years or so. Year 11 doesn't change years 1 to 10.
Facts are what they are.

But it changes the trend that you were hinging your guff on.

But you are right. We should do nothing about it, in case we are wrong. It's the only logical course of action.

[Woodbutcher]

Wow, you obviously mean it.
However, whatever 2012 turns out like, will not affect the previous ten years or so. Year 11 doesn't change years 1 to 10.
Facts are what they are.

You have no data or facts, only your own opinions pulled out of your ass at random because you think there is a conspiracy. You are Seth of global warming. You refuse to read any of the articles suggested, claiming that they are biased because they do not agree with you. You are simply too dense to understand any of the science and use the argument from ignorance. I am your age. Why did you not take any science classes? It is still not too late to start to use your brain. May I recommend night classes. Start with Science for the Academically Challenged.

[Warren Dew]

mistermack is presenting a misleading idea.

1998 was a very warm year due to a serious El Nino event. On graphs, temperatures spike up for that year. If you draw a graph from the tip of that spike to average temperatures for 2009, 2010, you get an almost flat line. However, that is seriously dishonest. If you make the graph show the average temperatures since 1998, you get a clear cut increase in temperature.

So the statement that there has been no warming for a decade is not just misleading and wrong, but downright dishonest.

Even if you remove the 1998 data and count, say, 1999-2008, as on the following graph, the best fit is still pretty flat for that decade. If you started in 1998, temperatures wouldn't be flat, they would be declining.



Of course in 1998, global warming alarmists were telling us that 1998 was the beginning of a "hockey stick" of accelerated warming. That clearly hasn't happened. We don't understand this thing as well as the alarmists want us to think we do.

I think we should do nothing about it. Why take the risk that it is man-made?

I'm ready to ban diesels because of their warming effect through arctic albedo decrease. Anyone with me?

[pErvinalia]

I don't understand that sentence.

[Warren Dew]

Sorry, typo. Fixed now.

[pErvinalia]

I haven't heard of this before. Are diesel particles finding their way to the ice at the poles? If so, ban the fuckers. Or filter the particles better. Or just do nothing, coz someone once got a prediction about global warming wrong.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We do run a serious risk here of making a cleaner, safer, friendlier world for no good reason at all.

[Warren Dew]

rEvolutionist, I suspect you haven't heard of it because most of the climate change alarmists actually care more about protesting development than they care about actually helping the environment.

U.S. diesel particulates are the primary contributor to albedo decrease in Greenland; European diesel particulates are the primary contributor for the rest of the arctic ice cap. The contributions from particulates and from CO2 are, according to current models, approximately equal at present. Particulates are less of a cumulative problem over time, but they are also a far easier problem to fix.

See for example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez

[Gawdzilla Sama]

rEvolutionist, I suspect you haven't heard of it because most of the climate change alarmists actually care more about protesting development than they care about actually helping the environment.

Proof needed.

[pErvinalia]

rEvolutionist, I suspect you haven't heard of it because most of the climate change alarmists actually care more about protesting development than they care about actually helping the environment.

Proof needed.

Absolutely. What a specious load of bollocks.

[Tyrannical]

I still can't believe we can't engineer someway to create large algae blooms to suck up all the CO2 we need.

[pErvinalia]

Lol. It's trivial to "engineer" large algal blooms. The problem is their interaction with the ecosystem. I'm not surprised a denialist doesn't understand even the basics of ecosystems.

[mistermack]

I still can't believe we can't engineer someway to create large algae blooms to suck up all the CO2 we need.

I'm sure we can. And we would, if there was a real problem.
My own favourite would be to have special pumping ships in areas of low plankton life.
You suck up the mud from the ocean floor, and spread it out across the surface. The plankton then use the minerals in the sediment to build shells, which are carbonates. When the animal dies, that sinks to the bottom, and eventually becomes limestone.
Meanwhile, the fish stocks in these infertile areas proliferate because of the plankton bloom, and the companies financing the pumping get a monopoly on the fishing in that area, so the whole enterprise can pay for itself, and help feed the world.

[Seth]

I still can't believe we can't engineer someway to create large algae blooms to suck up all the CO2 we need.

I'm sure we can. And we would, if there was a real problem.
My own favourite would be to have special pumping ships in areas of low plankton life.
You suck up the mud from the ocean floor, and spread it out across the surface. The plankton then use the minerals in the sediment to build shells, which are carbonates. When the animal dies, that sinks to the bottom, and eventually becomes limestone.
Meanwhile, the fish stocks in these infertile areas proliferate because of the plankton bloom, and the companies financing the pumping get a monopoly on the fishing in that area, so the whole enterprise can pay for itself, and help feed the world.

Example of government bureaucratic ineptitude:

In the mid 90's, somehow Lake Trout were introduced to Yellowstone Lake in Yellowstone National Park. These large (sometimes huge) trout are carnivorous and highly aggressive and the are decimating the native Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout populations and may well render the species extinct. The Park Service spends up to 7 million dollars per year on a gill-netting program to catch and kill Lake Trout in the lake, setting the nets deep, where the Lake Trout hang out, and allowing the Cutthroat Trout to swim over the top of the nets. Fishing for Lake Trout is encouraged, and there is no limit, and you are REQUIRED by law to kill all Lake Trout caught but not kept.

In a typical year, they catch and kill more than 150,000 Lake Trout. They aren't making a dent in the population and it continues to grow. Biologists estimate that there may be six million trout in the lake.

But, what do they DO with all that lovely, tasty Lake Trout they catch in their nets?

They puncture the air bladder with a knife and dump the fish back into the lake.

Fucking idiots.

They could build a fish processing plant and freeze, pack and ship all those trout to restaurants across the nation. They could sell them locally and around the world. They could give them free to the poor. They could make fish meal and feed dogs and hogs. They could PAY FOR THE ERADICATION PROGRAM by selling the fish.

But no, because it's a National Park, those dumb motherfuckers just waste all that perfectly good, perfectly healthy food.