Re: The sky is falling

Ever notice we never hear of the benefits to the world of a warmer average temperature supposedly caused by CO2? More CO2 means more plant growth that will produce more oxygen, longer growing seasons, creation of new areas to grow food and more food production, less sickness from indoor pollution, savings in the amount of fuel to need to cool rather than heat and the reduction of the overall need for more carbon fuels in the first place etc. LOL

Gosi wrote: > > > > >>> Retired VIP wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> All I know is as far back as > >>>>>> when I was earning my Engineering degree, in the late forties, we > >>>>>> were being > >>>>>> told man was causing the world to COOL DOWN, > >>>> snip > >>>>>> The Engineer in me makes me > >>>>> How about the climatologist in you, you know, the kind of people > >>>>> most > >>>>> qualified to determine if the world is cooling or heating? > >>>> snip > >>>> A climatologist is a TV weather man, not a scientist. > >>> TV weather reporters are typically only minimally qualified as > >>> meteorologists and would not find work at NOAA. In contrast > >>> climatologists and NOAA meteorologists are real scientists. > >> Retired VIP is simply parroting what he's heard or read in the liberal > >> circles to denigrate a true climatologist (an Associate Climatologist) > >> that blew the whistle on data fraud in the state of Washington that was > >> being used to "prove" GW and affect and effect national policy. > > >> It's a Clintonesque technique of character assassination when someone > >> scores a hit on your own credibility. One of the reasons many people > >> don't believe the false science anymore. And in the GW so-called > >> scientific community, speaking out against GW is equivalent to saying > >> that the earth was not the center of the solar system or that salvation > >> is by grace and not by works in certain periods of history. It is clear > >> that the GW so-called scientific community operates like a dominant > >> religion where truth no longer matters. People's livelihoods are at > >> stake, and they will do anything to protect the religion regardless of > >> what is true and what is not true. > > >> That's why you hear things like Gore's carbon offsets scam referred to > >> as "indulgences" - a term used about the Catholic church for absolving > >> people for everything imaginable as long as you donated money to the > >> church. People find that kind of elitist crap disgusting - and it is. > > >> If the people who believe in GW really believed it, they wouldn't have > >> to fake data left and right like they're doing and wouldn't have to > >> character assassinate people who speak out and expose the truth. > > >> Bill Putney > >> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > >> address with the letter 'x') > > > I find it funny that governments say they want to reduce... > > whatever... and sign agreements to do this and that and then they just > > continue doing what they have always done.... nothing that is. > > > There is absolutely nothing wrong with carbon in any form globally. > > Too much of it locally can be a problem. > > Same with anything else. > > Too much water and you drown. > > > There is a problem in some areas locally with pollution and fish and > > people do not fare well in it. > > That has always been like that. > > Rivers and lakes have been contaminated and sometimes they have been > > very poisenous. > > It is of course not good for anyone to be drowning in pollution. > > Blaming the pollution on carbon is most often wrong. > > Blaming global warming on human pollution and carbon is stupid at best. > > I suggest you find the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and > read their reports. They did their homework. > > The concentration of CO2 has gone way up in the last two hundred years, > and it is rising faster than ever. CO2 traps heat. Put those two facts > together. > > Jeff

Very much of the CO2 is generated because of the heating of some areas where animals like the mammuts are buried are rotting away and generate CO2. There is no real evidence available if humans did cause the mammuts to become extinct. Some people blame it on the fact that there were no Pabbuts around.

All kinds of people come with all kinds of predictions. Some say it is getting colder and others say it is getting warmer. I live in an area were we would like to get it a bit warmer so by all means make it hotter. I would very much like to believe that we could influence the heat a bit more.

Over the millions of years all kinds of things have been happening. Some people say we get water every year from outer space. Others say we are losing water into space.

Some people claim the continents are drifting apart, others say the crust is braking up like shell on an egg.

Nobody knows for sure what is happening. It leaves a lot of room for speculations. One thing I have learned is that nobody knows everything.

It is very interesting to see what happens when places get flooded. Most of the time it is because people build their houses to close to the water. Also when there are houses blown away or collaps because of earthquakes it is because they have been poorly built.

Bad houses and bad places for the houses mean that people get killed or need to rebuild or move away. That has been happening for millions of years.

If people are so clever at controling the weather they should try to make some of the deserts habitable and melt the snow.

Reply to
Mike hunt
Loading thread data ...

And more malaria because there will be more tropical areas, disruption of the climate so that areas that rain distribution is all changed, more liquid water because oceans will rise because water expands as it get warmer (its maximum density is around 40 F), ice caps on mountains will melt sooner, causing problems with not enough water in the summer because the spring runoff ends earlier leading to potable water shortages, and economic disruption.

Please don't suggest that changes like this are good or that less energy will be needed.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

We all know the "horrors" of global warming, the kooks keept telling us, but why not tell us of the benifits?

.
.
Reply to
Mike hunt

:-)

Those benefits will be more than offset by the rise in ocean levels. That's the big bugaboo that everyone is wondering about. We have way too many port cities (like New York for example) that are at sea level. We know that the warmer climate is going to reduce the mass of water in the ice caps. What we don't know is by how much. It may be that just a few degrees more will cause both icecaps to completely melt - which would be a disaster for those cities - we just don't know. And we really don't want to gamble to find out.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Yes all we hear is the supposed GW negatives. We know there must be positives, else God wouldn't be putting us through this.

Reply to
Josh S

It's happened before. For example Florida was under water through much of recent geological history. Man wasn't around to see it though, but the science of geology can look back very effectively. I'll bet Gore and gang didn't pass an advanced geology course, but I know they passed in movie drama, exaggeration and scene swapping.

Reply to
Josh S

There are many who still question the CO2 causes the earth to heat theory Consult a HS book and you will see plants consume CO2 and produce O2. Since that is a fact, how does CO2 warm the earth, since more CO2 will produce more plant live which In turn will produce more O2 in the atmosphere which will lead to more Ozone (O3) As we all know it is Ozone that reflects the infrared rays from the sun. Apparently more CO2 should cause the earth to cool not heat ;)

Reply to
Mike hunt

While ozone absorbs some infrared energy, its main effect is to absorb ultraviolet energy, which keeps people from getting sunburned. It absorbs some infrared light, but, because the sun doesn't give off a lot of infrared light, it wouldn't block much heat energy from getting from the sun to the earth. Rather, it would block heat energy from leaving the earth, which would warm the earth. However, the effect of ozone is not enough to make it a major greenhouse gas, according to the US. DOE.

It is not known how the combination of increased temperature and increased CO2 will affect plant life.

formatting link
CO2 absorbs infrared energy (heat energy) radiated or reflected from the earth. But most of the energy reaching the earth from the sun is visible light. So the, light and heat are able to reach the earth, but are not able to leave the earth as easily, because the CO2 in atmosphere absorbs the heat (infrared). The CO2 then re-emits the infrared light. Some of the infrared light is re-emitted towards the earth. So the CO2 in the atmosphere acts like a barrier to escaping heat, acting like a blanket or a sheet of glass in a greenhouse.

The same effect makes another plant, Venus, hot.

formatting link
formatting link

Reply to
Jeff

I suppose one might choose to believe that LOL

Reply to
Mike hunt

Ozone, both O and O3, is very unstable. They both give up heat when they break down, in the case of O3 to O2, or combine in the case of O, to form O2. O2 is the most stable form of Oxygen.

A molecule of O2 is just the right size to absorb energy from UV radiation. This increases the energy level of the O2 molecule until it reaches the level needed to break the bonds between the 2 atoms of O and it splits. The resulting 2 atoms will then either recombine, giving up the energy as heat, or they will combine with two other molecules of O2 to form 2 molecules of O3 and give up heat. The O3 molecule will bump into an atom of O, giving up an atom of O to form 2 molecules of O2. And then the dance starts over again.

So, it isn't the existance of Ozone (either O or O3) that protects the Earth's surface from UV, it's the formation of Ozone the transforms the UV to IR energy. Take away either UV radiation or O2 from the upper atmosphere and the Ozone will disappear in a short time. Guess what, the Sun really doesn't give much energy to the South pole when it's summer in the North.

This from high school physics classes of about 1962.

Jack

Reply to
Retired VIP

Only if one chooses to believe what has been learned through science and the scientific method.

If I am incorrect, why don't you do us all favor and show us the references that show I am incorrect? You could also correct Wikipedia and send a letter to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

I am sure they will benefit from your knowledge.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

Actually, ozone is only O3.

However, ozone blocks UV light much better than oxygen (O2).

A lot has been learned about oxygen and ozone in the last 45 years. You should read about it. It was found that ozone (O3) is what really blocks the UV and that destroying the ozone in the upper atmosphere is not a good thing.

You should read about it.

Reply to
Jeff

Then what is O?

If so, then why does Ozone break down into O2 and O?

You need to ask yourself, "How did the Ozone get there in the first place?" You talk like you're an expert on the chemistry of Oxygen, what are your qualifications? What exactly that is new has been learned about Oxygen and Ozone in the last 45 years? Are you just repeating what the folks say who are getting rich of this?

My qualification on this subject is a high school education that dates from a time when my class mates didn't have to take remedial general math to get into an engineering college.

Jack

Reply to
Retired VIP

Oxygen atom.

Because it is not stable.

Why don't you read about ozone hole and the chemicals that were eliminated from aerosols that protected the ozone hole?

In high school, I took general physics, chemistry and AP chemistry, which meant that I did not have to take the first half of chemistry course.

I have a minor in biochemistry, which required college level chemistry, organic chemistry, biology, biochemistry and biophysical chemistry. I also took college level physics as well as graduate level courses in biology and biochemistry, as well as other college and graduate level biology courses.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

I bow to your superior knowledge. Ozone exists in the upper atmosphere because it blocks UV and is unstable. It just magically appears after it disappears. Yeah, right.

Oh, and the Tooth Fairy is a good friend of the Easter Bunny!

Dow Chemical lost the patent extension request on Freon. They made some big donations to some obscure environmental groups and suddenly the disappearance of Ozone over the South Pole in the winter was a big disaster and we needed to ban Freon. Oh, by the way, Dow Chemical has a NEW and IMPROVED version of Freon that will work almost as well. Patent? Well sure, we need to recoup our developmental costs!

Jack

Reply to
Retired VIP

Only if you consider lightning 'MAGIC' as lightning is one of the natural occurrences that produce ozone

Reply to
PC Medic

And there are bunches of man-made ozone producing events (such as welding, production of electrical sparks as in electric motor commutation), but they are generally close to the ground.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

Plants eventually die and release CO2. And higher concentrations of CO2 don't necessarily lead to more plant growth, and some types of plants benefit much less from the extra CO2 than others do.

Reply to
Johnny Hageyama

Dow Chemical never lost the patent on Freon because Freon was invented by DuPont Chemical, and I don't believe they ever transferred all the patent rights to Dow. Furthermore the patent on Freon ran out long before major concerns were raised about ozone layer depletion, some time in the late 1960s.

Reply to
Johnny Hageyama

Ozone exists in the upper atmosphere because it is a result of chemical reactions involving lightning and other things in the upper atmosphere.

Not magically. But by known chemical reactions.

I don't believe in either.

Actually, it had far more to do with research done by scientists that showed the ozone hole was growing.

Before you go and make an ass of yourself by saying things that are completely made up, I suggest you educate yourself on the science and facts surrounding ozone and the ozone hole.

One source is wikipedia, which has many references:

formatting link
Unless you are able to say something that shows you understand the subject, I am not going to waste my time responding to you.

Until then, I rest my case.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.