Climate Change is a Complex Subject, Not Just a Political Football

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by troy2000, Aug 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    I thought the little piece was funny; the author should be working for the Onion.

    But there's nothing funny about the think tank that's funding and maintaining the website Yob found it on. That's composed of the usual bunch of PR whores and hired guns, who make a living pumping out pro-corporate propaganda, misinformation, and pseudo-science for the highest bidder. It was easy to guess someone like that would turn out to be behind it, before I even went looking.

    By the way: it took me a while to notice, but someone gave me negative rep for starting this thread. They did so without signing it, of course....
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. SamSam
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 3,899
    Likes: 200, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 971
    Location: Coastal Georgia

    SamSam Senior Member

    Oh I catch all your condensed concepts-that my tax money is involved also, that existence equals exploitation, that anything and everything is connected to anything and everything else so you're not wrong. While with a stretch of the imagination they may be technically true, why bother answering? There is no place on earth I can't get to by walking out my door, but I can't get out my door without a first step. So what?

    Global warming is not the same as climate change. GW is a cause and CC is a result. There are numerous causes of CC and CC causes many results, but CC itself is singular.

    Your poor conclusions
    combined with your bewildering positions based on wrong interpretations-asserting the EPA is wasting your money on ammonia exhalations and climate change when it is actually using your money to try and control liquid ammonia and manure runoff, or ammonia is not even counted in other countries but all pollution is related to climate change....they make it difficult to carry on a rational discussion.

    For instance, how is all pollution related to all climate change? How does liquid ammonia runoff from feedlot manure, which is devastating to aquatic life, relate in a meaningful way to climate change? Never mind your out of your hat assumptions that I don't understand things, how does mercury pollution or lead or asbestos pollution contribute to climate change? How about oil spills or radioactive discharges such as Chernobyl or Fukushima? How about pharmaceutical pollution from flushed antibiotics given to humans and your friendly farm animals? Untreated sewage? Agricultural pesticides and herbicides? How do those things directly effect climate change?
     
  3. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

  4. dskira

    dskira Previous Member

    You answered to yourself very well ;)
     
  5. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Thanyou for the gracious invite! :D
    And, thankyou for the info on CEI.
    I appreciate organizations like Heartland and CEI.
    Don't throw too many rocks though. The Climate Change sites have their OWN sources of support! :)
    How about THIS site?

    And I like Alexis de Tocqueville

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/revie...osing-the-con-game-of-man-made-climate-change

    As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in early America, once an idea is thought to be supported by the majority, the dynamics of what de Tocqueville calls “majority tyranny over thought” ensure that this idea will be very difficult to dislodge. He explains:

    "The more alike men are, the weaker each feels in the face of all. Finding nothing that raises him above their level and distinguishes him, he loses his self-confidence when he comes into collision with them. Not only does he mistrust his own strength, but even comes to doubt his own judgment, and he is brought very near to recognizing that he must be wrong when the majority hold the opposite view. There is no need for the majority to compel him; it convinces him."

    I must be dense. I'm unconvinced.
    On the other hand, I DO examine, read, listen, then think for myself! :D
    Maybe because I'm a traditional American. An INDIVIDUAL!
     
  6. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Oh, I posted an error I want to correct.

    The % of manmade CO2 in atmospheric CO2 is .117%. That's LESS than 1% or less than .01 when percent is changed to decimal hundredths. Its .00117 of the atmospheric CO2.
    400 parts per million CO2 in atmosphere times .00117= .468 parts per million is mans contribution. :) less than ONE HALF of ONE part per million.

    And THIS is responsible for climate change?

    Gosh! Who KNEW! :)

    Woops!

    Another source says .117% is mans contribution to total green house gases. Searching. Searching...
     
  7. Grey Ghost
    Joined: Aug 2012
    Posts: 194
    Likes: 9, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 94
    Location: california

    Grey Ghost Senior Member

    "The New American ... That Freedom Shall Not Perish" byline doesn't say "unbiased scientific journal" to me either.
    One thing did strike me in the gloss-over:
    man-made co2 22 billion tons
    natural released co2 781 billion tons
    estimated re-absorption: 788 billion tons

    How does farmland compare with forest for re-absorption? How do managed forests compare with old growth?
    Changes in the re-absorption side could be the key.
     
  8. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    The climate change sites don't claim unbiased either! Can't! :)

    I suspect you couldn't find a single unbiased opinion on this topic on the entire planet!
     
  9. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=3622&cid=63809

    In CO2-rich Environment, Some Ocean Dwellers Increase Shell Production
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Media Relations Office

    media@whoi.edu
    December 1, 2009

    (508) 289-3340

    "In a striking finding that raises new questions about carbon dioxide’s (CO2) impact on marine life, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) scientists report that some shell-building creatures—such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters—unexpectedly build more shell when exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

    Because excess CO2 dissolves in the ocean—causing it to “acidify” —researchers have been concerned about the ability of certain organisms to maintain the strength of their shells. Carbon dioxide is known to trigger a process that reduces the abundance of carbonate ions in seawater—one of the primary materials that marine organisms use to build their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.

    The concern is that this process will trigger a weakening and decline in the shells of some species and, in the long term, upset the balance of the ocean ecosystem.

    But in a study published in the Dec. 1 issue of Geology, a team led by former WHOI postdoctoral researcher Justin B. Ries found that seven of the 18 shelled species they observed actually built more shell when exposed to varying levels of increased acidification"


    Ocean acidification appears beneficial to SOME marine life at least! :D
     
  10. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~spk/Research/AnthropogenicCarbon/anthroco2.html

    "In particular, there was a sharp increase in ocean uptake since the 1950's, driven by the higher growth rate of atmospheric CO2. It currently stands at 2.3 PgC/y, i.e., for every four tons of CO2 that humans produce, the oceans absorb a bit over a ton.



    More recently, however, while the uptake rate has kept on increasing, its rate of increase appears to have slowed somewhat even though atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase at roughly the same rate. This seems consistent with recent evidence (Canadell et al., 2007) for an increase in the airborne fraction (the proportion of human CO2 emissions that remain in the atmosphere), suggesting that the intensity of both the land biosphere and ocean sinks is declining. Indeed, we find that between 2000 and 2007, the fraction of emissions taken up by the ocean has declined by almost 10%."

    "Our results suggest that the terrestrial biosphere was a source of CO2 until the 1940's, subsequently turning into a sink that has averaged ≈1.1 (0.4-1.8) PgC over the past decade. Cumulatively, the terrestrial biosphere has been anywhere from neutral to a net source of CO2, contributing up to half as much CO2 as has been taken up by the ocean since the start of the industrial period."

    Acidification, like temperature rise, is SLOWING!

    That's GOOD news, isn't it?
    :D
     
  11. Black The Mac

    Black The Mac Previous Member

    The Ocean

    Grey G,

    How does any of that compare to the ocean where ~85% of the worlds photosythesis takes place?

    Just saying...

     
  12. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    No worries, the unregistered algae growing on the walls of my house should take care of the rest. ;)
     
  13. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    You are anything but normal, but I don't consider that a bad thing. Carry on... :)
     
  14. El_Guero

    El_Guero Previous Member

    Is this thread still going?

    I am amazed it has not morphed into a 'why we should attack Syria' thread.

    :D
     

  15. SamSam
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 3,899
    Likes: 200, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 971
    Location: Coastal Georgia

    SamSam Senior Member

    And I'm the one that's not answering the questions? Right.

    Only by using such simplistic concepts, can you connect your post to climate change.

    Like I said, why bother?
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.