seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Here's a nice, simple, 10 question global warming test from this site:
West Virginia Plant Fossils - Table of Contents
How well do you do on it?
West Virginia Plant Fossils - Table of Contents
How well do you do on it?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
What do you think of this study, citizenzen?
Reservoir Surfaces as Sources of Greenhouse Gases to the Atmosphere: A Global Estimate
Reservoirs are sources of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and their surface areas have increased to the point where they should be included in global inventories of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
I failed of course.
I did find it interesting that they'd preface the test with: "Caution: This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good grade in political correctness."
No axe to grind there.
I also like this paragraph found on the site (bolding mine)...
The "greenhouse effect" actually is a bit player in global climate (although without it's benefits the average temperature of the Earth would be minus 18° C). Human's did not cause the greenhouse effect, but critics maintain human additions to atmospheric greenhouse gases may cause global temperatures to rise too much.
"Critics"... not scientists... "critics". Again, I think we can see where these folks are coming from.
I also like the phrase, "may cause global temperatures to rise too much". Too much? Too much for what? That's a little vague... doesn't sound very... (what's the word?) scientific.
80%.... my son is taking AP environmental science... his discussions assisted me in getting many of the questions right. Oh and the hype about what they teach or don't teach in school is just thay hype...at least in their schools.
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
The same think I think about any scientific study. It needs to reviewed and weighed with all the other studies that are out there.
One thing that anybody who follows science realize is that no single study proves anything. That's why we still have a steady parade of "coffee is good for your / coffee is bad for you" headlines in the news.
So go ahead, toss your study into the mix, and we'll see what stands the test of time.
How did you like the statements on the percentage of scientists and climatologists signing various papers?
Yes the test like the rest has an agenda.
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Citizenzen, we are in an interglacial period of an ice age.
- What do you think temperatures do during an interglacial period? They rise. (The critics of this interglacial period think that the temperature is rising too fast, though. Some people are never happy.
) - Glaciers disappear during interglacial periods. (That's why they are called interglacial periods.) What do we see happening right now? Old glaciers are disappearing. (While some are growing.) Gee, we must be in an interglacial period! {Ya' think so?}
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Cool. Alert the media and the scientific community!
I'll get the champagne.
I am soooo happy! Now I can buy that beachfront property I had my eye on!
Oops... and I almost forgot... get your speech ready. I see a Nobel Prize in your future.
Forget your beachfront...this age can last centuries...it'll be undewater soon...
To me it is all about adapt. Has man been an influence, sure, how much nobody knows. The only thing we know is if we attempt to correct, play some silly game we will not know the consequences and will either oversteer or backfire, as we simply do not have the knowledge to play G!d, period.
So adapt, every gov't should pass laws right now saying no more oceanfront bailouts...you want to whine the first floor of everything in NYC, and Miami is a foot deep...whine away...sell now or forever hold your peace.
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
That's for sure! I was reading about a plan to fertilize the oceans with iron sulfate in order to encourage phytoplankton grow to lower CO2 levels. I would be very wary of this plan. The ocean floors are carbon sinks of limestone. If you put acid on limestone (even weak acid like vinegar,) it will release CO2. Iron sulfate is used to acidify soils. It works like this:
Sulfur is oxidized by bacteria to form sulfuric acid.
S0 + O2 + H2O ⇒ H2SO4 (elemental S + oxygen + water + thiobacillus + time ⇒ sulfuric acid)
Production of gypsum and leaching of sodium
After elemental S has changed to sulfuric acid and reacted with lime in soil, gypsum is produced.
This reaction is fairly rapid. One ton of elemental S is equivalent to 5 tons of gypsum.
H2SO4 + CaCO3 ⇒ CaSO4 + CO2 + H2O
(sulfuric acid + lime ⇒ gypsum + carbon dioxide + water)
Fertilizing soil with iron sulfate breaks down the calcium carbonate (limestone) in the soil and turns it into gypsum, releasing CO2 and H2O. I don't know how this would work in the oceans, but I really wouldn't want the limestone floor of the oceans to release their carbon dioxide all at once. Also, how would this affect the calcium carbonate contained in the shells of the corals that make up the coral reefs? S0 + O2 + H2O ⇒ H2SO4 (elemental S + oxygen + water + thiobacillus + time ⇒ sulfuric acid)
Production of gypsum and leaching of sodium
After elemental S has changed to sulfuric acid and reacted with lime in soil, gypsum is produced.
This reaction is fairly rapid. One ton of elemental S is equivalent to 5 tons of gypsum.
H2SO4 + CaCO3 ⇒ CaSO4 + CO2 + H2O
(sulfuric acid + lime ⇒ gypsum + carbon dioxide + water)
SG, very interesting articles. Cap and trade issues are going to dominate energy decisions for the foreseeable future. The Chinese should not be penalized for making good green decisions in the past and hopefully more of them in the future, so I am against reducing their credit.
Having said this, I am a bit concerned about government mandating renewables in a time of $50 / barrel oil.
What are your thoughts about nuclear energy
?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Well, I'm not big on putting nuclear power plants in earthquake zones when the folks in the area have difficulties building earthquake-proof buildings. (Iran comes to mind!SG, very interesting articles. Cap and trade issues are going to dominate energy decisions for the foreseeable future. The Chinese should not be penalized for making good green decisions in the past and hopefully more of them in the future, so I am against reducing their credit.
Having said this, I am a bit concerned about government mandating renewables in a time of $50 / barrel oil.
What are your thoughts about nuclear energy
)I have been a believer for a long time that we are underutilizing our oceans. I believe we need to develop cities in the oceans
. And one of the first industries in these cities should be for carbon sequestration. The second should be nuclear energy. Lots of progress has been made during the last generation of building structures which can withstand earthquakes. We will probably even build a high level storage facility in a mountain on an earthquake zone soon.
Janz
What's Amatta U
The second should be nuclear energy. Lots of progress has been made during the last generation of building structures which can withstand earthquakes. We will probably even build a high level storage facility in a mountain on an earthquake zone soon.
So tell me, do you have an opinion about the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant which is built on an earthquake fault line near San Luis Obispo, California? I guess that what all this boils down to is how much faith a person has in the engineers who design and develop this type of technology and whether cost cutting measures are encouraged in order to have a higher profit margin.
As mentioned in the other thread, it's clearly a structured piece of propaganda.
Indeed, this isn't the point being contested - it's the speed and degree of the warming.
Interglacial models tend to suggest a much more muted rise occuring over thousands of years - what climatologists are highlighting is that the current changes being observed are like having an interglacial period occuring within just a couple of hundred years.
And in terms of degrees - I'm under the impression that the polar ice caps have been a constant feature of the earth for 100,000+ years - yet under current climate models, the most conservative estimate has the artic ice sheet as disappearing at the end of the century at the latest.
One thing I can certainly agree with - the obsession over carbon emissions has gone nuts, and this is just one of the many hair brained schemes to emerge from that.
We are actually a very energy-wasteful culture, dumping huge amounts into the environment - even when useful - just because there's been no economic incentive to recycle it.
For example, in Sweden there are (coal-fired?) power stations who pipe their waste hot water to nearby towns and settlements to heat homes. In the UK, we just dump it in the nearest river, raising the temperatue too hig to support fish, and filling the waterways with algae who can thrive on the lower oxygen content.
IT probably doesn;t take a great dea of investment to cut down a huge amount of energy pollution - but what it does take is a change of mindset from the throw-away societies we've developed into.
You are right, this particular nuclear power plant is built near a fault and therefore has some inherent risks associated.
The safety of this technology has improved a lot with the Gen IV nuclear plants, but they are still not perfect, there is no such thing as a perfect engineering design.
Ha, ha, I like that healthy skepticism. The interesting thing about nuclear power is that as the energy demand increases, again, it is just a matter of time until we begin to build nuclear plants again. Look at France and Japan, both countries had no other choice, and hence went nuclear big time.
I wonder how the rest of Europe feels about the French nuclear program ? I suspect that Germany will be the next country to go nuclear and after that Sweden and Belgium.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
The flash frozen mammoths and wooly rhinos found in Alaska and Siberia (with green grass preserved under their frozen bodies) pretty much shows that rapid climate changes can naturally occur, as well as demonstrating that green grass and flowers were growing near the north pole within the model's timeframe of having permanent ice caps for the past 100,000 years.As mentioned in the other thread, it's clearly a structured piece of propaganda.
Indeed, this isn't the point being contested - it's the speed and degree of the warming.
Interglacial models tend to suggest a much more muted rise occuring over thousands of years - what climatologists are highlighting is that the current changes being observed are like having an interglacial period occuring within just a couple of hundred years.
And in terms of degrees - I'm under the impression that the polar ice caps have been a constant feature of the earth for 100,000+ years - yet under current climate models, the most conservative estimate has the artic ice sheet as disappearing at the end of the century at the latest.
{The model does not conform to observations. Which would you say is incorrect, the theoretical model, or the physical evidence we have found?}