-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
@Bonnie
I like George Bernard Shaw. I studied about him when I was at High School. In Italy we say "old mottoes are never wrong".
I like George Bernard Shaw. I studied about him when I was at High School. In Italy we say "old mottoes are never wrong".
New peer reviewed study discovers that when CO2 was higher in the past, not as hot as previously thought | Watts Up With That?
New peer reviewed study discovers that when CO2 was higher in the past, not as hot as previously thought
New peer reviewed study discovers that when CO2 was higher in the past, not as hot as previously thought
There are countless studies from researchers who do have a Ph.D that say the opposite (lead author doesn't have her Ph.D yet). Over 98+% of professional climate scientists say the same thing but you found a paper from a Ph.D candidate? Not saying that invalidates her work or you need a Ph.D to do a good study but if you can find more than 5% of scientists that don't have financial conflict of interests then I would be amazed.
I realize however that no level of evidence would probably ever change your mind though.
The unintended real life consequences of mindless AGW believers...
http://www.medicalgasresearch.com/content/pdf/2045-9912-2-7.pdf
http://www.medicalgasresearch.com/content/pdf/2045-9912-2-7.pdf
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
RichardC
Cdn Sig & Solar Supporter
RichardC
Cdn Sig & Solar Supporter
Not Skeptics but Anti-Science
This thread, and the manner in which we are being presented with disjointed and unrelated little turdlets of disinformation, rather than any attempt to articulate a coherent and scientifically intelligible theory to explain why the 97% or 98% of the world's most highly qualified climate scientists and all of the national and international science academies, all of which support AGW, reminded me of the following comment, posted on the Scientific American website (in response to the article: "Leaked: Conservative Group Plans Anti-Climate Education Program - The Heartland Institute funds climate skeptics, including Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change founder Craig Idso, physicist Fred Singer and geologist Robert Carter" See: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=leaked-conservative-group&page=2#comments) which sets out a simple test for separating those who are truly skeptical, from those who are anti-science, as follows:
To that end I would ask Kaivball to please tell us what specific evidence would have to be presented to convince you that the scientific theory of AGW is correct?
This thread, and the manner in which we are being presented with disjointed and unrelated little turdlets of disinformation, rather than any attempt to articulate a coherent and scientifically intelligible theory to explain why the 97% or 98% of the world's most highly qualified climate scientists and all of the national and international science academies, all of which support AGW, reminded me of the following comment, posted on the Scientific American website (in response to the article: "Leaked: Conservative Group Plans Anti-Climate Education Program - The Heartland Institute funds climate skeptics, including Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change founder Craig Idso, physicist Fred Singer and geologist Robert Carter" See: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=leaked-conservative-group&page=2#comments) which sets out a simple test for separating those who are truly skeptical, from those who are anti-science, as follows:
To that end I would ask Kaivball to please tell us what specific evidence would have to be presented to convince you that the scientific theory of AGW is correct?
Last edited:
That is simply the consequences of bad science, such as being a global warming denier despite the immense preponderance of evidence.
Are you an anesthesiologist? There are no real life consequences to this. Desflurane is still being used by people who want to use it I'd imagine. Other than the quicker wakeup in obese patients can you explain the properties of Desflurane that could potentially make it worse in some patients or why some providers choose to sick with Sevoflurane? Also, other than personal correspondence in this article, any papers that show that global warming people have banned Des in a hospital and that the ban actually caused any patient harm? Note, it said there ware 'calls among certain faculty members for the drug to be banned'. Is there any proof of this other than this guys word? Even if people did call for it, it wouldn't happen. People ask for crazy things all the time. I believe anesthesia was being performed before Desflurane came to market as well.
Bottom line is this has almost a zero impact on climate change anyway and is necessary for anesthesia so won't be stopped anytime soon unless newer anesthesia gases are invented. This article is just a distractor to try and make climate change advocates seem ludicrous.
Last edited:
I am studying the matter of energy consumption at global level and I found a source saying that at global level the contribution of fossil fuels to the energy demand is 85%. Renewable and alternative energies contribute with a very small percentage to the energy demand at global level. In fact most of the remaining 15% is given by nuclear and hydroelectric energy.
So I think that if we want to decrease the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere we have a lot of work to do!
So I think that if we want to decrease the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere we have a lot of work to do!
I'm surprised by that statistic, Raffy. I would think that biomass would represent a significant portion of the world's energy-- think about cookfires and wood-burning stoves. Food energy should properly be added into this equation too.
@Robert
I am happy that you are surprised Robert. I hope that the statistic that I read was wrong because 85% of global energy demand given by fossil fuels is too much. If you have a more reliable source giving a better percentage for the contribution of fossil fuels to the energy demand please report it here. I think that I would sleep better if I knew that the contribution of fossil fuels to the global energy demand would be much lower than 85%.
I am happy that you are surprised Robert. I hope that the statistic that I read was wrong because 85% of global energy demand given by fossil fuels is too much. If you have a more reliable source giving a better percentage for the contribution of fossil fuels to the energy demand please report it here. I think that I would sleep better if I knew that the contribution of fossil fuels to the global energy demand would be much lower than 85%.
I found a source stating that land and oceans manage to absorb 55% of CO2 emitted in the atmosphere. The remaining 45% of CO2 emitted keeps staying in the atmosphere causing the greengas effect.
So if we want to stop the rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere we should reduce CO2 emissions at global level at least for a percentage of 45%.
But I think that we should do even better if we want to decrease CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
So if we want to stop the rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere we should reduce CO2 emissions at global level at least for a percentage of 45%.
But I think that we should do even better if we want to decrease CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Adding CO2 to the oceans is also bad, but regardless, it's not like we can decide that we'll put all of our CO2 into the oceans and land and none of it into the air.
We can't stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere unless we stop burning fossil fuels and that's simply not going to happen in my lifetime.
How are you going to get that 787 to stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere? Big lithium batteries? sorry, that's a sore subject...
Anyway, the question right now isn't whether we'll see continued rising CO2 levels. The question is how high will the CO2 levels get.
and just because no government is proposing eliminating carbon emissions doesn't mean that we don't want governments to limit carbon emissions. Less carbon is better.
It would at least be nice if we could agree that we weren't going to add any more CO2 to the atmosphere in 2020 than we did in 2013. So far, we can't even agree on that.
If you want CO2 levels in 2100 to be as "low" as they are today, you'll need to do some geo-engineering to actively remove it from the air.
@derekt75
Actually, as you pointed out, the problem of the too high CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is huge. All we can do is trying to make our best at personal level to try to find a solution to this problem.
In my opinion best thing would be an agreement among Governments all over the world with precise targets on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to be achieved in the following, let's say, 40 years.
If this will not happen you are right, we will be forced to do some geo-engineering to actively remove it from the air.
Actually, as you pointed out, the problem of the too high CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is huge. All we can do is trying to make our best at personal level to try to find a solution to this problem.
In my opinion best thing would be an agreement among Governments all over the world with precise targets on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to be achieved in the following, let's say, 40 years.
If this will not happen you are right, we will be forced to do some geo-engineering to actively remove it from the air.
Similar threads
