Co2

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

The other issue that is rarely concentrated on is how burning fossil fuels at these global levels dumps unprecedented amounts of mercury into the enviorment. That ends up in the air you breathe, the water you drink and the fish you eat. Warming or no warming.

to say nothing of all the mercury in those new ugly light bulbs we are now going to be required to buy. Just don't break one when the children are around or you be in for it. Keep a chemical suit ready for your home cleanup. Looks like we are all dead in the end anyway. :ah:

AKL

[Lordblood]

Originally Posted by thstone

"(night vision is basically a camera that detects IR light). "

Let's be careful in using terms so we don't confuse anyone - there are actually three types of technology used for night vision:

The technology that most people call "night vision" works by amplifying the very low level of visible ambient light that our eyes cannot detect. A better name for this technolgy is "light amplification". This technology creates the classic "green" scene images that we've all seen from the military. The military likes this approach because it is passive in nature and will not give away a soldiers position.

Alterntively, other night vision devices use an energy source (just out of the visible range in either near-wave IR or UV) to illuminate a scene in a wavelenth that humans cannot see. This is an active technology and is kind of like mounting your old hippie black light from your garage to a camera that detects the black light. Obviously the military doen't like this approach because this type of device can be easily dectected by an IR or UV sensor which would immediately give away your position but it is useful for other situations and can provide very good quality images because there is an actual source of energy illuminating the scene. These images are characteristically black and white (not green) with a bright spot (more white) where the illuminator energy is strongest.

Otherwise, true IR cameras detect heat or thermal energy and can be used for night vision but only objects with different temperatures can be resolved. This can be helpful when searching for a Sasquatch (hot) in a forest where the ave temp of the background forest is colder than the Big Foot or any other hot blooded animal but many objects can go undetected or unresolved because they are same or close to the same in temperature as the surrounding background (e.g. cold blooded animals or made made objects). These images are recognizable by their wide range of full colors (red, yellow, green, and blue) with bright red being the warmest and dark blue being the coldest.

Thanks for the information, I'm not very educated in military technology myself and it was unwise to use it as an example. However, I think you understand what I was trying to say.

[Lordblood]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

The other issue that is rarely concentrated on is how burning fossil fuels at these global levels dumps unprecedented amounts of mercury into the enviorment. That ends up in the air you breathe, the water you drink and the fish you eat. Warming or no warming.

In addition to carbon dioxide fossil fuel combustion emits sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide- all of which makes water more acidic, and it all comes back down as acid rain, which has proven to change environments drastically. There are plenty of reasons to move away from fossil fuels (and combustion in general) other than global warming.

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by Lordblood

In addition to carbon dioxide fossil fuel combustion emits sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide- all of which makes water more acidic, and it all comes back down as acid rain, which has proven to change environments drastically. There are plenty of reasons to move away from fossil fuels (and combustion in general) other than global warming.

Then can we assume you have gotten rid of all your vehicles that use fossil fuel? How about your electric, does it come from coal or oil? If so have you disconnected from the line. Kinda like Al Gore riding around in his private jet complaining about carbon footprint. If all of you advocates would give up your use of fossil fuels we all would be better off, no? Until that time....

AKL

[Lordblood]

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

Then can we assume you have gotten rid of all your vehicles that use fossil fuel? How about your electric, does it come from coal or oil? If so have you disconnected from the line. Kinda like Al Gore riding around in his private jet complaining about carbon footprint. If all of you advocates would give up your use of fossil fuels we all would be better off, no? Until that time....

AKL

Oh absolutely, show me a viable option and I'll jump on it. Unfortunately, no viable option exists. But we all know that, the point is that green technology should be emphasized and innovated on. You can't just switch the entire world onto non-carbon energy overnight.

Also, that political argument does not work as an attack to the scientific fact that fossil fuel burning is changing the world dramatically.

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Don't know if is "legal" to post this, but if you hit this link you will find some interesting new NASA data on CO2.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

AKL

[tonycarreon]

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

Don't know if is "legal" to post this, but if you hit this link you will find some interesting new NASA data on CO2.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

AKL

careful now, because the link is an op-ed written by a senior fellow at the heartland institute. HI is vehemently opposed to climate change data and has stated that global warming would even be helpful, not harmful. they are so anti-"climate science" that they sponsor the international conference on climate change, which is a twice-yearly get-together for climate change deniers who are so rabidly against any data that shows evidence for climate change, that even moderate skeptics have avoided associating themselves with the group...

[Perfectlap]

What does these 'climate change deniers" have to say about the mercury and other contaminants? Do think those toxins have anti-oxidant and cholestorol lowering properties?

[tonycarreon]

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

to say nothing of all the mercury in those new ugly light bulbs we are now going to be required to buy. Just don't break one when the children are around or you be in for it. Keep a chemical suit ready for your home cleanup. Looks like we are all dead in the end anyway. :ah:

AKL

the amount of mercury in a CFL is around 125 times less than the amount of mercury used in your old-style lever operated thermostat. have you replaced those yet?

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by tonycarreon

careful now, because the link is an op-ed written by a senior fellow at the heartland institute. HI is vehemently opposed to climate change data and has stated that global warming would even be helpful, not harmful. they are so anti-"climate science" that they sponsor the international conference on climate change, which is a twice-yearly get-together for climate change deniers who are so rabidly against any data that shows evidence for climate change, that even moderate skeptics have avoided associating themselves with the group...

I see, the senior fellow is and "Activist"? And therefore should be taken with skepticism? How about the religious climate change folk, should we be skeptical? How about his evidence, can we look at that first before we rush to name calling?

AKL

[Lordblood]

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

I see, the senior fellow is and "Activist"? And therefore should be taken with skepticism? How about the religious climate change folk, should we be skeptical? How about his evidence, can we look at that first before we rush to name calling?

AKL

The problem, I suspect, is that this group is using NASA data when it shows that climate change isn't occurring, but would call NASA a "government-funded propaganda machine" when the data would show a trend towards climate change. Brings to mind the BS about people rejecting that the healthcare law would reduce spending because the CBO was fed bad data.

Yes, you should be skeptical about all data until it is proven to hold water on multiple occasions. Such is the nature of science.

I would presume you reject the "hockey stick" model, though that has been put out by the same scientists that put out this data.

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by Lordblood

The problem, I suspect, is that this group is using NASA data when it shows that climate change isn't occurring, but would call NASA a "government-funded propaganda machine" when the data would show a trend towards climate change. Brings to mind the BS about people rejecting that the healthcare law would reduce spending because the CBO was fed bad data.

Yes, you should be skeptical about all data until it is proven to hold water on multiple occasions. Such is the nature of science.

I would presume you reject the "hockey stick" model, though that has been put out by the same scientists that put out this data.

There are many dissenting voices out there but have not been heard. However more keeps coming out. The Polar Bear scare is another "fact" that is now coming under scrutiny. Yes, we do now and forever have had climate change. The Man Made therefore Tax and regulation is the cure solution is the problem. Also how many records were really broken during this last heat wave (in July mind you)? Central Park NY was broken by a couple of degrees if I am correct and breaks the 1929 record. Now I ask, what was going in in 1929? Global Warming? Tons of CO2? Not enough or too many SUV's or Fords on the road? Too many questions to pass legislation on in my opinion. Also any dissenters are labeled "deniers" and dismissed out of hand thereby ending debate. This only happens when your argument is weak.

AKL

[tonycarreon]

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

Also any dissenters are labeled "deniers" and dismissed out of hand thereby ending debate. This only happens when your argument is weak.

no. disagreement is the lifeblood of democracy. however when a group takes money from a company that benefits if global warming is "disproved" and hurt if stricter standards are enforced, disagreement is stifled.

show me a reputable scientist who does not take money from exxon and still disagrees with his peers and i will listen. but when you point to a scientist who takes money from the oil and gas industry and then puts out a study showing global warming is beneficial, you lose your argument.

i believe from your posts (and correct me if i am wrong) your stance is that global climate change is happening, but you are unconvinced as to the cause. you are not convinced it is happening because of man-made activities and may merely be a cyclical event. fair enough, i disagree.

but the HI (the "NASA data blows hole in climate change" people) goes a step further - they do not believe that global climate change is even happening, and they argue that if it does happen, it would be a good thing. to what end i can not determine - perhaps they feel it would help having our fish come out of the oceans pre-baked...

the HI is the same group who took money from philip morris tobacco and published a study which, they claim, shows second-hand smoke posed no health concerns.

[Topless]

The simple fact is that CO2 has been warming the planet since the beginning of time and we know for certain that adding a lot more to the atmosphere will increase that warming. Radiative physics 101. The 100 trillion $ question is how much warming. Enviro-nazi kooks will tell us that it will warm 5-8C by 2200 and waves of water will cover NYC. Heartland kooks will tell us "no worries, no warming at all." They are both likely very wrong. Even the estimates made in IPCC AR4 (2-6C) are highly speculative and have little or no supporting evidence.

If you are seriously interested in a frank discussion on the big question of "how much warming?" by mostly scientists and engineers around the world I recommend this website:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/

These are mostly number crunchers who put observable evidence and known properties far above wild eyed speculation and don't have a political dog in the fight. It's worth a look.

[Perfectlap]

The other thing to consider, global warming (or not) may be a long term issue so it might be something that doesn't really impact you for another 20-30 years.
But the effect of mercury, acid rain, etc. could already be affecting your health and shortening your life. I can only imagine how sick the Chinese population living in those areas where there are no enviormental protections will be faring in 15-20 years.

[Topless]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

The other thing to consider, global warming (or not) may be a long term issue so it might be something that doesn't really impact you for another 20-30 years.
But the effect of mercury, acid rain, etc. could already be affecting your health and shortening your life. I can only imagine how sick the Chinese population living in those areas where there are no enviormental protections will be faring in 15-20 years.

The Chinese have been suffering unfathomable air and water pollution for over 50 years. Yes the health results are pretty bad (try getting statistics from their govt) . I am not sure their air pollution as a whole has gotten much worse over the last 10 years, only that most of the population is being forcibly relocated to huge cities where exposure is much higher.

[Lordblood]

Originally Posted by Topless

The simple fact is that CO2 has been warming the planet since the beginning of time and we know for certain that adding a lot more to the atmosphere will increase that warming. Radiative physics 101. The 100 trillion $ question is how much warming. Enviro-nazi kooks will tell us that it will warm 5-8C by 2200 and waves of water will cover NYC. Heartland kooks will tell us "no worries, no warming at all." They are both likely very wrong. Even the estimates made in IPCC AR4 (2-6C) are highly speculative and have little or no supporting evidence.

If you are seriously interested in a frank discussion on the big question of "how much warming?" by mostly scientists and engineers around the world I recommend this website:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/

These are mostly number crunchers who put observable evidence and known properties far above wild eyed speculation and don't have a political dog in the fight. It's worth a look.

This was what I was trying to get at from my very first post. It's not a question of "will it?" But "how much?" Obviously politically backed climate change "authorities" will overestimate the numbers as much as anti-climate change authorizes will underestimate the numbers.
People also argue "what will 1 degree do?" 1 degree globally is enough to raise the water level. Once you change the amount of water flowing in the oceans, the entire water cycle system gets changed. If I could equate it to cars I'd compare it to increasing the octane in the gas tank.
As for using anecdotes as evidence, I already mentioned that it is a very bad form of evidence. Some places may experience cooling because of local conditions, some places may experience drastic heating because of conditions. The real problem begins when heating occurs (even small heating) over the caps, the ocean, etc.