Author Topic: Environmental issues  (Read 240649 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11436
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11436
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues, Trees have warming effect
« Reply #502 on: January 23, 2019, 06:35:05 AM »
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/why-scientists-are-distrusted.php

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00122-z

“How Much Can Forests Fight Climate Change?“

Although trees cool the globe by taking up carbon through photosynthesis, they also emit a  complex potpourri of chemicals, some of which warm the planet. The dark leaves of trees can also raise temperatures by absorbing sunlight. Several analyses in the past few years suggest that these warming effects from forests could partially or fully offset their cooling ability. . .

Atmospheric chemist Nadine Unger, then at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, conducted one of the first global studies examining one part of this exchange: the influence of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, emitted by trees. These include isoprene, a small hydrocarbon that can warm the globe in several ways. It can react with nitrogen oxides in the air to form ozone — a potent climate-warming gas when it resides in the lower atmosphere. Isoprene can also lengthen the lifetime of atmospheric methane — another greenhouse gas. Yet isoprene can have a cooling influence, too, by helping to produce aerosol particles that block incoming sunlight. . .
--------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/may/13/thisweekssciencequestions3

Shares
159
Yes, just as president Ronald Reagan said in 1981. "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do," he opined. A little later, environmental scientists ruefully confirmed he was partially right. In hot weather, trees release volatile organic hydrocarbons including terpenes and isoprenes - two molecules linked to photochemical smog. In very hot weather, the production of these begins to accelerate.

America's Great Smoky Mountains are supposed to take their name from the photochemical smog released by millions of hectares of hardwoods.

This week Natural Environment Research Council scientists warned that as summer temperatures rise in the UK, the isoprene output from trees could make a small but noticeable contribution to human discomfort. Isoprene serves as a catalyst, driving the rate at which sunlight breaks down oxides of nitrogen - mostly from agriculture and cars - to produce atmospheric ozone.

Ozone is a triple molecule of oxygen. High in the stratosphere it is a godsend, screening out cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation. But in the lower atmosphere it is a toxin

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11436
    • View Profile
Catastrophic Human Caused Global Warming, How long do we really have?
« Reply #503 on: January 24, 2019, 09:02:44 AM »
https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/article/2182663/climate-change-how-long-do-we-really-have-save
--------------------------

I tend to post data and articles on climate change that align with my own view but post this link in the spirit of balance.  This is published in the South China Morning Post magazine this morning trying, I think, to take an honest look at this allegedly existential question.

I have a few problems with the article that goes with nearly all journalism of this type. 

They rely on discredited sources like UN IPCC who rely on 'adjusted' data and operate in a closed group with a heavy agenda. 

He admits the topic is filled with uncertainty but then goes on to use specific numbers that are not and cannot be accurately measured.

From the article:  "... just the beginning of the con­fu­sion. No two numbers from climate-change studies ever seem to agree. Even climate scientists are often baffled by the figures other researchers come up with.

Climate-change deniers seize on the uncertainty as evi­dence that the under­lying science is wrong. It is not. It is just complex, as real-world science is. The biggest uncer­tain­ty by far is us and what we will do over the next century. And the uncer­tainty cuts both ways: we could be under­estimating how fast the world will warm and what the effects will be."


The article fails to ask or answer the most basic questions that a disinterested reader or writer of catastrophic, human caused global warming articles should want to know:

How much has the earth warmed and what part of that warming is caused by human CO2 emissions?

WARMING ON THIS SCALE IS NOT UNPRECEDENTED
Go back a step from the 100 to 150 years discussed.  When did the current warming trend begin?  The implication that it started with the industrial age is wrong. There was a 'little ice age' that ended a couple hundred years before the industrial age.  At least part of modern warming is likely part of a natural cycle.  This is not mentioned in the article.  What is the right temperature for today or for the earth?  What is the natural or normal temperature today absent human causation.  No one knows.  The benchmark used in the article is that zero warming is natural.  All warming is implied to be within our control.  That is of course wrong.

Who picked the two degree warming benchmark?  Who picked the one and a half degree benchmark?  Who picked the 12 year deadline?  UN IPCC.  Who picked the previous seven year deadline to take action?  Same.  Besides unreliable, it's the same people who adjust the data for us.

ADJUSTED DATA
Where do they account for the controversy over adjusted data?  Not mentioned.  Questioning the adjustments made by a group admitted to have an agenda is the world of 'deniers'.  Does anything in the measured data validate the adjustments they made?  Do the adjustments go in both directions?  Are they transparent, made out in the open, justified and explained?  No, no, no, no, no and unfortunately no.  Unadjusted raw temperatures are rarely made available to the public or to the media.  If, as some have calculated, half or more of the published increases come from human adjustments to raw data, then we are talking about a half a degree of warming per century, and we don't even know what the right amount should be.

THERE IS A SOLUTION
Let's stipulate for a moment that the alarmists of this debate are right.  We should do something even in the face of uncertain and imperfect information.  Wind and solar power make little economic sense and have only grown with huge, corrupting subsidies.  Both tend to go down in the evening when demand is often the greatest.  They are expensive and unreliable non-solutions to the CO2 reduction challenge posed.  Only one known source of zero CO2 emissions could largely power our economy without turning the clock back 150 years, nuclear.  Is this mentioned in the article or generally promoted by the activists and analysts?  No. 

People promoting the idea that the world ends in 12 years might actually curtail their own travel and heat and air conditioning usage first - until we are carbon-free - to enhance the seriousness of their claims.   They could propose a massive public program to build new nuclear power plants all over the world and push for natural gas to replace oil and coal, but real world solutions that maintain our prosperity never seem to be part of the mix.  Instead activists jet around the world with their increased power carrying the carbon free message.  They point to electric cars that make their emissions back at the power plant as a solution. They otherwise imply we should go back to a pre-industrial economy and propose taxation and coercion as the only remedies.  We must take away liberties and transition to a centrally planned and controlled society in order to survive.  I don't buy it.

Attacking the people you intend to persuade rarely if ever works.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17000
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11436
    • View Profile
Re: The cognitive dissonance of global warming
« Reply #505 on: January 24, 2019, 01:50:59 PM »
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/319543/#respond




Amazingly, both flood and drought are caused by CAGW, catastrophic anthropogenic human activity caused global warming - even if both preceded humans.  Both melting and snowing are human caused - even if both came before humans.  They changed the term to what you can't deny, 'climate change', like trying to deny weather.  They choose their data to show the most warming.  They adjust their data to show more warming.  They increase their budgets with more warming.  They rig the 'peer review; process to be friends reviewing.  They chase out dissenters.  They never ask or answer the most basic questions, like how much warming is there from each set of causes?  Sadly the solution they require is the same as what they wanted when we feared global cooling, give up your liberties and submit to an all-powerful government.  At some point, are people going to suspect this is a hoax?

I'm waiting for the Buzzfeed report that ties imminent catastrophic skepticism to Russian collusion.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17000
    • View Profile
Re: The cognitive dissonance of global warming
« Reply #506 on: January 24, 2019, 01:59:05 PM »
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/319543/#respond




Amazingly, both flood and drought are caused by CAGW, catastrophic anthropogenic human activity caused global warming - even if both preceded humans.  Both melting and snowing are human caused - even if both came before humans.  They changed the term to what you can't deny, 'climate change', like trying to deny weather.  They choose their data to show the most warming.  They adjust their data to show more warming.  They increase their budgets with more warming.  They rig the 'peer review; process to be friends reviewing.  They chase out dissenters.  They never ask or answer the most basic questions, like how much warming is there from each set of causes?  Sadly the solution they require is the same as what they wanted when we feared global cooling, give up your liberties and submit to an all-powerful government.  At some point, are people going to suspect this is a hoax?

I'm waiting for the Buzzfeed report that ties imminent catastrophic skepticism to Russian collusion.

The left's answer to every crisis, real or imagined is bigger government, less freedom, higher taxes.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11436
    • View Profile
Environmental issues: 7 studies 2017 forecasted global cooling
« Reply #508 on: March 13, 2019, 04:29:35 AM »
Who could have seen this bitter cold winter coming?
https://principia-scientific.org/seven-new-papers-forecast-global-cooling-mini-ice-age/

David Birge, (environmental) journalism is the profession of covering the important stories. With a pillow, until they stop breathing.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9710
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #509 on: March 13, 2019, 05:18:22 AM »
"  David Birge, (environmental) journalism is the profession of covering the important stories. With a pillow, until they stop breathing."

like the dems are trying to do to half the country
instead of winning people with ideas that work
simply suffocate the right till they are dead

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11436
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues, Greenland Glacier Growing
« Reply #510 on: April 03, 2019, 09:23:39 AM »
[I thought I posted this but don't see it anywhere.]

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/key-greenland-glacier-growing-again-after-shrinking-years-nasa-study-ncna987116

Greenland Glacier Growing - without media fanfare.

Opinion before fact, NBC had to put this in the subtitle, before the article begins:

Study authors and outside scientists think this is temporary.

"Temporary" because they couldn't call their own story 'fake news'.  Isn't everything "temporary"?

From the previous post, David Birge, Iowahawk: (environmental) journalism is the profession of covering the important stories. With a pillow, until they stop breathing.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11436
    • View Profile
Environmental issues, climate change: Bad, bad, bad data
« Reply #513 on: May 09, 2019, 09:09:45 AM »
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/bad-data.php

The video at the link just touches on the tip of the iceberg of the problem.

Bad data is then made worse with bad adjustments.

To the climate change alarmists:
How much has it warmed?
Why did you choose that date range?
What is the accuracy of the data?
What's that actually measured or measured and adjusted?
What are all the categories of error and the amounts of each error?
How much is caused by urban heat island effect?
How much is caused by water vapor?
How much is relating to the sun?
How much would it have warmed if humans were not on the Earth?
 
The correct answer to all of these is the same...
WE DON'T KNOW.

Given all that we don't know, should we be more careful and more responsible in our behavior anyway?
- Yes.

To the hypocrites of the Left where nearly all the alarmists and the deniers of math and science reside, how come that logic, be more more responsible with what you don't fully understand, doesn't apply to a fetus?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11436
    • View Profile
There is a fundamental contradiction between their claims.  "On one hand they say the science is settled and people like myself should just shut up because they know what’s right. On the other hand, they seem to keep studying it forever as if there is something new to find out. And those two things are completely contradictory,"

"all they are doing is instilling fear. Most of the scientists who are saying it’s a crisis are on perpetual government grants."

https://pjmedia.com/video/greenpeace-co-founder-the-whole-climate-crisis-is-not-only-fake-news-its-fake-science/
https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Greenpeace-Dropout-Sensible-Environmentalist/dp/0986480827/pjmedia-20

Moore said he opposed the climate plan proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) "because it would be basically the end of civilization if 85 percent of the world's and also 85 percent of the U.S.’s energy — in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas — were phased out over the next few years. Like, ten years. We do not have anything to replace them with."

Nuclear reactors might be able to meet those needs, "but that isn’t going to happen because the greens are against nuclear, and they’re even against hydroelectric dams, which at least is renewable. But they don’t support that either, so basically, they are opposed to approximately 98.5 percent of all the electricity that we are using and nearly 100 percent of all the vehicle and transportation and ships and plans energy that we are using."

"The fact is you cannot do agriculture for eight billion people — produce the food for eight billion people — without fossil fuels as far as we know it. We don’t have an alternative, especially for transportation. Which is over 90 percent dependent on fossil fuels," he said.

Burning fossil fuels may even have a positive impact on the environment, the Greenpeace founding member argued.

"The fact is 85 percent of the world’s energy is from fossil fuels. And the carbon dioxide being emitted from burning it was actually taken out of the atmosphere and the oceans millions of years ago and stored in sediments," Moore said. "We are now releasing it back into the atmosphere where it can fertilize the life on Earth."

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11436
    • View Profile
Environmental issues, CO2 has a decreasing greenhouse effect
« Reply #515 on: June 13, 2019, 08:48:55 AM »
You probably get tired of hearing about the DECREASING effect of additional CO2 on warming.
------------------------------------------------
One of the many problems with the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory–now disguised under the anodyne title of “climate change,” which includes both drought and floods, among other things–is that the impact of a greenhouse gas like CO2 on the Earth’s temperature is logarithmic. That is to say, the effect is largest with the first molecules of CO2, and diminishes as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere grows.

The principle is simple: CO2 warms the atmosphere, slightly, because it absorbs radiation that is otherwise escaping from the atmosphere within a certain frequency. The more molecules of CO2 that are added to the atmosphere, the greater the chance that radiation emanating from the Earth has already encountered a CO2 molecule along the way, and the relevant frequency has already been absorbed. At some point, adding more CO2 has no impact on global temperatures. It is widely thought, I believe, that the large majority of whatever change might be brought about by increasing concentrations of CO2 has already been achieved.

That is the context for these observations from the Science and Environmental Policy Project’s The Week That Was:

Greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in specific wavelengths (absorption bands). Widths [Note: The band is (say) 12 to 18 microns; the bandwidth is 6 microns.] For example, carbon dioxide has three main bandwidths of infrared absorption – 1.8 to 2 microns; 4 to 5 microns; and 12 to 18 microns, this last being the one that can block IR emanating from the surface. If 99% + of the infrared energy for a particular band width is interfered with by existing greenhouse gases, then the band is said to be “saturated,” and the energy is released at the top of the atmosphere, where there are no molecules of greenhouse gas to interfere with it.

Using computer simulations from HITRAN (high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database), developed at the Atomic and Molecular Physics Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics under the direction of Dr. Iouli E. Gordon, the next TWTW (dated June 15) will begin to discuss how existing carbon dioxide and existing water vapor in the atmosphere reduce the ability of additional carbon dioxide to interfere with outgoing infrared radiation because the absorption bands are already saturated. As one scientist stated: “the glass is already on this greenhouse – another layer has little to do.”

We will continue to monitor this issue. I suspect that the logarithmic nature of CO2’s impact on the climate is one of several reasons why the models that are the sole basis for climate hysteria have proven to be wrong.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/06/another-pane-of-glass.php
http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2019/TWTW%206-1-19.pdf
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 10:46:16 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11436
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11436
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues, landfill, plastic, recycling
« Reply #517 on: July 15, 2019, 06:46:49 AM »
1) Landfill is basically fine.
2) Recycling is overrated and we should cut back.
3) No need to stop using plastic so long as it makes it into landfill.

(link: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739893511/episode-925-a-mob-boss-a-garbage-boat-and-why-we-recycle) npr.org/2019/07/09/739…

(link: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/12/741283641/episode-926-so-should-we-recycle) npr.org/2019/07/12/741…
-------
Why It's Probably Better for the Planet to Throw Plastic in the Trash
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2019/07/15/why_its_probably_better_for_the_planet_to_throw_plastic_in_the_trash.html
« Last Edit: July 15, 2019, 06:51:40 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48062
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #518 on: July 17, 2019, 12:28:05 PM »
I will be reflecting upon this.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17000
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #519 on: July 17, 2019, 02:00:53 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11436
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #520 on: July 17, 2019, 06:41:14 PM »
Quote author=G M
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qcdNaajKExs
---------------------
Trouble maker.   )

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17000
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #521 on: July 17, 2019, 07:21:07 PM »
Quote author=G M
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qcdNaajKExs
---------------------
Trouble maker.   )

That’s my job here.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11436
    • View Profile
Environmental Issues: Which countries are polluting the Oceans?
« Reply #523 on: September 04, 2019, 07:51:02 AM »
https://www.statista.com/chart/12211/the-countries-polluting-the-oceans-the-most/

https://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_12211_the_countries_polluting_the_oceans_the_most_n.gif

Spoiler, top ten are all in Asia or Africa.  China is trashing the oceans 300 times more than the US, with or without our plastic bag bans.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48062
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11436
    • View Profile
Environmental issues - Cement Blocks and CO2, MIT
« Reply #525 on: October 01, 2019, 08:59:00 AM »
The production of cement — the world’s leading construction material — is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for about 8 percent of all such releases. If cement production were a country, it would be the world’s third-largest emitter.

A team of researchers at MIT has come up with a new way of manufacturing the material that could eliminate these emissions altogether, and could even make some other useful products in the process.
...
“It’s an important first step, but .”
https://news.mit.edu/2019/carbon-dioxide-emissions-free-cement-0916
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 - My guess is that they cannot do it for the current cement block price of about $1.