Remember me
▼ Content

Far right-winger here that acknowledges climate change, what can we do?



Page 1 of 212>
Far right-winger here that acknowledges climate change, what can we do?13-01-2017 17:07
ylevental
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
I used to "ignore" it because I was "busy" with more "important" stuff, but seeing how warm this winter is, I believe that we need immediate action.

Is this the largest forum on climate change on the internet? I used to frequent reddit, but most of reddit is socialist/communist. Ironically enough, they don't have a large climate change forum. You would think they would have an action op for the one issue I strongly agree with the left on.
13-01-2017 17:35
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
1, Why do you consider yourself a far right winger?

2, Why do you see that as a surprise position on this science based subject?

3, Why do you consider a warmer winter a bad thing?

Edited on 13-01-2017 17:35
13-01-2017 17:50
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
Hello ylevental,
I also am a right winger, however I am not a tree hugging doomsdayer. I will admit the people on here have made me do the research, and I am now more informed than ever on the subject of climate change, not an expert, just more informed. I will not argue the climate is changing. It has always been changing. However I am not sold on man made warming. Most of the numbers and graphs out there will show that warming is undeniably caused by carbon emissions. Most of these same numbers and graphs are created by people that have a vested interest in one side of the issue. Yes, this includes your most honorable and honest federal agencies like the EPA.

Example.

In 2010 the EPA reported that ethanol produces 21% less carbon than regular gas.
This morning I turn on the TV and, well, GREAT NEWS!!! A new study shows ethanol actually produces 43% less carbon than gas! Great news, right? That's wonderful!!

Let's read this correctly. Either the EPA was horribly wrong in 2010..... or they are lying to me today.
They would lie today to promote more ethanol.
If they were dead wrong by over double, then it brings into question any "facts" they have told me in the past. How many times would you trust a liar? or someone that was wrong x2?

This kind of crap makes me question everything from current temperature reporting to carbon PPM reports. The EPA expects me to believe precise temperature and carbon reports (what some call science) from thousands of years ago, yet they can't accurately, or even closely report ethanol carbon emission just 6 years ago? Mmmmmmmm.......something isn't quite right here.


Need to post a correction--this was a USDA report, not EPA. Think they're not in the same bed? Think again.
Edited on 13-01-2017 17:57
14-01-2017 00:12
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
ylevental wrote: seeing how warm this winter is, I believe that we need immediate action. Is this the largest forum on climate change on the internet?

This site started with AGW denier liar whiners, who are proud NOT to have science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas, so they can brag they aren't influenced by eddy-kation. They pump the Heartland (in truth, heartless) AGW denier liar whiner propaganda poop "sigh-ants" directly from oil, energy, coal, business & re-pubic-lick-un boardroom PR programs.
True AGW science posted here, toxic AGW denier liar whiners immediately attack as non-science.
Without doing true science about AGW because they CAN'T do true science, conservative propaganda powder rooms use all their money & power to invade internet AGW forums, spreading their egotistical diverting strategies.
14-01-2017 01:16
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
Without doing true science about AGW because they CAN'T do true science,


So, in the above noted, and the below linked story about the ethanol carbon story, which one was REAL science? 2010 or today....before you answer remember that science must be based on fact.
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/government/study-ethanol-better-for-environment-than-thought-20170112
14-01-2017 03:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Hello ylevental,
I also am a right winger, however I am not a tree hugging doomsdayer. I will admit the people on here have made me do the research, and I am now more informed than ever on the subject of climate change, not an expert, just more informed. I will not argue the climate is changing. It has always been changing. However I am not sold on man made warming. Most of the numbers and graphs out there will show that warming is undeniably caused by carbon emissions. Most of these same numbers and graphs are created by people that have a vested interest in one side of the issue. Yes, this includes your most honorable and honest federal agencies like the EPA.

The Earth has, apparently, warmed by about one degree Celsius over the past century. The only way that this can happen is if more energy is being absorbed by the Earth than is being radiated. How is this happening, given that solar output has remained relatively constant?

Well, the big difference between then and now is the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, which has risen from 280 ppm before industrialisation to 400 ppm currently. As we know from fundamental radiative physics, CO2 can act as a blanket and reduce heat emission to space. So, it would seem quite obvious that the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the rise in temperature. Equally, given that the rise in CO2 started at the same time as the industrial revolution, it seems pretty obvious that human emissions are responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.

Conclusion: Humans are responsible for the rising temperature.
14-01-2017 04:38
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
[/quote]given that the rise in CO2 started at the same time as the industrial revolution, it seems pretty obvious that human emissions are responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.[/quote]

The current uptick in temps started around 1911. Global fossil fuel usage spiked hard in 1950. I don't buy it. If you do buy the 800,000 year temp graph, then what we are experiencing today is nothing out of the ordinary....we'll probably go a notch or two higher before we go on a century cooling period. Whatever. Then there is all the questions about if we're even accurately measuring the temperature correctly. We don't have the satellite network, we don't have the weather balloon, network, and ground thermometers can be be altered by placement or programming, and don't think this hasn't been done by certain gov officials with an agenda. I just don't trust anything from either side really. I'm not about to change my life or pay stupid tax because of some theory that is making a lot of people very wealthy.
Attached image:

14-01-2017 04:41
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
Forgot to put this up too

[img][/img]
Attached image:

14-01-2017 05:20
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
And explain this one....here's 3000 years where carbon is going up as temps simultaneously go down, and you want to freik out over a 100 years?

[img][/img]
Attached image:

14-01-2017 05:23
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
And what about this? Seems pretty normal if you buy the chart.

[img][/img]
Attached image:

14-01-2017 06:01
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
GasGuzzler wrote:....before you answer remember that science must be based on fact...


""IF"" the ethanol produces so much less CO2, its because the 114 octane ethanol doesn't combust properly in an 87 octane designed gasoline engine, both not producing power or completing the combustion process, so lots of CO2 would be produced. But combust 114 octane ethanol properly in a 114 octane designed ethanol engine, & lots of power is produced (now everyone say INDY car) & lots of CO2 is produced.
The 87 octane designed gasoline engine combusts the gasoline molecules well, producing power & CO2. But the ethanol delays burning in the combustion power stroke, missing much of the potential power of the power stroke, NOT producing power or CO2.
14-01-2017 06:23
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
In the 87 octane engine, are you referring to E10? 15? 85? Straight up? I don't get how Ethanol can "delay burning". Whether there's ethanol, alcahol, or grape juice in there, the spark will go at roughly 2 degrees BTDC and that's when it has to ignite, if it's flamable....and it is. I've got 332,000 on my Hemi burning mostly ethanol. I have no problem with the fuel...except that it's food.
14-01-2017 14:59
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
The temperature is not the same year after year, nobody claims it is. However it is stable to a degree the evidence is that the seas have not boiled or frozen recently. If you think that CO2 is not a factor driving the warming during the industrial period can you provide evidence of another mechanism rather then handwaving about 'cycles'?

Thanks

xx
14-01-2017 15:51
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The current uptick in temps started around 1911. Global fossil fuel usage spiked hard in 1950. I don't buy it. If you do buy the 800,000 year temp graph, then what we are experiencing today is nothing out of the ordinary....we'll probably go a notch or two higher before we go on a century cooling period. Whatever. Then there is all the questions about if we're even accurately measuring the temperature correctly. We don't have the satellite network, we don't have the weather balloon, network, and ground thermometers can be be altered by placement or programming, and don't think this hasn't been done by certain gov officials with an agenda. I just don't trust anything from either side really. I'm not about to change my life or pay stupid tax because of some theory that is making a lot of people very wealthy.

Nobody claims that CO2 is the only factor driving changes in global surface temperature. Other influences include other greenhouse gases (such as methane), small variations in solar output, atmospheric aerosols (which have a cooling effect) and heat transfers to and from the ocean. However, these factors are small and/or short-lived compared with the large, long-term effect of CO2. The net effect is that the recent surface temperatures show a constantly rising trend, driven by the rapid increase in CO2, but still vary on a smaller scale due to other factors.
14-01-2017 16:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
And explain this one....here's 3000 years where carbon is going up as temps simultaneously go down, and you want to freik out over a 100 years?

[img][/img]

It's a matter of scale. Your graph shows the CO2 concentration rising by barely 5 ppm in 3,000 years. It is currently rising at a rate of 2.5 ppm per year, i.e. about 1,500 times as rapidly! The tiny change in CO2 concentration during the period covered by your graph isn't sufficient to have an appreciable affect on temperatures. The small drop in temperature is presumably due to other factors, such as those I mentioned in my previous post.
14-01-2017 16:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
And what about this? Seems pretty normal if you buy the chart.
[img][/img]


You neglected to include the corresponding CO2 graph for that chart. I wonder why?




Note how the CO2 concentration and temperature have varied almost in lock step over the past 800,000 years. CO2 falls to about 180 ppm in the depths of the ice ages and rises to about 280 ppm during the mild interglacial periods, such as the one that mankind has enjoyed over the past 10,000 years or so. Over the past 150 years or so, we have driven it up to 400 ppm and continue to drive it further. It doesn't take a genius to see what this will mean for global temperatures.
14-01-2017 16:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
ylevental wrote:
I used to "ignore" it because I was "busy" with more "important" stuff, but seeing how warm this winter is, I believe that we need immediate action.

Is this the largest forum on climate change on the internet? I used to frequent reddit, but most of reddit is socialist/communist. Ironically enough, they don't have a large climate change forum. You would think they would have an action op for the one issue I strongly agree with the left on.

A real right-wing (as in few laws, let people do as they please) government could quite easily act to reduce emissions. How? Stop all subsidies, abolish sales tax and income tax, and replace these with a simple flat tax on fossil fuel mining/drilling and imports. Then leave the market to sort things out.

Unfortunately, though, most so-called right-wing governments are nothing of the sort; rather they are the puppets of their large corporate donors, many of whom are reliant on fossil fuel income. So instead of advocating right-wing solutions to the problem, they simply deny that it exists.
14-01-2017 17:59
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiner gasguzlr & gazmuflr" guffed: In the 87 octane engine, are you referring to E10? 15? 85? Straight up? I don't get how Ethanol can "delay burning".


You know how 10% ethanol(E10) delays burning. The 114 octane ethanol delays its ignition in an 87 octane gasoline designed system, which does ignite the 84 octane gasoline molecules at the proper time to gain the most from the power stroke. However, the 114 octane ethanol delays its ignition to a later time, as the igniting gasoline molecules build pressure up in the initial stages of the power stroke. Then the 114 octane ethanol ignites. However, that is late & CANNOT take full advantage of the power stroke which was designed to use 87 octane gasoline to its fullest advantage. That is why my five 87 octane gasoline engines lose 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7% & 5% mpg, when 10% ethanol(E10) molecules only lose 3% energy vs. E0 gasoline molecules.
Edited on 14-01-2017 18:11
14-01-2017 19:08
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
And what about this? Seems pretty normal if you buy the chart.
[img][/img]


You neglected to include the corresponding CO2 graph for that chart. I wonder why?




Note how the CO2 concentration and temperature have varied almost in lock step over the past 800,000 years.


What I find interesting about the chart is that CO2 clearly keeps rising in the last segment, but temps rise in lock step and then actually kind of go flat! Shouldn't we be MUCH warmer by now?
14-01-2017 19:48
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiner gasguzlr & gazmuflr" guffed: Shouldn't we be MUCH warmer by now?

Someone named gasguzlr likes to move fast, & says, "Hurry! Hurry up! Get along little doggies!" The Arctic is leading the way. Greenland land ice is flushing at 400Gtons per year. The Antarctic is losing ice at ~ a third that rate. Ice Shelves are breaking up. First evidences are showing that Antarctic Ice Sheets are cracking, as they rest on the underlying islands in Western Antarctic. The changes are occurring & you (maybe your kids & grandkids) won't like the bad things comin'. The Navy already is elevating their landspaces & their docks look to be very high out of the water, even at high tide. Fresh water tidal flows are becoming briny. Florida is having more than its historic share of sinkholes.
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiner gasguzlr & gazmuflr" ain't one of the mayors of seaport cities.
14-01-2017 20:01
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
I don't argue it's warmer than normal. I argue that my souped up lawn mower is the cause. I also argue that in the grand scheme of things, our warming trend seems fairly normal and nothing has been proven true on either side of the issue. The only thing that I have found to be true is that numbers have been fudged and graphs and charts get stretched. We can't even agree that the current temps are being measured accurately. They couldn't accurately measure ethanol co2 7 years ago. They proved that. Where do I buy a PPM meter? Where did you get yours? How do we verify anything we're told? It all comes down to who you trust giving you the info. Unfortunately that usually comes full circle back to politics and party lines. I simply don't trust Racheal Mancow and I'm sure you don't trust Bill O'Reily.
14-01-2017 20:50
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I don't argue it's warmer than normal. I argue that my souped up lawn mower is the cause. I also argue that in the grand scheme of things, our warming trend seems fairly normal and nothing has been proven true on either side of the issue. The only thing that I have found to be true is that numbers have been fudged and graphs and charts get stretched. We can't even agree that the current temps are being measured accurately. They couldn't accurately measure ethanol co2 7 years ago. They proved that. Where do I buy a PPM meter? Where did you get yours? How do we verify anything we're told? It all comes down to who you trust giving you the info. Unfortunately that usually comes full circle back to politics and party lines. I simply don't trust Racheal Mancow and I'm sure you don't trust Bill O'Reily.


I don't know what your arguing. Let's take your souped up lawnmower. (who soups up a lawnmower anyway?) has a tiny percentage effect on the climate, an electric one would not be a huge burden, battery technology is getting better all the time and your world would not come crashing down should you be forced to change to one. On what is being mesured accurately I think scientists who study this day in and day out are the ones to listen too.

I don't know who Racheal Mancow is, does she know what a Milancovich cycle is? I doubt Bill O'Reily knows or cares but if you want to get your facts from him it's your funeral, just don't complain when you repeat something stupid and your patronized for it.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
14-01-2017 21:40
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
spot wrote:
I don't know what your arguing. Let's take your souped up lawnmower. (who soups up a lawnmower anyway?) has a tiny percentage effect on the climate, an electric one would not be a huge burden, battery technology is getting better all the time and your world would not come crashing down should you be forced to change to one. .


Thank you Spot for the opportunity...this gets to heart of the issue.....Someone forcing me and anyone else to suffer or do without the wonder of fossils fuels.... for this cause that is simply not yet proven.

Spot, Who are you to tell me what will or will not be a burden? I think cars should be illegal and if you had to walk it wouldn't be a huge burden on you. Seriously?

I made my living, and a very nice one, with my lawn mower for 7 years. I was taking care of foreclosed homes to reduce neighborhood blight issues. HUD, Fannie, Freddie, Wells Fargo...they only want cut every 2 weeks. Here in the Midwest where we grow enough grain to feed the world, we grow some pretty nice grass too.
It can grow an inch a day sometimes. There is no electric power in this world that can come close to the 35 horse 15mph 5 ft wide machine I relied on every day to feed and provide for my family. 25-30 yards a day....$1000-$1500 a day. So, yes, my world would have come crashing down if some yayhoo tried to mandate what's best for me.

Think I'm being ridiculous?? They have already gotten into my mower with carb standards for mowers. Not carbon, carburetor. There are no longer any carb adjustments that can be made to most small engines due to gov fuel standards. Not running right? You have to buy a new carb, no adjustment ($350-$400 for the souped up mower) So, even though it is a microscopic amount of carbon, someone thinks my mower is melting the arctic and I shouldn't be allowed to maximize the power I need. People want more power and they prove it with the vehicles they buy year after year. I would hate to be an auto maker and have the crackpot gov tell me what percentage of my fleet had to be the expensive to make low selling turds. Why does a new truck cost $50,000? Because they were forced to make the 50mpg turd. It's a lot like the Football program at a college. We all know damn well that football supports volleyball. All those SUVs you hate? The Prius wouldn't exist without the Gas Guzzlers subsidizing their research and development.

Until this theory of AGW is proven black and white and there is no argument from scientists on either side, leave me the hell alone. I'll decide what's good for me and I'll be responsible for my own funeral.

Not an O'Reily fan, haven't watched him in years.You really don't know who Rachel Madcow is?
Edited on 14-01-2017 21:43
14-01-2017 22:15
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
I don't know what your arguing. Let's take your souped up lawnmower. (who soups up a lawnmower anyway?) has a tiny percentage effect on the climate, an electric one would not be a huge burden, battery technology is getting better all the time and your world would not come crashing down should you be forced to change to one. .


Thank you Spot for the opportunity...this gets to heart of the issue.....Someone forcing me and anyone else to suffer or do without the wonder of fossils fuels.... for this cause that is simply not yet proven.

Spot, Who are you to tell me what will or will not be a burden? I think cars should be illegal and if you had to walk it wouldn't be a huge burden on you. Seriously?

I made my living, and a very nice one, with my lawn mower for 7 years. I was taking care of foreclosed homes to reduce neighborhood blight issues. HUD, Fannie, Freddie, Wells Fargo...they only want cut every 2 weeks. Here in the Midwest where we grow enough grain to feed the world, we grow some pretty nice grass too.
It can grow an inch a day sometimes. There is no electric power in this world that can come close to the 35 horse 15mph 5 ft wide machine I relied on every day to feed and provide for my family. 25-30 yards a day....$1000-$1500 a day. So, yes, my world would have come crashing down if some yayhoo tried to mandate what's best for me.

Think I'm being ridiculous?? They have already gotten into my mower with carb standards for mowers. Not carbon, carburetor. There are no longer any carb adjustments that can be made to most small engines due to gov fuel standards. Not running right? You have to buy a new carb, no adjustment ($350-$400 for the souped up mower) So, even though it is a microscopic amount of carbon, someone thinks my mower is melting the arctic and I shouldn't be allowed to maximize the power I need. People want more power and they prove it with the vehicles they buy year after year. I would hate to be an auto maker and have the crackpot gov tell me what percentage of my fleet had to be the expensive to make low selling turds. Why does a new truck cost $50,000? Because they were forced to make the 50mpg turd. It's a lot like the Football program at a college. We all know damn well that football supports volleyball. All those SUVs you hate? The Prius wouldn't exist without the Gas Guzzlers subsidizing their research and development.

Until this theory of AGW is proven black and white and there is no argument from scientists on either side, leave me the hell alone. I'll decide what's good for me and I'll be responsible for my own funeral.

Not an O'Reily fan, haven't watched him in years.You really don't know who Rachel Madcow is?



Are you sure that the legislation your talking about is about to CO2 or because of other crap old mower engines give off if they don't burn the fuel efficiently? And electric can be as powerful as gas powered engines, its storing and recharging it that's the issue as everyone knows.

I don't believe you could not do your job with alternatives.

As for AGW I've tried to show you how your wrong, your obviously not looking at it dispassionately I don't know where your getting your info from but I doubt it's mainstream science sites. Why should I have to prove something to you personally till we all take action on something, is that how democracy works everyone has a veto?

I'm not American. Do you know who Charlie Brooker is?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
14-01-2017 23:08
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiner gasguzlr & gazmuflr" guffed:
...our warming trend seems fairly normal....numbers have been fudged and graphs and charts get stretched. We can't even agree that the current temps are being measured accurately. They couldn't accurately measure ethanol co2 7 years ago.I simply don't trust Racheal Mancow and I'm sure you don't trust Bill O'Reily.

First, we agree about ethanol. I have said for 10+ years that ethanol didn't provide efficient power in 87 octane gasoline engines. Any proof that ethanol CO2 was low, is proof that it doesn't function in gasoline engines properly. Suspect the EPA initially measured ethanol CO2 from a proper high compression ratio, high 114 octane ethanol engine. Only now are there "late to the market", ethanol CO2 readings from low compression ratio, low 87 octane gasoline engines.
Since you have no science chemistry astronomy physics, algebra & pre-calc in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, your "superior" determination, which you consider better than research scientists, of what is normal warmth, what is fudged, & what are accurate temperatures, is true BS. Only your talent of egotism is better than scientists, as is the egotism of almost all "old sick silly sleepy AGW denier liar whiners".
I DO trust O'reily..... to be a conveyor belt for conservative, oil & energy non-sigh-ants boardroom propaganda puff & poop....an egotistical conveyor belt.
Edited on 14-01-2017 23:09
14-01-2017 23:15
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
Find me one electric mower with 15MPH ground speed and 60" cut. Zero turn is a must. Also needs to take 12" inch grass down to 3" inches effortlessly. Needs to be able to cut 3-5 ft grass on occasion. Oh, yea, I will need a 10 hr run time on that battery. Sorry, no electric can do that. Going to need piston power.

Yes, those are gov mandated emission controls on on small engine carbs. Some adjustment but very little. Send my apologies to the north pole. My carburetor may be illegal. (come and find me Hilary!
)

Yes I know who Charlie Brooker is and I find him to be a real downer. Can't stand the pessimism. Don't find humor in the doom and gloom.
15-01-2017 01:53
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiner gasguzlr & gazmuflr" guffed: Needs to be able to cut 3-5 ft grass on occasion.


It'll need a conservative conveyor belt, too!
15-01-2017 03:18
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
Done. I'm more of a libertarian myself. Send them over I'll take care of em.
15-01-2017 05:08
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
And what about this? Seems pretty normal if you buy the chart.
[img][/img]


You neglected to include the corresponding CO2 graph for that chart. I wonder why?




Note how the CO2 concentration and temperature have varied almost in lock step over the past 800,000 years.


What I find interesting about the chart is that CO2 clearly keeps rising in the last segment, but temps rise in lock step and then actually kind of go flat! Shouldn't we be MUCH warmer by now?

What an observer without an agenda would probably find interesting is the remarkable correlation between the graphs. It is very obvious that CO2 concentration and temperature are closely related. Not that that should surprise us, given that the ability of CO2 to absorb infrared radiation has been known since the 1800s. It is indeed true that the graphs are not exactly identical. This is because, as I mentioned previously, CO2 is not the only factor influencing global temperature. It is, however, quite obviously the primary driver.

Now consider that humans have now raised the CO2 level to 400 ppm, a level that was last seen some 15 million years ago. At that time, global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today. This is what we have coming even if were were to stop CO2 emissions now. Goodbye London. Goodbye New York. If we keep on as we are, heaven only knows what our descendants will have to deal with.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074
15-01-2017 18:57
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy AGW denier liar whiner gasguzlr & gazmuflr" gassed: I'm more of a libertarian myself.

A libertarian is a lazy re-pubic-lick-un.
Edited on 15-01-2017 18:58
15-01-2017 19:07
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiner gasguzlr & gazmuflr" guffed: Don't find humor in the doom and gloom.

Ah.... at least you're NOT a good russian, suppressed by russian dictator, "Put-it-in", who raped russian resources & is now richer than Bill Gates.
15-01-2017 20:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
And what about this? Seems pretty normal if you buy the chart.
[img][/img]


You neglected to include the corresponding CO2 graph for that chart. I wonder why?




Note how the CO2 concentration and temperature have varied almost in lock step over the past 800,000 years.


What I find interesting about the chart is that CO2 clearly keeps rising in the last segment, but temps rise in lock step and then actually kind of go flat! Shouldn't we be MUCH warmer by now?


What an observer without an agenda would probably find interesting is the remarkable correlation between the graphs. It is very obvious that CO2 concentration and temperature are closely related. Not that that should surprise us, given that the ability of CO2 to absorb infrared radiation has been known since the 1800s. It is indeed true that the graphs are not exactly identical. This is because, as I mentioned previously, CO2 is not the only factor influencing global temperature. It is, however, quite obviously the primary driver.

If you care to look at the graph, you will find CO2 is lagging temperature, not leading it. It can't be the primary driver if it's lagging. It can't be a driver at all.

That's assuming the graph is accurate. After all, we can't measure anything like a global temperature (or even anything like global CO2 concentration).

Surface Detail wrote:
Now consider that humans have now raised the CO2 level to 400 ppm, a level that was last seen some 15 million years ago. At that time, global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today. This is what we have coming even if were were to stop CO2 emissions now. Goodbye London. Goodbye New York. If we keep on as we are, heaven only knows what our descendants will have to deal with.

...deleted link...

Take your 'world is about to end' Religion and stuff it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-01-2017 20:32
16-01-2017 03:32
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Take your 'world is about to end' Religion and stuff it.

Correction:
Take your 'world is about to end' Religion and stuff it.... in the AGW denial that will end when the world ends.
Edited on 16-01-2017 03:34
16-01-2017 08:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Take your 'world is about to end' Religion and stuff it.

Correction:
Take your 'world is about to end' Religion and stuff it.... in the AGW denial that will end when the world ends.



It is YOU that is predicting the 'end of the world'. It is YOU and people like you that have been saying it for many decades now.

Trying to turn YOUR claim of doom for the world into Pascals Wager only shows how deep you are immersed in the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
16-01-2017 16:40
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: It is YOU that is predicting the 'end of the world'.

Much more do I point out the consistent pukey proud pig racism of a huge percentage of AGW denier liar whiners & their emphasis of a lack of science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas. Much more do I point out the egotism of totally unprepared AGW denier liar whiners to do any true science on their own.
Of course, I also often show, while the solar TSI has been languid for decades, & even below normal for 10 years (including a 3+ year solar TSI low setting a 100 year record), that the ice age predicted by AGW denier liar whiners for 20 years, is NOT occurring, Earth heat keeps building & major losses of ice occur at both Poles, Greenland & mountain glaciers.
It is AGW denier liar whiners that continually accuse about "end of the world" stuff. As for me, I love to continually accuse about the pukey proud pig racism of a huge percentage of AGW denier liar whiners & their emphasis of a lack of science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas. I do note, you seldom complain (are you proud?) about my insistence that many AGW denier liar whiners are racist pukey proud pigs?
Oh, yeah! You are a son of a bitch, too.
16-01-2017 18:07
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiner gasguzlr & gazmuflr" gushed: In the 87 octane engine, are you referring to E10? 15? 85? Straight up?.....I've got 332,000 on my Hemi burning mostly ethanol.

I assume you mean 10% ethanol(E10), which at 40mpg means you only used 830 gallons of ethanol. Oh, that's right! You got a V-8 Hemi, that only gets 15 to 20mpg. So you used ~ 2000 gallons (less?) of ethanol, which goes thru the engine without combusting properly. Sorry, you didn't know the range extending value of 100% gasoline (E0). I went 380+miles of 11,000+ feet of elevation changes thru mountain ranges & still got 50+ mpg.
16-01-2017 18:24
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiner gasguzlr & gazmuflr" gushed: In the 87 octane engine, are you referring to E10? 15? 85? Straight up?.....I've got 332,000 on my Hemi burning mostly ethanol.

I assume you mean 10% ethanol(E10), which at 40mpg means you only used 830 gallons of ethanol. Oh, that's right! You got a V-8 Hemi, that only gets 15 to 20mpg. So you used ~ 2000 gallons (less?) of ethanol, which goes thru the engine without combusting properly. Sorry, you didn't know the range extending value of 100% gasoline (E0). I went 380+miles of 11,000+ feet of elevation changes thru mountain ranges & still got 50+ mpg.


I have run the numbers. E0 (87octane) highway-does around 5% better than E10.

E10 (89 octane) does 5% better working hard....pushing snow or pulling 2 ton trailer.

Good for you with your 50+ MPG. I seriously have no problem with whatever you choose to drive.

15-20 mpg?............Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha


Somewhere around 9.
.......but It's making me $150-$200 an hour.
Edited on 16-01-2017 18:33
17-01-2017 00:45
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
":I have run the numbers. E0 (87octane) highway-does around 5% better than E10.

Didn't you say you didn't have E0 around your area or do you? I love E0, 'cept the gov't has put such a high penalty on it, that companies have to sell it for 30% or 40% higher than E10.
17-01-2017 00:50
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
Fill up at home every morning 89 E10...Only thing available except premium and that isn't cost effective....Sometimes run out before I get home. 36 gallons. I buy 87 E0 when that happens.
17-01-2017 05:24
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
GasGuzzler wrote: Fill up at home every morning 89 E10...Sometimes run out before I get home. 36 gallons. I buy 87 E0 when that happens.


Oh, oh, oh! You're the one to ask! In one of my old cars, using 87 octane E10(114 octane ethanol molecules AND 84 octane gasoline molecules), at times, the engine would knock, (probably the 84 octane gasoline molecules were knocking). Then switching to 87 octane E0 (87 octane gasoline molecules), the knocking would stop, because the gasoline molecules had been boosted by 3 points.

What is your experience as far as knocking from 89 octane E10 & 87 E0. Did you NOT use 87 octane E10, because of knocking?
Yeah, I really, really want to know!
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Far right-winger here that acknowledges climate change, what can we do?:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact