Remember me
▼ Content

Tipping point



Page 1 of 5123>>>
Tipping point29-10-2015 23:00
maciejzi
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
Hello,

What is the reason for +2'C limit on CO2 emission?

I studied the famous CO2 vs Methane vs Temperature graph and found out that there are several tipping points, both at the upper and lower limit of temperature, namely +2'C and -6'C. In other words, every time the temperature went up to +2'C compared to the preindustrial era average, it then quickly dropped to -6'C. After such sudden drops there are periods of when the temperature was slowly rising, with many local minimums and maximums on its way up to +2'C.

So is it true that when the temperature will get to +2'C it will start to get down?
And that the sudden drop in temperature once it will reach +2'C will be due to tectonic/volcanic events resulting from melted poles rebounding?

The temperature methane and CO2 chart is very popular and may be found here:

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/06/mean-methane-levels-reach-1800-ppb.html
Edited on 29-10-2015 23:01
30-10-2015 00:02
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi maciejzi,

As far as I can tell, no one really knows what the best temperature target goal is. The 2C number seems to be based upon a significant amount of scientific data, but it also seems to be a politically influenced compromise as well.

Given that both science and politics are very real, and very important parts of our wold today, 2C is probably a good starting target, but I don't know if anyone can ever truly guarantee to you that it is the absolutely best or only target.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
30-10-2015 00:19
maciejzi
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
trafn wrote:
I don't know if anyone can ever truly guarantee to you that it is the absolutely best or only target.


... And that the temperature will stay at +2C. Even if the emissions will stop at, say, +1.5'C, there is no chance the temperature will not reach +2'C and then fall. It works in a continuum. Once the temperature reaches +2'C it falls to -6'C, then it goes up, then it falls again and so on.

The current warming only gets us closer to that trend reverse point, am I right?


Here is the chart with the "tipping points" on the temperature plot, for reference:

Edited on 30-10-2015 00:25
30-10-2015 00:28
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@maciejzi - I'm not sure if it works that way. Even if we do get to just +2C, that doesn't mean the temperature stays there statically. It just means that the temperature will have reached a point where the current highs and lows average out to +2C. While there could be a -6C fluctuation within that larger picture, it would still be balanced out overall at an average of +2C. Perhaps more than trend reversal, it would be better characterized by cyclic trend fluctuations, with an average upward curve expected during the coming decades.

Again, you can work the numbers many ways. I'm not convinced anyone has "the" answer, but that the best possible current answer probably still evolves around the 2C concept.

By the way, if you look at your chart peaks over the past 400,000 years in the graph you just posted, do you notice how almost all the peaks prior to the present ones are very sharply and singularly pointed. In contrast, our current peaks (right most in the graph) are very ragged and multi-pointed, with CO2 and MH4 off the charts. To me, this suggests that a very different process is underway this time - M2C2.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 30-10-2015 00:35
30-10-2015 00:34
maciejzi
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
I see. Then the temperature should start to fall on its own if the emission will be stopped at around +2C, right? That's according to the natural climate cycle on Earth, correct?
30-10-2015 00:36
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@maciejzi - but look at CO2 and MH4 on the far right. They've gone off the charts like never before. I don't think you can anticipate "normal" cycling under these novel conditions.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
30-10-2015 00:47
maciejzi
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
I've heard that half of the carbon that has been emited into air so far is already in the oceans. Will the remaining atmospheric CO2 gradually go to the oceans?

I mean that as far as I know the humans already burnt half of the hydrocarbons, so we are near the peak in CO2 emissions. Once we will start lowering the emissions the CO2 may simply go back to the oceans with the water cycles, naturally. Even before the oceans and the climate will respond to the higher than usual CO2 levels, right?
30-10-2015 11:25
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
maciejzi wrote:
I've heard that half of the carbon that has been emited into air so far is already in the oceans. Will the remaining atmospheric CO2 gradually go to the oceans?

I mean that as far as I know the humans already burnt half of the hydrocarbons, so we are near the peak in CO2 emissions. Once we will start lowering the emissions the CO2 may simply go back to the oceans with the water cycles, naturally. Even before the oceans and the climate will respond to the higher than usual CO2 levels, right?


Welcome to the site!

Us humans have not at all burnt half of the hydrocarbons. We have burnt the same amount of oil as there are proven reserves in the ground. Although that is probably wrong as there are at least 70 years worth of our present usage rate so it's probably a lot less than half the amount we know are economically viable at $100 per barrel with today's technology.

There is a vastly higher amount of coal around. Huge beyond any amount we could ever get through.

The point of a the tipping point gibberish is that the projections of the science, which have often been stretched upwards are fas as they will go, is that there simply is nothing to get excited about. No real problem.

This is no good for the doom-mongers. They need a pending disaster to feel important. The end of the world is nigh etc... So tipping points.... without actual science to back them up.
30-10-2015 11:34
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@maciejzi - the amount of carbon on the far right of your graph is the amount that is in the atmosphere "after" you factor in the oceans' absorption of CO2. So, we are nowhere near the point of CO2 peaking in the atmosphere, yet.

Right now, people around the world are still just talking about how to address M2C2 (man-made climate change). Nothing substantial has yet been done about it, as we continue to poor massive amounts of GHG's into the air we breath. That is what makes a website like this so valuable: it gives everyone the opportunity to share ideas about what is happening with M2C2 and to even discuss some possible solutions.

I will caution you, though, there are many people who fear talking about this issue, as the change needed to address M2C2 directly affects their pocket-books for the worse (examples: their lifestyles are based upon using petrochemicals; they have financial investments in the petrochemical industry; etc.). Out of their own self-serving interests, these people tend to try and stop any conversation about M2C2 before it can even happen.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 30-10-2015 11:35
30-10-2015 12:06
maciejzi
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
I don't remember having +14'C on Haloween where I live. When I was a child, some 30 years ago, it was freezing cold on this day. Usually -5'C to +5'C. This year it will be +14'C and sunny.

I mean, I drive a petrol car, at home I use electricity mostly from coal. I am OK with that. I am just afraid of the possible implications of billions of tons of CO2...

The atmosphere is a fluid, as physicists tell us. It is a giant system of air rivers, i.e. winds. Nobody can pollute the land rivers, right? Then why everybody can pollute atmosphere with flue gases?

We build and operate waste water treatment plants, or sewage plants, and it is economically viable. Then why some people say that flue purification wouldn't be profitable? And that it is a No-No, the economy would colapse if we would clean our mess and people would loose jobs, and a disaster would come then.
It is not something that would really happen, I suppose
Edited on 30-10-2015 13:01
30-10-2015 13:57
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@maciejzi - yes, a lot of people argue against taking any steps to prevent further consequences from M2C2 (man-made climate change), which in my experience usually happens when someone has financial ties to the petrochemical industry or they are unwilling to change their petrochemical based lifestyle. People who fight against M2C2 solutions remind me of the tobacco companies who fought against public recognition about the connection between smoking and lung cancer.

Just like smokers used to pollute restaurants (which thankfully is outlawed in the United States and many other places), many companies think they can pollute our atmosphere at will and without consequence to them or anyone else. Isn't it amazing how the pursuit of personal wealth can blind people to how they affect the world around them?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
30-10-2015 14:13
maciejzi
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
I don't mind that the fossil fuel companies think in terms of their profits. That is actually very good and economic and because of that the price of electricity is low. It may be even lower so we will be able to power our cars with batteries.

But I don't like the climate/GHG mess that results. It's like in the cities - there are specialized cleaning companies and therefore cities are clean. Nobody wants piles of mess in the streets. At the same time billions of tons of invisible mess is thrown into the atmosphere. Somebody has to clean that up, I suppose.

As far as I know, the problem with CO2 sequestration, is the huge amount of the resulting CO2 waste. And the other available technique, carbon removal from power plant flues, is so energy-demanding to the point that it is more efficient not to burn coal at all.

However, I can see the climate change now, with my bare eyes, and several years ago I thought it would never be a problem...
Edited on 30-10-2015 14:16
30-10-2015 14:24
maciejzi
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
Actually, why catalysers aren't used on chimneys? I mean this is the simplest way of thinking. There are catalytic converters in cars, why not power plants?

Here is one example of a possible solution:
http://www.materialstoday.com/surface-science/news/new-catalyst-to-convert-co2-to-co/


And here another one:
http://www.wvcoal.com/research-development/usdoe-confirms-co2-to-methanol-economic-viability.html
With this solution power plant operators can actually increase the profits by selling methanol.


If I can find it within 2 minutes in Google, why decision makers can't?
Do they want to live on a desert? Or is there any secret evidence that polution is good for people?
Edited on 30-10-2015 14:36
30-10-2015 14:32
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi maciejzi

The glacial-interglacial temperature cycles of the past were not caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions, which is the main driver of the temperature change we have experienced since the industrial revolution. Therefore, it is very unlikely that once we reach 2 degrees of warming, the Earth's temperature will miraculously decrease. This is because the GHG concentrations in the atmosphere will probably still be rising.

The 2 deg C limit is an arbitrary limit that we are supposed to stay under, in order to reduce the impacts of climate change. Some countries, such as Bangladesh, argue that 2 deg C is too high, and the limit will be lower. This is because with 2 deg C warming, Bangladesh will most likely be experiencing serious consequences of climate change. The most recent IPCC report shows that we are currently on a pathway to reaching much higher atmospheric temperatures by the end of the century, and that in order to remain below the 2 deg C limit, we will have to start geoengineering the climate (e.g. removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it under ground, or reducing the amount of radiation reaching earth).

It is true that only about 1/2 of the CO2 we emit stays in the atmosphere. About 1/4 is taken up by the land biosphere, and 1/4 is taken up by the oceans. The oceans provide a long-term sink for CO2, since the residence time of CO2 in the oceans is about 1000 years. The land biosphere is a medium-term sink for CO2, but can very quickly become a CO2 source to the atmosphere (e.g. if there is an increase in forest fires, or deforestation, for example). There is quite a lot of debate at the moment about whether the oceanic CO2 sink will start to saturate as atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. This is because as the oceans take up more CO2, they become less alkaline, which reduces the capacity of the oceans to take up CO2.

If we stopped emitting all anthropogenic CO2 today, CO2 levels in the atmosphere would not return to pre-industrial levels for thousands of years. So eventually, the oceans would take up a lot of the anthropogenic CO2, but it will take a long time, and will have negative consequences for ocean calcifying organisms.

It is not really appropriate to compare the temperature where you live on a particular day of the year to the same day 30 years ago. Climate has a lot of interannual variability. You would need to look at all of the temperature data from every day over the whole 30 year period, and then see if there is a long term trend in atmospheric temperature where you live. If you are interested, these data probably exist and are available from one of the major temperature groups (GISS, NOAA, CRU).

River pollution is a huge global problem, and is responsible for thousands of deaths every day. So yes, it is very possible for human activities to pollute rivers. The atmosphere is equivalent to an eggshell of an egg, if the Earth were an egg. My point is that the atmosphere is actually very thin, and much thinner than people tend to realise. If you look at photos of Earth from space, then you start to get a sense of how thin the atmosphere really is. The troposphere is only the lowest part of the atmosphere. It is very possible for human activities to cause pollution of the atmosphere. Many gases with anthropogenic sources have been increasing rapidly since the industrial revolution (e.g. CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCs, HFCs, etc). We can measure the isotopes of some of these gases to see if they are indeed from human activities, or from natural sources. Some of these gases only have anthropogenic sources, with and do no occur naturally at all. Therefore, there is no real doubt that humans are able to change the composition of the atmosphere quite easily.

I hope this answers some of your questions.
30-10-2015 16:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
maciejzi wrote: The temperature methane and CO2 chart is very popular and may be found here:

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/06/mean-methane-levels-reach-1800-ppb.html


maciejzi, do you really believe that CO2 can manufacture its own thermal energy and increase earth's temperature?

Do you believe methane can?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-10-2015 17:25
maciejzi
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
IBdaMann wrote:
maciejzi, do you really believe that CO2 can manufacture its own thermal energy and increase earth's temperature?
Do you believe methane can?


Get 2 bottles and do the same simple experiment that is known since 19th century:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

Or get a candle and thermometer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt6gLt6G5Kc

And if you don't want to bother yourself, believe the climate scientists, they know much more than both of us
30-10-2015 18:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
maciejzi wrote: Get 2 bottles and do the same simple experiment that is known since 19th century: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

This is not an experiment. It is a parlor trick, for the gullible. Please don't tell me that you were fooled.

Did you notice that the magician doesn't really use sunlight with the full spectrum of solar radiation, but instead performs the trick in a closed room and turns off all light except for a lamp that radiates firmly within CO2s absorption signature?

Same with the candle in the following mental sleight-of-hand.

maciejzi wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt6gLt6G5Kc

One would have to have rather poor logic proficiency to think that the "experiment" performed in this video somehow supports the gibberish at the beginning of the video. They are not related. Showing that CO2's absorption signature is in the infrared band does not mean that CO2 prevent thermal radiation from leaving planet earth.

Would you agree that this video shows that CO2 can transfer thermal energy (past a sensor)? Would a better conclusion from this video be that perhaps CO2 might make a good industrial refrigerant?

http://industrialrefrigeration.danfoss.com/refrigerants/co2/
http://www.phi-usa.com/Papers/CO2-presentation-LAM-2003-06.pdf

maciejzi wrote: And if you don't want to bother yourself, believe the climate scientists, they know much more than both of us

The only "climate scientists" of which I am aware are all scientifically illiterate morons. You are free to speak for yourself in saying that they are smarter than you, but they are certainly not smarter than me.

Also, they are not here participating in this discussion. Why don't we just go with what science says?



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-10-2015 22:06
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@maciejzi - I find your statements and references to be quite sound. Keep in mind that not everyone will. But also know that you don't have to prove anything to them. By now, with the overwhelming amount of literature which is available to everyone on the internet, those who argue against M2C2 (man-made climate change) are unto themselves and should probably be left that way.

Personally, I have better things to do with my time than to argue with people who have already made up their minds.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
30-10-2015 22:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
IBdaMann wrote:

Would you agree that this video shows that CO2 can transfer thermal energy (past a sensor)? Would a better conclusion from this video be that perhaps CO2 might make a good industrial refrigerant?

http://industrialrefrigeration.danfoss.com/refrigerants/co2/
http://www.phi-usa.com/Papers/CO2-presentation-LAM-2003-06.pdf



Infrared absorption spectra does not indicate the suitability of a refrigerant. Critical points and triple points of substances do.

CO2 refrigeration requires very high pressures to work. While it was fairly popular in industrial environments (due to it's heavy piping required) during the 20's and 30's, popularity fell off in later years as better refrigerants requiring much lower pressures and offering greater range of temperature capability became available.

There is occasional interest shown from time to time, but each time they run into the same sorts of problems for practical systems:

Extremely high pressure requirements, requiring heavy tubing and specially constructed high pressure compressors. These compressors require more energy to achieve the higher pressures.

Efficiency that is [i]too]/i] high. It is difficult to evacuate all of the vapor in the liquid portion of the system. In addition, ice buildup on the condenser coils is a big problem.

Sensitivity to common foreign materials, such as water vapor, that might find their way into the system if it is not properly maintained (like most refrigeration systems). Such materials can react with the refrigerant and produce strong acids, weakening the tubing and causing a possible explosion.

Limited range of suitability. Beyond 30 deg C, carbon dioxide becomes exceedingly dangerous due to the extreme pressures involved.

Political correctness problems. The stupid arguments that would inevitably form about the warming damage from leaking systems (even though it was liquified out of the air in the first place).

At least carbon dioxide is cheap, as close as your nearest cryogenic plant, and it has very high efficiency.
30-10-2015 22:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
I am reminded of my debates with fundamentalist Christians over logical problems with the Intelligent Design agenda, when one Christian would rush to console another who had just gotten his/her dogma spanked over the knee.

trafn wrote:@maciejzi - I find your statements and references to be quite sound.

You forgot to say "there, there."

How is it you find the statements to be sound when you yourself have no science indicating CO2 can somehow manufacture thermal energy? Do you know why we use space heaters instead of CO2 balloons?

trafn wrote: Keep in mind that not everyone will. But also know that you don't have to prove anything to them.

That had to be one of the most often repeated themes, i.e. "We don't need to prove anything; it'our faith. It's no use arguing with someone who doesn't accept "The Word of God" Nowadays the phrase is . "We don't need to prove anything; it'our faith. It's no use arguing with someone who doesn't accept "The Science"


trafn wrote: Personally, I have better things to do with my time than to argue with people who have already made up their minds.

Like censor posts and generally try to control the entirety of the discussion. You are projecting here. It is impossible to discuss science with you because you have made up your mind against science in favor of your religion.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-10-2015 22:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
trafn wrote:
@maciejzi - I find your statements and references to be quite sound. Keep in mind that not everyone will. But also know that you don't have to prove anything to them. By now, with the overwhelming amount of literature which is available to everyone on the internet, those who argue against M2C2 (man-made climate change) are unto themselves and should probably be left that way.

Personally, I have better things to do with my time than to argue with people who have already made up their minds.


Kettle logic, dude. Indeed, you are in violation of your own standards in the Sharing Ideas section by this remark.
30-10-2015 22:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
trafn wrote:
@maciejzi - the amount of carbon on the far right of your graph is the amount that is in the atmosphere "after" you factor in the oceans' absorption of CO2. So, we are nowhere near the point of CO2 peaking in the atmosphere, yet.

Right now, people around the world are still just talking about how to address M2C2 (man-made climate change). Nothing substantial has yet been done about it, as we continue to poor massive amounts of GHG's into the air we breath. That is what makes a website like this so valuable: it gives everyone the opportunity to share ideas about what is happening with M2C2 and to even discuss some possible solutions.

I will caution you, though, there are many people who fear talking about this issue, as the change needed to address M2C2 directly affects their pocket-books for the worse (examples: their lifestyles are based upon using petrochemicals; they have financial investments in the petrochemical industry; etc.). Out of their own self-serving interests, these people tend to try and stop any conversation about M2C2 before it can even happen.


So...just a question here...how much CO2 is man's contribution since 1960 as opposed to natural sources? I'm not looking for blogs and opinions here, I am looking for hard data that is verifiable.
30-10-2015 22:48
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@maciejzi - by the way, you may have noticed that some members like to be disrespectful toward other members in these threads. For some reason, they prefer to shoot the messenger rather than discuss the message.

We now have a new sub-forum here in Climate-debate.com for anyone who would like to discuss their ideas without being harassed because of what they think: Sharing Ideas. Please feel free to start a new thread there if you would rather be posting in a respectful, harassment-free environment.

Sharing Ideas is unique among all the other sub-forums on this website, as it is currently the only one dedicated to creating a non-debate, non-judgmental, supportive, respectful and synergistic environment where people can share and explore new ideas about climate, climate change, and climate change science together.



The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
30-10-2015 22:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
Into the Night wrote:Kettle logic, dude. Indeed, you are in violation of your own standards in the Sharing Ideas section by this remark.

Isn't he supposed be posting in his own sterile area that he can completely control and erase ideas that differ from his in the name of "sharing ideas"? Didn't he write a tearful goodbye as to why he could no longer participate in the "debate" forum?

Did I miss something?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-10-2015 22:58
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - not at all.

[branner: copy about sub-forum removed - and in posts below]


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited by branner on 01-11-2015 00:08
30-10-2015 23:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
maciejzi wrote:
I don't remember having +14'C on Haloween where I live. When I was a child, some 30 years ago, it was freezing cold on this day. Usually -5'C to +5'C. This year it will be +14'C and sunny.

I mean, I drive a petrol car, at home I use electricity mostly from coal. I am OK with that. I am just afraid of the possible implications of billions of tons of CO2...

The atmosphere is a fluid, as physicists tell us. It is a giant system of air rivers, i.e. winds. Nobody can pollute the land rivers, right? Then why everybody can pollute atmosphere with flue gases?

We build and operate waste water treatment plants, or sewage plants, and it is economically viable. Then why some people say that flue purification wouldn't be profitable? And that it is a No-No, the economy would colapse if we would clean our mess and people would loose jobs, and a disaster would come then.
It is not something that would really happen, I suppose


The atmosphere is 5,500,000,000,000,000 tons (at rough estimate). You are claiming that inserting 1,000,000,000 tons or so is going to make a difference???

Let's just keep it to simpler to use numbers. 0.04% of the atmosphere from all sources. If you are going to call CO2 a pollutant (why?) than at least use numbers that make sense instead of just making stuff up and making it sound spectacularly large when it isn't.

BTW, wastewater treatment plants releases methane and carbon dioxide as a result of the treatment process.
30-10-2015 23:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
trafn wrote:
@maciejzi - yes, a lot of people argue against taking any steps to prevent further consequences from M2C2 (man-made climate change), which in my experience usually happens when someone has financial ties to the petrochemical industry or they are unwilling to change their petrochemical based lifestyle. People who fight against M2C2 solutions remind me of the tobacco companies who fought against public recognition about the connection between smoking and lung cancer.

Just like smokers used to pollute restaurants (which thankfully is outlawed in the United States and many other places), many companies think they can pollute our atmosphere at will and without consequence to them or anyone else. Isn't it amazing how the pursuit of personal wealth can blind people to how they affect the world around them?

Interesting concept. Second hand carbon dioxide? Are we going to ban all soft drink dispensers in restaurants now?
30-10-2015 23:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
maciejzi wrote:
Actually, why catalysers aren't used on chimneys? I mean this is the simplest way of thinking. There are catalytic converters in cars, why not power plants?

Here is one example of a possible solution:
http://www.materialstoday.com/surface-science/news/new-catalyst-to-convert-co2-to-co/


And here another one:
http://www.wvcoal.com/research-development/usdoe-confirms-co2-to-methanol-economic-viability.html
With this solution power plant operators can actually increase the profits by selling methanol.


If I can find it within 2 minutes in Google, why decision makers can't?
Do they want to live on a desert? Or is there any secret evidence that polution is good for people?


Converting a 'greenhouse' gas for another is pointless. Cars use converters to convert carbon monoxide (quite toxic in low concentrations) to carbon dioxide (basically inert, and is only a danger in high concentrations)

We make synthetic methanol and oil all the time. There is nothing new about either of these processes. They require energy input to run. You require more energy to make the stuff than you get by burning it (the rest goes into waste heat products). Nuthin comes for free.
30-10-2015 23:22
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the night - given all the diabetes today, banning soda would be a step toward a healthier worlds.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited by branner on 01-11-2015 00:08
30-10-2015 23:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Kettle logic, dude. Indeed, you are in violation of your own standards in the Sharing Ideas section by this remark.

Isn't he supposed be posting in his own sterile area that he can completely control and erase ideas that differ from his in the name of "sharing ideas"? Didn't he write a tearful goodbye as to why he could no longer participate in the "debate" forum?

Did I miss something?


I knew he couldn't resist getting out of the Kiddie Pool once in awhile. It's boring in there.
30-10-2015 23:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - not at all. And by the way, you may have noticed that some members like to be disrespectful toward other members in these threads. For some reason, they prefer to shoot the messenger rather than discuss the message.

We now have a new sub-forum here in Climate-debate.com for anyone who would like to discuss their ideas without being harassed because of what they think: Sharing Ideas. Please feel free to start a new thread there if you would rather be posting in a respectful, harassment-free environment.

Sharing Ideas is unique among all the other sub-forums on this website, as it is currently the only one dedicated to creating a non-debate, non-judgmental, supportive, respectful and synergistic environment where people can share and explore new ideas about climate, climate change, and climate change science together.


Correction: It is the only one dedicated to censorship by a biased moderator.
No, trafn, it's the Kiddie Pool. Playing cop in your own little world there is not going to work.

BTW, you are in violation AGAIN with your own rules, since you are off topic.
30-10-2015 23:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
trafn wrote:
@Into the night - given all the diabetes today, banning soda would be a step toward a healthier worlds. More than that however have you noticed that some members like to be disrespectful toward other members in these threads. For some reason, they prefer to shoot the messenger rather than discuss the message.

In case you have, you should know that we now have a new sub-forum here in Climate-debate.com for anyone who would like to discuss their ideas without being harassed because of what they think: Sharing Ideas. Please feel free to start a new thread there if you would rather be posting in a respectful, harassment-free environment.

Sharing Ideas is unique among all the other sub-forums on this website, as it is currently the only one dedicated to creating a non-debate, non-judgmental, supportive, respectful and synergistic environment where people can share and explore new ideas about climate, climate change, and climate change science together.


*** ignoring shameless plug for the Kiddie Pool ***

But now you are talking about the health effects of soda, not the carbon dioxide content of it. That becomes a health effect discussion about the syrup, not the soda itself.

BTW, did you know that in many health resorts, soda water is considered medicinal?
30-10-2015 23:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - @ - Did you ever wonder why some members like to be disrespectful toward other members in these threads. For some reason, they prefer to shoot the messenger rather than discuss the message.

If you're as tired of this as I and many other are, you should know that we now have a new sub-forum here in Climate-debate.com for anyone who would like to discuss their ideas without being harassed because of what they think: Sharing Ideas. Please feel free to start a new thread there if you would rather be posting in a respectful, harassment-free environment.

Sharing Ideas is unique among all the other sub-forums on this website, as it is currently the only one dedicated to creating a non-debate, non-judgmental, supportive, respectful and synergistic environment where people can share and explore new ideas about climate, climate change, and climate change science together.


I prefer to swim in the adult section of the pool. I can stand the heat in this kitchen here.

I abhor censorship in any form. I will not participate in the Kiddie Pool.
30-10-2015 23:59
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - actually, given the way you are talking about others here, this is the topic you have made it into. So, by the way, have you ever noticed, Into the Night, that some members like to be disrespectful toward other members in these threads. For some reason, they prefer to shoot the messenger rather than discuss the message.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited by branner on 01-11-2015 00:04
31-10-2015 00:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - actually, given the way you are talking about others here, this is the topic you have made it into. So, by the way, have you ever noticed, Into the Night, that some members like to be disrespectful toward other members in these threads. For some reason, they prefer to shoot the messenger rather than discuss the message.

We now have a new sub-forum here in Climate-debate.com for anyone who would like to discuss their ideas without being harassed because of what they think: Sharing Ideas. Please feel free to start a new thread there if you would rather be posting in a respectful, harassment-free environment.

Sharing Ideas is unique among all the other sub-forums on this website, as it is currently the only one dedicated to creating a non-debate, non-judgmental, supportive, respectful and synergistic environment where people can share and explore new ideas about climate, climate change, and climate change science together.


?? Are you really this clueless??? No means No.
31-10-2015 00:26
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Nigth - I took the time to analyze your posts in one of your own threads:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/overpopulation-how-not-to-solve-the-problem--d6-e783.php#post_4057

When talking about others, you repeatedly use phrases like sociopathic, sick, dangerous, crap, and insane. You even go so far as to make the following accusation to another member: There will be war. You will be on the wrong side of it.

You show a high degree of anger in these statements, coupled with an inability to exercise self-restraint when communicating with others about climate change. Perhaps you would like to practice being more respectful toward others so as to broaden your inter-personal connections.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited by branner on 01-11-2015 00:05
31-10-2015 02:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8186)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Nigth - I took the time to analyze your posts in one of your own threads:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/overpopulation-how-not-to-solve-the-problem--d6-e783.php#post_4057

When talking about others, you repeatedly use phrases like sociopathic, sick, dangerous, crap, and insane. You even go so far as to make the following accusation to another member: There will be war. You will be on the wrong side of it.

You show a high degree of anger in these statements, coupled with an inability to exercise self-restraint when communicating with others about climate change. Perhaps you would like to practice being more respectful toward others so as to broaden your inter-personal connections. If so, consider this:
*** usual shameless plug for the Kiddie Pool ***


I will continue to use phrases like sociopathic when describing those proposing mass murder. I will continue to use phrases like sick and dangerous also. It is.

My accusation stands. I will not change that to satisfy you or anyone else.
My accusation to you about insanity stands. Nuking the world to save it is insanity.

You are talking about mass murder, suicide, mutilations, and otherwise destroying people. You don't think that's going to generate anger? You think I would be the only one to take such attitude? You think any government or group that tries to implement this on the United States is going to stand? Hell NO!

You think you can justify your censorship in the Kiddie Pool??? You think you can just ignore my abhorrence of censorship? Do you not get it? NO!!!!
31-10-2015 02:13
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - no one is ignoring you. We are all here to help you in your search for inner peace and tranquility. As your posts suggest, here and elsewhere, you are overwhelmed with anger and do not know where to turn. You fear others to be intent on murders which they have never extolled. If you could only lose your fear and let go of your anger, then perhaps you would be free to express yourself in a nonjudgmental and respectful manner toward others.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited by branner on 01-11-2015 00:06
31-10-2015 02:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3895)
trafn wrote:@Into the Night - no one is ignoring you. We are all here to help you in your search for inner peace and tranquility.


Why are you posting outside of your little command center? You made it clear to me and to everyone else that you hated the nature of these threads, of these discussions, and that you weren't going to post here anymore.

Yet here you are disrupting the threads and conversations of others. You haven't added anything of value. All of your many posts begin with an insult to someone and include as the main body a long flyer for your editor's office.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-10-2015 02:59
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - but who is it that is really disturbing or, for that matter, disturbed. Surely we all want nothing more than peaceful understanding. Yet in this thread you have accused others of having no science, of speaking gibberish, of being scientifically illiterate morons. What can come of such accusations? What learning is to be gained? Can anything productive ever come from such disrespectful behavior? Of course not.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited by branner on 01-11-2015 00:11
Page 1 of 5123>>>





Join the debate Tipping point:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why don't one of the climate scientists commit suicide to make a point?127-02-2019 04:22
Is there a Jewish Point of View?302-02-2019 18:36
Why the silence on zero point energy?311-04-2018 19:59
Whatever happened to the Global Warming "Tipping Points?"1405-10-2015 20:23
We passed the tipping point on climate change in 1901201-10-2015 18:07
▲ 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