I'm just glad you haters, and deniers are a minority.
|
I'm just glad you haters, and deniers are a minority.
Climate change. We are talking about climate change. What your human pig brethren do is between you and them.Quote:
Did you watch the Everest video? Do you ever walk in urban and suburban areas and along trafficked roads? Take a paper garbage bag with you. Hey, go to a fast-food restaurant and observe people throwing wrappers out of their car windows as they leave the driveup and get back onto the main road. Humans are pigs.
As I said, you have nothing, as it always is. You make the claim; you do the research to back it up.Quote:
Complete nonsense for which you have, as usual, no evidence at all.
Google "plastic manfacturing climate change" (minus the quote marks)
I will read it now...reluctantly.Quote:
You didn't read this that I posted (and there are many other sites like it by other science people and groups):
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2...limate-change/
I read it. It basically makes silly points such as, "Oh my goodness. We have to transport plastic and that releases CO2. We use it for packaging that has to be transported and that releases CO2." If we weren't using plastics for packaging, we could use cardboard which would have to be transported...and release CO2. At no point was any reasonable estimate made on how much the use of plastics contributes to climate change. Did you see that???
I should have known better. In fact, I did.
You didn't see those percentages?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Nope. Neither did you.
Reading comprehension again?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
***Under a business-as-usual scenario in which policies continue to foster plastics production, the sector’s fossil fuel consumption will only increase. Today, about 4-8% of annual global oil consumption is associated with plastics, according to the World Economic Forum. If this reliance on plastics persists, plastics will account for 20% of oil consumption by 2050.***
And a bit further in the article:
***Land disturbance also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions associated with extraction. Kelso said each mile of pipeline must be surrounded by a “right of way” zone of cleared land. About 19.2 million acres have been cleared for oil and gas development in the United States. Assuming just a third of the impacted land is forested, 1.686 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere as a result of clearing, authors of the CIEL report said.
“These figures really add up over time because you’re talking about millions of miles of pipelines in the United States,” Kelso said. “You have to clear cut. So you’re taking all of the carbon from the trees and from soils and removing that from the earth basically and introducing it to the atmosphere.”***
Oh come on. You're being completely foolish. The issue was this. "...At no point was any reasonable estimate made on how much the use of plastics contributes to climate change."
All your quote noted was the percentage of oil that goes into making plastic. That itself does nothing to add to climate change. The last paragraph was laughable. "So you're taking all of the carbon from the trees and from the soils and removing that from the earth and introducing it to the atmosphere." What? They are really attempting to make a point that the miniscule, tiny amount of land affected by pipeline construction has anything even approaching a significant effect on global warming? That's completely stupid.
And you're an educator? I weep.
Weep on, sister. Weep for yourself. You completely missed the most simple question by half a mile.
Then YOU tell me the answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
He has no answer. He is what is called a contrarian. He'll oppose any point you have for his troll-like pleasure. He'll do this until the cows come home. It's fun when he's so wrong - like in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Actually, you're asking the wrong question. You asked: "How much [does] the use of plastics [contribute] to climate change?"Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I answered a much more important question: "How much does the manufacture of plastics contribute to climate change?"
To paraphase an old movie" frankly my dear, he doesn't give a damn"Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Actually, you answered neither. Your passage only alluded to how much petroleum goes into making plastic. That does not answer or even address the question. The only reference to greenhouse gases was completely speculative and even if true, would amount to a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of CO2 released into the atmosphere. The figure of nearly 2 bil tons over a period of many years must be seen in light of over 40 billion tons PER year as a total, so the figure, if accepted, basically has no meaning. Even worse, it assumes that all of the pipelines supply petrol only to plastics industries. That of course is laughingly untrue.Quote:
Actually, you're asking the wrong question. You asked: "How much [does] the use of plastics [contribute] to climate change?"
I answered a much more important question: "How much does the manufacture of plastics contribute to climate change?"
Quote:
***Under a business-as-usual scenario in which policies continue to foster plastics production, the sector’s fossil fuel consumption will only increase. Today, about 4-8% of annual global oil consumption is associated with plastics, according to the World Economic Forum. If this reliance on plastics persists, plastics will account for 20% of oil consumption by 2050.***
And a bit further in the article:
***Land disturbance also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions associated with extraction. Kelso said each mile of pipeline must be surrounded by a “right of way” zone of cleared land. About 19.2 million acres have been cleared for oil and gas development in the United States. Assuming just a third of the impacted land is forested, 1.686 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere as a result of clearing, authors of the CIEL report said.
“These figures really add up over time because you’re talking about millions of miles of pipelines in the United States,” Kelso said. “You have to clear cut. So you’re taking all of the carbon from the trees and from soils and removing that from the earth basically and introducing it to the atmosphere.”***
Ok I throw one into the mix regarding solving the "problem". remove all manufacturing from China's dirty industries, and avoid reestablishing them in any country signed up to the BRI. China is financing coal fired power stations in places like Pakistan
So it is a global problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
No, as I have said for a long time, it is a northern hemisphere problem
Global warming is happening in both hemispheres, but more slowly in the South because of the greater land mass in the North. Ocean water warms slowly.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
no tal the theory is AGW is caused by humans emitting CO2 from industry, to wit, burning of fossil fuels, if you quit this in the northern hemisphere problem solved. Now I don't believe this but I do know that the ocean absorbs CO2
Creeping south as we speak!Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
And expanding industrialization!Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
At least you're finally catching on and that's a start.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I caught on a long time ago. AGW is the basis of a new science based religion
This report illustrates how climate models are manipulated to get a predetermined result .
Quote:
Some forcings in some computer models had to be scaled down to match computer simulations to actual climate observations. But when it came to making centennial projections on which governments rely and drive climate policy, the scaling factors were removed, probably resulting in a 25 to 30 percent over-prediction of the 2100 warming.
Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, And Why It Matters, by Steven E. Koonin | RealClearEnergy
Also facts from Koonin's bookQuote:
“Unsettled” is an authoritative primer on the science of climate change that lifts the lid on The Science and finds plenty that isn’t as it should be. “As a scientist,” writes Koonin, “I felt the scientific community was letting the public down by not telling the whole truth plainly.” Koonin’s aim is to right that wrong.
“The warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years,”
“Humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century,“
“Since the middle of the twentieth century, the number of significant tornadoes hasn’t changed much at all, but the strongest storms have become less frequent,“
The rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today,
Instead of droughts, “the past fifty years have been slightly wetter than average”
Rather than famine, “in the fifty years from 1961 to 2011, global yields of wheat, rice, and maize … each more than doubled,”
(“Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.” by Steven E. Koonin.) Who is Koonin ? He was the 2nd Undersecretary of Energy and Climate in the emperor's regime .
The fact is AGW is not man made at all, it is a natural process and man's efforts will be unrewarded
"As one modeller confesses, 'it’s a real challenge to model what we don’t understand.' ”
Really?
And another. "Climate models can’t even agree on what the current global average temperature is. “One particularly jarring feature is that the simulated average global surface temperature,” Koonin notes, “varies among models by about 3°C, three times greater than the observed value of the twentieth century warming they’re purporting to describe and explain.' "
This book by Koonin has been thoroughly rebutted by 2007 Nobelist Dr. Gary Yohe. For Dr. Yohe's many achievements over 40 years see the below link from Wesleyan University. Too much to post here.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
https://gyohe.faculty.wesleyan.edu/
For the rebuttal of Koonin's book see the next link below for the details specifically replying to the incorrect claims made by Koonin.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-badly-wrong/
I realize it's a lot to read and most of you won't bother, but it's available here anyway for those seeking the truth.
I read the article. It was largely a complaint that Koonin did not agree with the ideas Yohe has accepted. The only thing he managed to challenge on anything even approaching a successful level was sea level rise. That was then followed by this incredible statement. "His teaser for Chapter 7 is an equally troubling misdirection. He promises to highlight “some points likely to surprise anyone who follows the news—for instance, that the global area burned by fires each year has declined by 25 percent since observations began in 1998.” Global statistics are meaningless in this context."
So in other words, Koonin was right in what he said. As anyone who studies science knows, you cannot take localized information (from, in this case, California) and extrapolate that to the globe. That's exactly what Yohe tried to do.
If that article is the best the left wingers have, then Koonin wrote a great book.
Only a american would think what goes on in California is typical of the rest of the world
You're kidding yourself big time if you think that's true. You're anti-American hatred/bias is really incredible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
From Scientific American - A New Book Manages to Get Climate Science Badly Wrong. In Unsettled, Steven Koonin deploys that highly misleading label to falsely suggest that we don’t understand the risks well enough to take action
"Regardless of what Koonin has written in his new book, the science is clear, and the consensus is incredibly wide. Scientists are generating and reporting data with more and more specificity about climate impacts and surrounding uncertainties all the time. This is particularly true with regard to the exaggerated natural, social and economic risks associated with climate extremes—the low-probability, high-consequence events that are such a vital part of effective risk management. This is not an unsettled state of affairs. It is living inside a moving picture of what is happening portrayed with sharper clarity and more detail with every new peer-reviewed paper."
In the long quote above, there is not a single instance of the use of data to refute Koonin's very well cited book. It's just Yohe's opinions and a highly questionable statement about a consensus regarding catastrophic climate change supposedly being "incredibly wide". I'd love to see the data supporting that allegation. Is it not standard practice to refute data with data, and if that is not done then wouldn't it seem to indicate that the individual is not able to do so?
What you dont see the truth in what I say?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Wall Street Journal article repeats multiple incorrect and misleading claims made in Steven Koonin’s new book ’Unsettled’
Twelve scientists analyzed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be very low.
A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Inaccurate, Misleading.
SUMMARY
A Wall Street Journal article published in April 2021 reviews Steven Koonin’s book ‘Unsettled’. In ‘Unsettled’, Koonin, a theoretical physicist and professor at New York University, expresses his views on climate science.
Scientists who reviewed the article found that it builds on a collection of misleading and false claims. The article goes on to review the melting ice sheet, sea rise, tornadoes, crop yields and wildfires.
Details of above and several scientists who write about Koonin's errors including charts are both treated extensively in the below link.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...Steven-koonin/
The Climate Feedback article seems to be a well-cited, data based review of Koonin's book. I think the forest fires aspect is still suspect. California, for instance, suffers a lot because of poor forest management. Still, the sea level rise and Greenland ice sheet answers seemed to be well documented.
You're learning!!
but you are not, sea level rise is a myth, islands like Tuvalu are sinking, there has been no appreciable rise in sea level in Sydney harbour since records began in the early 1800Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
This is all a nonsense, fires in California are fuelled by tree species not AGW
Not according to this. https://climatefeedback.org/wp-conte...-RatesTime.jpg
There were fires in California before white people came to the continent . What the natives understood but the envirowackos do not is that there has to be forest management ;controlled fires and clearing of underbrush .Quote:
fires in California are fuelled by tree species not AGW
Indigenous Tribes Restore Prescribed Burns in California (nature.org)
and what is that another J curve? Meaningless without a legendQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Global mean (average) sea level rise by millimeters per year. It would not be much, just several inches over a century. I have no idea if it's worth worrying about or not.
Depends upon where it is, as I said according to some measurements it is a myth, like the rest of AGW which is based on modelling and averages taken from who knows where
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Having eyes, they see not.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:23 AM. |