- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,047
- Reactions
- 12,614
I hope you are not denying that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of a wide range of air pollutants ?
How cute! You have holy pictures to show me. Now tell me what gases are visible in those pictures?
I hope you are not denying that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of a wide range of air pollutants ?
How cute! You have holy pictures to show me. Now tell me what gases are visible in those pictures?
Perhaps.
Is that your sole reason for disputing the reported findings of those scientists?
Yes, those gases look exactly like my exhale during winter.
Maybe you should move next to places with those smoke stacks and see how you go. All natural and organic and what not.
I'd need to pay WSJ to read - so, no. But one can predict what they'd say right? What with sponsorship and advertising and general objectivity when it comes to business, greed and the environment.
The Forbes one I read...
ya dood... Popular Technology sounds like a magazine I'd quote against other popular scientific journals. What with them both on par when it comes to scientific rigour and the quality of research they publishes.
Serious man, I had actually wrote a final year research thesis where I was involved in an actual scientific research project. Mine was just to pass and get that degree and so won't see any peer to read, review and publish... and believe me, if the research Cook et. al. did were as sloppy as that "investigative journalist" from Forbes opinion piece were, they'd be laughed at and forwarded all over the place.
So until you have something more "in depth" than a Forbes article quoting a Popular Technology magazine, I'd stick with what those rocket scientists at NASA and other scientific bodies think are fair acceptable standard of science.
So in other words, you cannot differentiate between those gases and water vapour?
Did you know that CO2, unless frozen or in the process of thawing from a frozen state, is a colourless gas and invisible to the naked eye?ohhhh... water vapours.
ha ha....
if it's one of those nuclear plants, yeahhh... Not those.
And please don't tell me to show where those stacks are located and what they burnt exactly. They're for illustrative purposes. btw, you're ignoring the city pic. Convenient or what?
Some years back I spent a week in Dalian, China. The cityscape looks a lot like those "vapour" pipes you're thinking.
Just that each morning I could see the mountain ranges over the horizon; the sky blue and that.
By lunch, the vapours somehow haze the entire sky to a dull grey, covering the sun. And everywhere - on the trees, the scrubs, the streets, the buildings - are covered in brown/reddish dust.
I thought it was just the weather and sand from the desert or something; also thought people coughing up and spitting out are from smoking. Lots and lots of frozen spit around.
Turns out every major factory there have their own coal powered power plant.
But yea, just vapours... kinda like our kitchen rangehood vapours. Not sure why we have to close all our windows each time the neighbour's wall exhaust are turned on in their kitchen.
It may interest you to know that "Cook et. al." are being "laughed at and forwarded all over the place."
Did you know that CO2, unless frozen or in the process of thawing from a frozen state, is a colourless gas and invisible to the naked eye?
Where did I say the picture "show" CO2? But CO2 is in there somewhere in that picture right?
But point was to rebutt your nonsense about these smog being the same stuff we breathe out.
Might want to stop nitpicking and focus on the bigger argument dude. Namely, industrialisation, the extraction and burning of fossil fuel, deforestation, polluted rivers and lakes... all these mean Mother Nature aren't as capable of absorbing and cleansing waste as she used to.
So your argument that Earth has been at it forever and now is no different... it kind of doesn't add up.
obviously.
btw, can you forward us a survey of mothers' opinions on their children's good looks? I just want an unbiased survey of what parents think of their own children.
Oh, Climate Scientists reviewing each other's work - dam, they must all be in it too, right?
Dude! The climate brigade prophecy is heavily reliant on the claim that increased levels of CO2 have humanity on a one way express trip to global doom!
And like it or not, CO2 is stuff that we breathe out!
Only the apocalyptic ones. The others are dismissed as irrelevant and/or deniers by their apocalyptic brethren and thereby excluded from consideration.
Maybe it's catchy to boil it down to CO2. What other elements are the public aware of? O2, H2O.
I had only scan through some more indepth article and there's Methane and blah blah other greenhouse gases. So you can't pin CO2 on Climate Scientists and their research then rebuke the entire field with CO2 alone.
Check out the various specialisation within Climate Science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
oceanographer, atmospheric, geological, geochemistry, ozone, meterology, palaeoclimatology, atmospheric physicist, cryosphere-hydrosphere-lithosphere interactions etc. etc.
Nothing like a bit of hip pocket hurt to spur people into action:-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-14/tasmanian-farmers-ask-for-climate-action-after-floods/7506710
Was it climate change?
While the frequency of cool-season east coast lows looks likely to decrease in the future, changes in the big ones are a lot less certain.
However, east coast lows are very variable in frequency and hard to predict.
A road is completely flooded on Tasmania's east coast. June 6, 2016.
Photo: Studies have found little influence of climate change on Australian extreme rainfall so far. (Supplied: Natasha Scott Ham)
So far, there has not been any clear trend in the past 50 years, although east coast lows may have been more frequent in the past.
As for extreme rainfall, studies have found little influence of climate change on Australian extreme rainfall so far.
Climate variability, such as El Nino, currently plays a much larger role.
This does not mean climate change is having no effect; it just means it is hard to tell what impact a warming world is having at this stage.
So did climate change cause this weekend's storms? No ”” these events, including intense ones, often occur at this time of year.
This does not mean climate change is having no effect; it just means it is hard to tell what impact a warming world is having at this stage.
So did climate change cause this weekend's storms? No ”” these events, including intense ones, often occur at this time of year.
But it is harder to rule out climate change having any influence at all.
For instance, what is the impact of higher sea levels on storm surges? And how much have record-warm sea temperatures contributed to rainfall and storm intensity?
We know these factors will become more important as the climate system warms further, so as the clean-up begins, we should keep an eye on the future.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?