Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[wyly]

So...what then? We wait until 2030-2050 for China to pollute their way to prosperity and equality with the USA? Isn't the damage already being done? Who are going to be the next set of developing have-nots after China and India?

western countries like Canada became wealthy on the backs of third world countries polluting freely as we did so. So what you're saying is "too f***ing bad for the poor of the the third world screw'em they can give up all hope of a lifestyle approaching ours, ever!"...

Canada produces 3 times more CO2 per capita than china and has 5 times the per capita income...

Canada's per capita income at 20th in the world and China is ranked at an impressive 121st, canada $41,100 china $8,500...the vast majority of chinese have a standard of living lower than most canadians could comprehend. yet China is pouring more money into emission reduction than canada could match.

We(western industrialized nations)created the problem and got rich doing it but you expect the third world poor to pay an equal share to fix it?...you obviously gave this a lot of deep thought, at least a nanosecond I'm sure...

Edited September 25, 2012 by wyly

[WWWTT]

your overall know-nothingness... and denial, is profound - you and Shady deserve each other!

Whoa easy there buddy,it's not often Shady and I agree on anything.

Let me ask you something please?

What is the level of CO2 currently in our atmosphere?

What is normal?Is there a range for a normal level?and if so what is it?

Is there evidence that a rise in CO2 will create a rise in temperature?

If rising levels of CO2 prove harmful,then what are the ways we can reduce those levels (all the ways,not just the ones we are told)After all CO2 is a vital component for photosynthesis and the obvious answer here is promoting photosynthesis.

Don't be so quick to label me a "denier"!

I am asking questions and not getting answers.(by the way,I've got way more questions)

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

shady is rarely never right.

concentrations that exceed natural levels becomes a pollutant, CO2 levels of 5% are fatal...HVAC engineers design building air exchange systems that deal with far lower levels of CO2 to counter SBS, Sick Building Syndrome

Ya actually the interior of an enclosed space is not usually deemed to be an ecosystem.

The last house I built,I avoided installing an HRV in the heating system because all the gas fired appliances were directly vented.This greatly reduces the chance of CO (the more common toxin) or CO2 from spilling into the house.As well I did not have a solid fuel heat source (fireplace or wood stove).

As buildings become better insulated,they lose their ability to breathe.So therefore without fresh air the toxins within the enclosed air reach dangerous levels.

Human waste is also fatal if not properly dealt with by our bodily functions and modern plumbing.But the Earth and all its life forms are dependent on animals breaking down to less complex forms so it may be recycled.

Don't get me wrong,we need to introduce renewable sources of energy into our day to day life!Simply because fossil fuels are limited.

I'm just saying that I'm not buying the global warming propaganda.

WWWTT

[wyly]

Human waste is also fatal if not properly dealt with by our bodily functions and modern plumbing.But the Earth and all its life forms are dependent on animals breaking down to less complex forms so it may be recycled.

and all those uncounted dead plants and animals that have never broken down are going to come back and haunt us when the arctic permafrost disappears and there is a massive methane release from the tundra and seabed...

I'm just saying that I'm not buying the global warming propaganda.

that would make you a denier and not a skeptic...it is ***impossible*** for the planet not to warm up, it

is impossible to raise the concentration of CO2 and not have that happen,it defies known chemistry/physics...there never has been any scientific dispute that CO2 is a GHG, that's been known for over a 100 yrs...what you're saying is you don't accept verified science if it doesn't agree with your political viewpoint...

Edited September 25, 2012 by wyly

[wyly]

Is there evidence that a rise in CO2 will create a rise in temperature?

a volcano can lower planet temps with SO2 emissions but anthropogenic CO2 emissions can't raise temps? is that what you're claiming?...this is some very basic science you're questioning denying... Edited September 25, 2012 by wyly

[jbg]

Whatever it is it's barely even English. A Grade 8 english class would work wonders I think.

Given it the benefit of the doubt, he's speaking a language popularized by Chretien and Dion known as Canadian.

What we'd essentially be doing is giving companies in North America added incentives to outsource their jobs and their pollution to China etc.

Can someone please explain why this would be a good idea?

Similar to the utility of using an electric hair dryer in the shower.

Edited September 25, 2012 by jbg

[jbg]

you get your ass handed to you in this thread and you criticize my spelling. i know first words need capitals. i just choose not to waste my time with it when i'm typing. waldo doesn't use capitals and by reading old posts he had put every one of you foolish deniers in your places at one time or another.

How come it is only relative illiterates such as you, Bud and Waldo that seem to need to dispense with proper English usage?

i appreciate waldo's knowledge and his care for the earth. we need more people like him. plus it's funny watching him rip the deniers on this forum apart with FACTS.

You mean his ability to insult, denigrate, and make up "facts"? GW has become more of a religion to him; and apparently you.

[waldo]

"Drivel" would be a better word. Why are you still here?

no need to get testy Pliny... is something wrong... are you having issues/concerns?

[waldo]

Is there a particular reason you won't substantiate your unsubstantiated opinion/claim? Where is your Mr. Wizard? Release the Wiz, Pliny!

Sheesh!

release the Wiz, Pliny

[waldo]

Let me ask you something please?

Don't be so quick to label me a "denier"!

I am asking questions and not getting answers. (by the way,I've got way more questions)

your climate change/global warming related posts are nothing more than drive-by's where you offer nothing more than one-liners with such enlightened comment as stating you don't believe it's warming, that you question the Greenhouse Effect... where your counter is to emphasize CO2 as "essential to life"... where you speak of emission reduction as nothing more than government intrusion... that somehow you thinking your mentioning photosynthesis has bearing... where you continually cast global warming as propaganda.

as for your questions, given your previous approach and commentary, I certainly have no desire, no interest in answering anything you ask. If, on the other hand, you had genuinely come forward expressing a want for information... questioning how best to find information... without all your other clap-trap added in, perhaps some might be interested in responding to you.

[waldo]

How come it is only relative illiterates such as you, Bud and Waldo that seem to need to dispense with proper English usage?

You mean his ability to insult, denigrate, and make up "facts"?

anytime you'd care to actually step beyond your continual sniping and drive-by's, please feel free to speak to what you believe I'm, as you say, "making up".

[bleeding heart]

How come it is only relative illiterates such as you, Bud and Waldo that seem to need to dispense with proper English usage?

You've implied elsewhere that it's Canadians as a whole. Do make up your mind.

[WWWTT]

a volcano can lower planet temps with SO2 emissions but anthropogenic CO2 emissions can't raise temps? is that what you're claiming?...this is some very basic science you're questioning denying...

No,what I am saying is that the Earth is very complex and diverse.

CO2 is an essential nutrient for photosynthesis and perhaps many life forms on this planet have become dependent on our use of fossil fuels.

Check out my earlier post here.

I am not only asking one or two questions,I am asking many!

And when someone is told to stop asking questions and believe what you are told,I have a serious problem with that!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

... that somehow you thinking your mentioning photosynthesis has bearing...

Uh ya actually photosynthesis has the greatest single impact on our atmosphere make up/content.

Probably hundreds if not thousands of times greater than human activity!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

as for your questions, given your previous approach and commentary, I certainly have no desire, no interest in answering anything you ask. If, on the other hand, you had genuinely come forward expressing a want for information... questioning how best to find information... without all your other clap-trap added in, perhaps some might be interested in responding to you.

Actually my approach in this debate is to ask you to ask more questions.

I am not really concerned with you answering my questions

WWWWTT

[wyly]

As buildings become better insulated,they lose their ability to breathe.So therefore without fresh air the toxins within the enclosed air reach dangerous levels.

building codes require new homes to have adequate fresh air exchange systems.

[wyly]

Check out my earlier post here.

I am not only asking one or two questions,I am asking many!

only one question is relevant here, the one that implies denial of CO2 effect on our atmosphere, and I answered that which you promptly ignored as the answer was too inconvenient..."it is ***impossible*** for the planet not to warm up, it is impossible to raise the concentration of CO2 and not have that happen,it defies known chemistry/physics...there never has been any scientific dispute that CO2 is a GHG, that's been known for over a 100 yrs"...what you're saying is you don't accept verified science if it doesn't agree with your political viewpoint...

And when someone is told to stop asking questions and believe what you are told,I have a serious problem with that!

eeew the irony!...as you refuse to answer a question...I'll repeat the question and vainly wait as you ignore it once again..."a volcano can lower planet temps with SO2 emissions but anthropogenic CO2 emissions can't raise temps? is that what you're claiming?"

[Moonbox]

wait? Of course not... do you interpret anything I've ever stated as suggesting 'we' delay emission reduction targets/commitments? As I stated, my presenting that graphic was simply in response to your continuing to pound out the 'Kyoto exceptions' drumbeat.

lol. I didn't bring up Kyoto and made no mention of exceptions to it as far as I can recall. You brought it up. Let's talk about Copenhagen and things more recent.

The Kyoto Protocol did legally bind developed countries to emission reduction targets... but you knew that, right? .....Harper Conservatives avoided the Kyoto Protocol teeth, the teeth you're so clamoring for, by bailing from it. Oh, I guess you didn't know that one either, hey?

So it was a legally binding agreement that you could bail out of unilaterally with no consequences? Okay...

you don't know what you're talking about. There are no new considerations to exempting any countries. My linking was to reinforce a most inconvenient point for China bashers... that a significant level of the emissions attributed to China (to developing countries) are as a result of meeting western countries consumer demand; i.e., the effective outsourcing of developed country emissions to developing countries.

Waldo, I brought this point up in the first place. All your chart is doing is supporting my claim that the West outsources its pollution to China. At least we can agree on that. Let's move on to Copenhagen now then. You follow this stuff more closely than I do, clearly. Maybe you can answer my next question then. Didn't China flat-out refuse to enter a binding agreement and to submit to transparent and independent verification of their carbon reduction? A yes or no would do nicely.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

western countries like Canada became wealthy on the backs of third world countries polluting freely as we did so. So what you're saying is "too f***ing bad for the poor of the the third world screw'em they can give up all hope of a lifestyle approaching ours, ever!"...

We are talking about climate change and not economic equalization, right?

Canada's per capita income at 20th in the world and China is ranked at an impressive 121st, canada $41,100 china $8,500...the vast majority of chinese have a standard of living lower than most canadians could comprehend. yet China is pouring more money into emission reduction than canada could match.

Not only is China's economy 4x bigger than ours, they're also notorious for cooking their books.

We(western industrialized nations)created the problem and got rich doing it but you expect the third world poor to pay an equal share to fix it?...you obviously gave this a lot of deep thought, at least a nanosecond I'm sure...

Fix it? How on earth do we fix it? It's cringe-worthy watching people like you attempt the mental gymnastics required to support this sort of position. Because the west got rich polluting the atmosphere, developing nations have no responsibility in ensuring they don't make the problem worse?

[WWWTT]

building codes require new homes to have adequate fresh air exchange systems.

Yes you could be right.

The last house I built in 2010,completed in 2011 did not require an HRV because the furnace and HWH are direct vented high efficiency type.

However the building code of Ontario changed Jan.1 2012 requiring a higher rating for insulation and this in turn could have required the installation of an HRV in the heating/ventilation system?

I will find out soon enough anyways because next year I will be building another house.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

eeew the irony!...as you refuse to answer a question...I'll repeat the question and vainly wait as you ignore it once again..."a volcano can lower planet temps with SO2 emissions but anthropogenic CO2 emissions can't raise temps? is that what you're claiming?"

Ok then what are the exact levels of concentration?

What are they now and at what levels will cause temperatures to rise?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

there never has been any scientific dispute that CO2 is a GHG,

This is false.

I believe many researchers have doubted this.

WWWTT

[waldo]

your climate change/global warming related posts are nothing more than drive-by's where you offer nothing more than one-liners with such enlightened comment as stating you don't believe it's warming, that you question the Greenhouse Effect... where your counter is to emphasize CO2 as "essential to life"... where you speak of emission reduction as nothing more than government intrusion... that somehow you thinking your mentioning photosynthesis has bearing... where you continually cast global warming as propaganda.

And when someone is told to stop asking questions and believe what you are told, I have a serious problem with that!

what individuals or groups are telling 'you' to stop asking questions... to believe what 'you' are told?

what you are saying, what you've clearly stated, while demonstrating no subject knowledge, openness or genuine skepticism, is that you are a denier... showing a typical denier propensity to spout off with absolutes over any inclination to self-educate.

[waldo]

Let me ask you something please?

as for your questions, given your previous approach and commentary, I certainly have no desire, no interest in answering anything you ask. If, on the other hand, you had genuinely come forward expressing a want for information... questioning how best to find information... without all your other clap-trap added in, perhaps some might be interested in responding to you.

Actually my approach in this debate is to ask you to ask more questions.

I am not really concerned with you answering my questions

to ask me... to ask more questions! Your pomposity... you denier pomposity appears to know no/few bounds, hey?

great, you're not concerned whether I answer your questions... then you won't be asking me any more, hey?

[waldo]

... that somehow you thinking your mentioning photosynthesis has bearing

Uh ya actually photosynthesis has the greatest single impact on our atmosphere make up/content.

Probably hundreds if not thousands of times greater than human activity!

and I responded to Shady's earlier beaking off over photosynthesis in post #412 in this thread... where I replayed a summary post from an earlier time where he did just the same. A post that reflects upon many, many earlier MLW discussions concerning the impacts of increased CO2 on, 'acclimated plants, soil saturation, crop yields, invasive weeds, the efficacy of widely used herbicides, pest prevalence, distinct effects on pasture and range-land photosynthesis, a northward shifting of viable agriculture, etc., etc., etc.. Did you even read that earlier #412 post in this thread... there's a catchy lil' video for you there! Don't be afraid of it - educate yourself!