[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://rt.com/usa/news/fracking-earthquake-virginia-dc-817-061/
There seem to be some geologists that disagree with the all knowing all too human[/quote]
Jesus Christ! Who gives a fuck what these assholes think. there are scientist that believe that aliens built the pyramids too.
The fact of the matter is that making a connection between the amount of energy hydrolic fracturing releases and a fucking 5.8 earthquake is just as fucking absurd.
A 5.8 magnitude earthquake is what you would get directly over a 200 megaton nuke going off underground.
You really want to continue to speculate that hydrolic pressure pumped from the surface 1% deep into the crust is responsible?[/quote]
And we have people that know everything in internet message boards.
According to many climate models, anthropogenic carbon dioxide accounts for 1/7 of all CO2 put out in a year. Atmospheric chemistry is in its infancy (great opportunity for advances in research for those interested), but at the very least I do believe that the effects of that much CO2 put into the air is worth investigating. I’m more worried about coal then oil. Far more CO2 output from that then oil. Oil also has uses that extend far beyond energy. For that reason alone, it may be a good idea to think of sources for energy besides oil even if they are fossil fuels. I think the solution is more nuclear energy. And not based off the outdated design with poor systems of redundancy from the Japanese one that partially melted down. I do find it interesting that both Romney and Obama are pro-nuclear. I’d like to think that we could get bipartisan support for nuclear soon, but that can’t happen as long as congress chooses to be obstructionist.
Another concern are the replacements for CFCs. They’re better than CFCs but they still can cause warming effects by holding heat in as opposed to destroying ozone. There are replacements for those and fully industrialized nations can afford to begin implementing them, but I highly doubt developing nations like China and India will opt for them. At least for the time being.
Pat made a good comment about efficiency being a great green option. There’s also a lot of research into using greener chemicals like super-critical CO2 as a solvent and more applications for H2O as a solvent too. These principles could go a ways towards cleaning up coal production and use.
As far as fracking goes. The fracking operation occurs too far underground to affect aquifers that way. But the same dangers of conventional drilling to aquifers still apply such as breach in the well casing. In addition to hydrocarbons affecting groundwater, you would have the fracking chemicals getting into it as well in such an event. There’s also the issue of containment ponds which are the ponds that hold the waste-water from fracking operations. These ponds need to be regulated. I see it as unethical to have an unlined containment pond. Even then, poor installation of lining and punctures can cause leaks. And that’s how the fracking chemicals can get into ground water. The solution to this is regulation of containment ponds as just mentioned and monitering wells along the site so soil and groundwater remediation can occur before potential problems get out of hand. Also, this is another area where green chemistry can come into play. Many of the chemicals used for fracking are known teratogenics, carcinogenics, and mutagens. With green chemistry, replacements can be found that are not as toxic or practically non-toxic.
The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old.
Humans have been keeping track of temperatures for maybe 150 years.
This alone is why this argument should be over, we cannot predict the temperature.
Global Warming is nothing but a political scam to pump money into a private agenda.
What’s more dangerous are politicians who are married to the religion known as Global Warming. (i.e. - today it’s cold…GLOBAL WARMING !!! Tomorrow should be warmer…GLOBAL WARMING !!!)
In other words, ANY climate screams of Global Warming.
We passed a Global Warming law in California, it has DOUBLED energy costs, yet done nothing to make our climate any cooler.
There is consensus in the scientific community that human-caused global warming is real.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/scientists-convinced-of-climate.html
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old.
Humans have been keeping track of temperatures for maybe 150 years.
This alone is why this argument should be over, we cannot predict the temperature.
[/quote]
What are your scientific qualifications?
We can extrapolate climate data from all sorts of sources (eg drilling glaciers), so it’s not that we can only crunch numbers from 1850+.
Also, directly manipulating ecologic systems like the oceans might be even a faster way for humankind to shake our own foundations than affecting weather to a meaningful degree.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
We can extrapolate climate data from all sorts of sources (eg drilling glaciers), so it’s not that we can only crunch numbers from 1850+.
Also, directly manipulating ecologic systems like the oceans might be even a faster way for humankind to shake our own foundations than affecting weather to a meaningful degree.
[/quote]
Atmospheric CO2 affects oceans and can lead to the acidifying of them.
So we are dumping basic shit into it to neutralize acidic effects?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
So we are dumping basic shit into it to neutralize acidic effects?
[/quote]
There’s ideas floating around like doing something like that to oceans. Or putting millions of tiny mirrors in space to deflect solar radiation and putting aerosols into the atmosphere that reflect sun rays back into space but so little is known about what the effects of doing these things would do and it would be a huge feat too.
Simply put, it’s too expensive and wildly unpredictable.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
We can extrapolate climate data from all sorts of sources (eg drilling glaciers), so it’s not that we can only crunch numbers from 1850+.
Also, directly manipulating ecologic systems like the oceans might be even a faster way for humankind to shake our own foundations than affecting weather to a meaningful degree.
[/quote]
Atmospheric CO2 affects oceans and can lead to the acidifying of them. [/quote]
A more persuasive case has been made that CO2 neutralisation of the oceans’ PH may be beneficial for marine life - especially coral.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
There is consensus in the scientific community that human-caused global warming is real.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/scientists-convinced-of-climate.html
[/quote]
No there isn’t. Additionally, the article that you linked to describes a lack of consensus. Furthermore, it is more than two years old.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
There is consensus in the scientific community that human-caused global warming is real.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/scientists-convinced-of-climate.html
[/quote]
No there isn’t. Additionally, the article that you linked to describes a lack of consensus. Furthermore, it is more than two years old.[/quote]
Yours is too.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
There is consensus in the scientific community that human-caused global warming is real.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/scientists-convinced-of-climate.html
[/quote]
No there isn’t. Additionally, the article that you linked to describes a lack of consensus. Furthermore, it is more than two years old.[/quote]
Yes there is.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
“there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change”
“Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere”
http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf
You won’t find a scientific body that states otherwise
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that “most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Science
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
So what about May 2011? Is that too old too?
A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, ?The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,? collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents ? representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey?s specific standards ? work in academia, government, and industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.
97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that ?human-induced greenhouse warming? is now occurring.? Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
?There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50?50 chance that temperatures will rise? 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50?100 years.
?When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8?10), 44% moderate danger (4?7), and 13% little danger.?
The researchers conclude that the findings ?provide little support for criticisms that scientists? views on global warming are based on workplace pressures or desires to further their own careers or expand their public influence. We found disagreement over the future effects of climate change, but not over the existence of anthropogenic global warming. Indeed, it is possible that the growing public perception of scientific disagreement over the existence of anthropocentric warming, which was stimulated by press accounts of ?Climategate? [the 2009 hacked emails controversy] is actually a misperception of the normal range of disagreements that may persist within a broad scientific consensus.
Thank you Raj. I was looking for something like that.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
There is consensus in the scientific community that human-caused global warming is real.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/scientists-convinced-of-climate.html
[/quote]
No there isn’t. Additionally, the article that you linked to describes a lack of consensus. Furthermore, it is more than two years old.[/quote]
Yours is too.[/quote]
The OP is about two days old. The link above about the reef alarmist is just some background on oceanic neutralisation from CO2.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Yes there is.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
“there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change”
“Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere”
[/quote]
That’s not consensus. The first thing the article does is describe three different camps.
Really? Check the OP.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So what about May 2011? Is that too old too?
A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, ?The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,? collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents ? representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey?s specific standards ? work in academia, government, and industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.
97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that ?human-induced greenhouse warming? is now occurring.? Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
?There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50?50 chance that temperatures will rise? 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50?100 years.
?When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8?10), 44% moderate danger (4?7), and 13% little danger.?
The researchers conclude that the findings ?provide little support for criticisms that scientists? views on global warming are based on workplace pressures or desires to further their own careers or expand their public influence. We found disagreement over the future effects of climate change, but not over the existence of anthropogenic global warming. Indeed, it is possible that the growing public perception of scientific disagreement over the existence of anthropocentric warming, which was stimulated by press accounts of ?Climategate? [the 2009 hacked emails controversy] is actually a misperception of the normal range of disagreements that may persist within a broad scientific consensus.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/[/quote]
.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
That’s not consensus. The first thing the article does is describe three different camps.[/quote]
Huh?
“IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, ALL MAJOR SCIENTIFIC BODIES in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.”
Also are you going to the rest of what I posted? How do you explain dozens of organizations around the world agreeing on human-related climate change?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Really? Check the OP.[/quote]
I did.
There wasn’t a scientific body mentioned (if there was, point it out).