Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

[Everglade85]

Most oil pollution comes from motor oil going down the drain and ships cleaning out their tanks. The oil spills are more dramatic so they get the news coverage.

 

[Jiro]

Most oil pollution comes from ships cleaning out their tanks. The oil spills are more dramatic so they get the news coverage.

oil spill and cleaning oil tank.... I think we both know which one would cause more damage.

 

[kokonut]

oil spill and cleaning oil tank.... I think we both know which one would cause more damage.

No. Consider the size of the Earth. Consider the huge number of cracks where seepage of oil occurs all over the United States. Even off the coast of California oil seepage occurs daily in large amount.

Joint study by NASA and the Smithsonian Institution, examining several decades’ worth of data, found that more oil seeps into the ocean naturally than from accidents involving tankers and offshore drilling. Natural seepage from underwater oil deposits leaks an average of 62 million gallons a year; offshore drilling, on the other hand, accounted for only 15 million gallons, the smallest source of oil leaking into the oceans.

Likewise, during the July 15 edition of Fox News’ Special Report, correspondent William La Jeunesse stated: “Almost 40 years later [after the Santa Barbara spill], the National Academy of Sciences says mother nature spills more oil into the environment than Exxon, Shell, B.P., and Chevron combined — 63 percent of all oil in U.S. coastal waters comes from natural seepage from cracks in the earth; 32 percent from consumers in their boats and runoff from cities; 4 percent from oil tankers; and just 1 percent from offshore platforms.”

Environmentalists Say Yes to Offshore Drilling - WSJ.com

 

[Hwy99]

and I've already told you that our technology right now is already producing pollution. As long as there's oxygen - there is pollution. we have oil spill, factories, automobile emission, wildfire, chemical dumping, nuclear waste, etc.

The oxygen are here before the pollution.

I agree.


I agree.


both are important

By the way, thank you for sharing me the information about the NASA's technology, it's wonderful

Oh boy, still debating?

Yup sorry.

 

[Jiro]

No. Consider the size of the Earth. Consider the huge number of cracks where seepage of oil occurs all over the United States. Even off the coast of California oil seepage occurs daily in large amount.


Environmentalists Say Yes to Offshore Drilling - WSJ.com

Natural Release is not concentrated on one area and it is spread out. Accidental Release is concentrated on one specific area... which is why it's very destructive.

 

[Jiro]

The oxygen are here before the pollution.

yes oxygen is here before, during, and after pollution.

By the way, thank you for sharing me the information about the NASA's technology, it's wonderful

that's why I'm not concerned. I've said in old thread that humans are a very extremely adaptive and resilient species.

Yup sorry.

 

[Hwy99]

yes oxygen is here before, during, and after pollution.


that's why I'm not concerned. I've said in old thread that humans are a very extremely adaptive and resilient species.

That's almost the same as what I told you in this thread that the human are very unique specie

 

[Jiro]

That's almost the same as what I told you in this thread that the human are very unique specie

that's why we are not going to get wiped out if trees are gone but yes like what you said - we have to do our best to protect our nature and it's preferable that we breathe oxygen from trees instead of machine

 

[Hwy99]

that's why we are not going to get wiped out if trees are gone but yes like what you said - we have to do our best to protect our nature and it's preferable that we breathe oxygen from trees instead of machine

Of course

 

[kokonut]

Natural Release is not concentrated on one area and it is spread out. Accidental Release is concentrated on one specific area... which is why it's very destructive.

Again, I point to oil seepage off the coast of California well known for it's oil to wash ashore on a regular basis.

About 50 to 70 barrels of oil is seeped out everyday (365 times 50 = 18,250 barrels of oil in one year, which is 9 times as much oil and fuels spilled by the oil industry. This is just from one oil seep.
Natural Oil Seepage at Coal Oil Point, Santa Barbara, California -- Allen et al. 170 (3961): 974 -- Science


In 2007, the oil industry spilled 2,256 barrels of oil, fuels and chemicals, into the oceans off America’s coasts (every year). Even though natural oil seepage rates are much higher, an estimated 1,700 barrels per day off the coast of North America, Californians are still leery of another Santa Barbara.
Offshore drilling safer, but small spills routine | Business | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

1700 barrels per day times 365 = 620,500 barrels of oil a year from natural oil seepage from the depths of our ocean.

 

[kokonut]

that's why we are not going to get wiped out if trees are gone but yes like what you said - we have to do our best to protect our nature and it's preferable that we breathe oxygen from trees instead of machine

I'm not even remotely worried about that. Odds are that we will simply wipe ourselves out existence. Or at least severely de-populate our population so low.

 

[KarissaMann05]

wow, it is pretty long debate here. It's very interesting to learn something.

 

[flip]

so did dinosaur make the nature more cruel than it needed to be? so cruel that it caused their extinction?

The Sinclair family did never exists. Dinos was more stupid than the average crocodile. They simply didn't have the brain to change the nature like humans can. Humans have vast more powers and choices. It's a question I can ask you, not a dinosaur.

 

[flip]

Graphs have the tendency to look impressive when you reduce the scale to very small sizes. Secondly, I was referring to changes in global temperature in the last 10 years which have been essentially static and not rising.

No one is disputing that global warming has been occurring. Not I. However, the dispute has to do with the notion that it was all human caused and we're the main culprit and driver on global warming with our additional introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere. Here, let me help and borrow a graph to illustrate this point about global temperature over the last 10 years (1998 - 2007, and this was before a cool 2008 year, too).
http://www.roanokeslant.org/GlobalWarmingThoughts/GlobalTemp1880-1998-2008.jpg

It's all about scale. Time. Magnitude.

Once more, it is misleading to present that 97% claim. I've explained why and how you got caught with that display of intellectual dishonesty. Make a clarifying comment about the 97% claim.

That close viewed graph is considered to be faux-science by 97% of climate scientists. A warm year does not mean it's hot every day. Same for a warmer century. You will only score points with this graph among the average joes. Fortunately, the average Joe is not that stupid that he can with his own eyes see that forest fires, drought, ice-melting in the alps and himalaya, heat waves etc still are on the rise.

Your intellectual dishonesty claim is laughable. You need to learn to control your anger when the world, aka scientist, goes against your claims from funny .com and .org sites.

It makes far more sense to present hard proof about a strong consensus among scientists that humans play a role in global warming, than presenting faux-science graphs.

Here is again more clarifications on 97%:
"In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role."

It's plenty of other surveys that shows consensus among real scientists global warming is man made. The consensus among some scientists is shown to be even stronger in some of them. Here is a few more. Enjoy reading.

Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern - US News and World Report

STATS:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

 

[flip]

No one can read your mind nor infer exactly what that 97% claim means. You were repeating this several times and then you included a copy and paste of the 97% claim and 10,200 experts without letting readers know the number actually came from 3,146 respondants, and nothing about the 10,200 experts who were contact. Saying it's "common knowledge" is an attempt to deflect this error of yours and absolve yourself any responsibility and accountability to inform the readers of the actual number.

This was an online poll. What's not shown is the kind of bias were dealing with with each person/scientist doing the poll. In this age of billions of dollars of govt grants and other sources of funding for global warming studies you can be assured that there'd be a policy agenda on the kind of study these grants are looking for specifically. And so, that leads to the question of bias and the question of how significant would a change be in order to be "significant"?

It IS common knowledge. It's just you that you are among the very few that don't know anything about normal surveys.

This survey was a lot more than an online poll. The partipants was picked carefully, avoiding biased results, and we know the background and identity of all partipants. The quality and scientific method of this survey was good enough to be accepted for publishing in a scientific publication run by American Geophysical Union.

Your claims about fundings and policy agenda are more belivable for your corporate funded Heartland Insitute, rather than scientitsts that are part of workers unions and places like Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, Gaullaudet(!), etc.

As for significant, if you not are sure, look up in a dictonary. In this survey it means humans have some impact, the question is how significant. You can't run away from the fact that a overwhelmy large part of scientists agree that humans have some influence on the climate.

 

[Jiro]

The Sinclair family did never exists. Dinos was more stupid than the average crocodile. They simply didn't have the brain to change the nature like humans can. Humans have vast more powers and choices. It's a question I can ask you, not a dinosaur.

intelligence is not an issue in here. The nature does not care if you are smart or dumb..... hence - the nature law continues to hold true for millions of years - "only the strongest survives"

That's why mosquito continues to survive for millions of years. It can be responsible for largely wiping out humanity like it did to dinosaurs. After all.... mosquito has claimed millions of lives to this date......

beside - dinosaurs did not "change the nature" like humans did and yet.... they're gone. how come? answer - the nature's cruel. what man can do to Earth is nothing comparable to what nature can do to you

 

[flip]

what about it? what dies comes a new life!

No, near extinct species are under big threat from forest fires. No new life among them. Species that goes extinct can have catastrophic effect on the environment and the food chain that we depend on.

 

[flip]

intelligence is not an issue in here. The nature does not care if you are smart or dumb..... hence - the nature law continues to hold true for millions of years - "only the strongest survives"

That's why mosquito continues to survive for millions of years. It can be responsible for largely wiping out humanity like it did to dinosaurs. After all.... mosquito has claimed millions of lives to this date......

You said the man have some influence on the climate, but that the earth corrects itself. Now, I am curious what you mean with correct itself?

 

[flip]

Sigh. I've reitterated this a hundred times, literally in this thread and elsewhere. No one, even me, do not dispute that we have been warming up. The dispute is, again!, is whether the increasing temperature is a natural occurrence or wholly man caused through additional CO2 input by us. I was pointing out the fact that the last 10 years temperature did not go up while CO2 concentration continues to rise. Did you not see that graph?

Got it? Reread all the threads I produced. The core topic and disputes have been about CO2 supposed direct and primary affect on rise in temperature, not about whether Earth warmed up or not over time. Earth has been warming up ever since the last ice age some 12,000 years ago. This is the same stance I've had over the last several years. I've not diverged away from it. The argument, again, is about whether global warming is man made by the artificial introduction CO2.

According to a strong scientific consensus, global warming is man made by the artificial introduction of CO2.

 

[Jiro]

No, near extinct species are under big threat from forest fires. No new life among them. Species that goes extinct can have catastrophic effect on the environment and the food chain that we depend on.

again - when that species were gone, new species arrived. It can be new plants, new bacteria, etc.

For example - NEW SPECIES

More than 50 potentially new species have been discovered in the mountain rain forests of Papua New Guinea, conservationists announced Wednesday.

Photos: treasure trove of new species discovered in Ecuador

Near the once-contentious border of Ecuador and Peru in the mountainous forests of the Cordillera del Condor, scientists from Conservation International (CI) conducted a Rapid Assessment Program (RAP), uncovering what they believe are several new species, including four amphibians, one lizard, and seven insects.