Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA - Page 7 - Forums at Modded Mustangs
 53Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #121 of 462 Old March 4th, 2015, 12:19 AM
I Post Entirely Way Too Much
 
Novanutcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 6,093
               
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
I noticed this BS for a long while now. I just don't respond to it anymore.

I'm hoping more level-headed open minded folks start coming in here so we can have real discussion on both sides of the topics instead of "you're a right-wing tea bagger and all your citations are right-wing discredited propaganda" with all the bullshit thread derailing. And then they expect us to respond to it with the patented "I won't hold my breath" at the end.
So your not going to rebut my post? I'm offering you a real discussion with a very limited information parameter so that no outside influences can be claimed as partisan rhetoric. Your article claims it's information was taken directly from the BLS report yet when I scrutinized it I didn't find any correlation to the information they were claiming to have pulled from the report.

Are you going to actually read the article and the report or are you going to ignore my offer and continue to base your extremist beliefs on what the headlines you agree with say?

The " I won't hold my breathe" statement comes from the experience most on here have had with you. When you can't respond factually you say you'll get back to it yet you never do. You just cry about how we are attacking you and derailing the thread. Much like you have done in this one.

John

SOLD - '03 GT, Max Moto Max Grip Box, Wilwood SL 6 front/DL4 rear Big Brake Kit, Corbeau Seats, MGW Short Shifter, MAC Long Tube Headers/Prochamber mid/ Flowmaster 40, FRPP 4.10, TrickFlow Diff Cover/75mm TB/Plenum, Eaton Posi, Moser 31 spl Axles
Novanutcase is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 462 Old March 4th, 2015, 03:01 AM
US Air Force (retired)
 
Eagle2000GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 13,519
                     
Garage
iTrader: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novanutcase View Post
From the article you posted.....

"Ultimately, it’s apparent the relationship between ozone depletion, climate warming from greenhouse gases, natural variability, and how Antarctic ice responds is all very complicated. In sharp contrast, in the Arctic, there seems to be a relatively straight forward relationship between temperature and ice extent.

Thus, in the Antarctic, we shouldn’t necessarily expect to witness the kind of steep decline in ice that has occurred in the Arctic.

“…the seeming paradox of Antarctic ice increasing while Arctic ice is decreasing is really no paradox at all,” explains Climate Central’s Lemonick. “The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is land surrounded by ocean. In the Arctic, moreover, you’ve got sea ice decreasing in the summer; at the opposite pole, you’ve got sea ice increasing in the winter. It’s not just an apples-and-oranges comparison: it’s more like comparing apple pie with orange juice.”


John
That is what was said but the Arctic data may or may not prove this out. I'm not saying he's wrong, it's just that recent data appears to be inconclusive. The data below is from the three links below. The first link is really cool. It does side by side comparisons but it stops at 2011. The other two link fill in the data for 2014. The numbers are in million square kilometers.

Year..............March Max..................Sept Min
1979................16.4.......................... .7.2
1980................16.1.......................... .7.8
1985................16.1.......................... .6.9
1990................15.9.......................... .6.2
1995................15.3.......................... .6.3
2000................15.3.......................... .6.1
2005................14.8.......................... .5.6
2006................14.5.......................... .5.9
2007................14.7.......................... .4.3 (Gore predicted no ice in 2014)
2008................15.2.......................... .4.7
2009................15.2.......................... .5.4
2010................15.1.......................... .4.9
2011................14.6.......................... .4.6
2014................14.9.......................... .5.0 (highest temperature on record?)

There have been some ups and down but Arctic sea ice hasn't shrank in the last 7 years and the Antarctic ice is at a 35 year high. Since I believe that we do have some long-term global warming I suspect that will change but as of right now the ice caps are not disappearing.


Compare Maps of Arctic Sea Ice Extent Side-by-Side | UCAR Center for Science Education
Arctic sea ice at fifth lowest annual maximum | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
2014 melt season in review | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

ProCharger P-1SC, 9 psi, STD 396/383; Uncorrected 388/375; SAE 383/370.
Ret. USAF 1969-1973,1980-1996: Vietnam veteran. Aircraft maintenance. R & D, ICBM Operations.
Also own: 1997 Harley FXDWG, 1998 F-150, and 2002 Corvette LS1
Eagle2000GT is offline  
post #123 of 462 Old March 4th, 2015, 09:41 AM
Pawsitively sexy
 
Sixpointslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lower Sussex, DE
Posts: 10,564
                   
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
JohnC, don't get upset. It's a game. They enjoy getting you upset. I have noticed several times that Sixpointslow has a second tactic. He will infer something without actually saying it. He is very good at it and it is a trap. I just fell into that trap and Novanutcase sprung it. Very well played.

In the short time I've been in the clubhouse it seems that Novanutcase is the more intelligent of the two. When he's not game playing with Sixpointslow he actually contributes to the discussion and I have reflected on many of his comments. Sixpointslow is the gadfly. He has nothing to contribute so he sets traps and argues very small nuances. And it is clear that his sole purpose in the discussion is to drag out the discussion and to distract from the main topic.
Nothing to contribute? Lets go back to page one and re-read this discussion. You were promoting claims that have been proven false. In one example, you said you doubted a claim Nova put forth, I substantiated his claim, and you responded that in your gut you felt otherwise. Come on man.

I went out of my way for the first half of the argument looking things up that YOU were arguing and responding only for you to revert back to the "I don't trust the data". What is the point in me making any data based argument when you offer up the same bullshit claim (a claim I addressed, by the way).

Did I know the quote I was asking you for? Yes. I gave you a chance to admit that it was an out of context quote instead of me going on the attack, and you didn't own up. The "ice will be gone by 2014" quote you've been referencing was from Al Gore's Nobel Prize speech for 2007.

"Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years."

When you add context, you see it wasn't the direct claim you make it out to be. As a kicker, I'll even throw in a video of the speech so you can verify what I've said.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
That is what was said but the Arctic data may or may not prove this out. I'm not saying he's wrong, it's just that recent data appears to be inconclusive. The data below is from the three links below. The first link is really cool. It does side by side comparisons but it stops at 2011. The other two link fill in the data for 2014. The numbers are in million square kilometers.

Year..............March Max..................Sept Min
1979................16.4.......................... .7.2
1980................16.1.......................... .7.8
1985................16.1.......................... .6.9
1990................15.9.......................... .6.2
1995................15.3.......................... .6.3
2000................15.3.......................... .6.1
2005................14.8.......................... .5.6
2006................14.5.......................... .5.9
2007................14.7.......................... .4.3 (Gore predicted no ice in 2014)
2008................15.2.......................... .4.7
2009................15.2.......................... .5.4
2010................15.1.......................... .4.9
2011................14.6.......................... .4.6
2014................14.9.......................... .5.0 (highest temperature on record?)

There have been some ups and down but Arctic sea ice hasn't shrank in the last 7 years and the Antarctic ice is at a 35 year high. Since I believe that we do have some long-term global warming I suspect that will change but as of right now the ice caps are not disappearing.


Compare Maps of Arctic Sea Ice Extent Side-by-Side | UCAR Center for Science Education
Arctic sea ice at fifth lowest annual maximum | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
2014 melt season in review | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
Here I agree with you. They aren't melting but, as even you alluded to, the trend is heading downwards. It's unfortunate when one person says something brash to grab a headline or has a quote taken out of context to get the same effect. What happens is people use that to discredit the real truth.

---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 AM ----------

And JohnC, out of the 19 posts you've made in your own thread, two were on topic. Even in those two on topic posts, all you did was post videos and links to extremely biased websites. But blame the liberals. Must be that fluoride mind control.

2012 CTS-V

Not stock


Sixpointslow is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #124 of 462 Old March 4th, 2015, 12:09 PM
US Air Force (retired)
 
Eagle2000GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 13,519
                     
Garage
iTrader: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixpointslow View Post
Here I agree with you. They aren't melting but, as even you alluded to, the trend is heading downwards. It's unfortunate when one person says something brash to grab a headline or has a quote taken out of context to get the same effect. What happens is people use that to discredit the real truth.
Sitting in 2007, looking at the data would have given grave concern to anyone. But here is the thing: we are not in 2007 anymore. The ice caps didn't melt. The IPCC computer models didn't predict the pause and IPCC scientists don't know why. Scientists not looking only at atmospheric CO2 levels but at other natural cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation predicted the pause. Longer-Cycles longer than the PDO are also known to exist. Proxies, such as ice cores and tree rings, are use to estimate past temperatures. There seems to be a correlation between earth's temperature and sunspot activity but scientists are unsure exactly why. (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...mo/solact.html) Some say the energy variation from the sun isn't enough to cause climate change. And if you really want to go long-term the earth wobbles on its axis and its orbit around the sun isn't constant. Combined they cause a 21,000 year cycle and 41,000 year cycle (see Milanlovitch cycles: Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
reference stated:

Its a complicate article but it did say that: "A study of the chronology of Antarctic ice cores using oxygen-nitrogen ratios in air bubbles trapped in the ice, which appear to respond directly to the local insolation, concluded that the climatic response documented in the ice cores was driven by northern hemisphere insolation as proposed by the Milankovitch hypothesis (Kawamura et al., Nature, 23 August 2007, vol 448, pp 912–917). This is an additional validation of the Milankovitch hypothesis by a relatively novel method, and is inconsistent with the "inclination" theory of the 100,000-year cycle." This second article suggest that the orbit has had a more direct impact on Antarctic ice. Earth orbit changes key to Antarctic warming that ended last ice age

What I'm trying to explain is that there is a lot more going on that is affecting climate other than man-made CO2. Greenhouse gasses do affect climate. The question is how much.

ProCharger P-1SC, 9 psi, STD 396/383; Uncorrected 388/375; SAE 383/370.
Ret. USAF 1969-1973,1980-1996: Vietnam veteran. Aircraft maintenance. R & D, ICBM Operations.
Also own: 1997 Harley FXDWG, 1998 F-150, and 2002 Corvette LS1

Last edited by Eagle2000GT; March 16th, 2015 at 09:34 AM.
Eagle2000GT is offline  
post #125 of 462 Old March 4th, 2015, 01:00 PM
missippi roolz
 
socialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,226
         
iTrader: 3 reviews
So since the debate for why climate change is happening is essentially just a circular process and is ultimately theoretical until it's possibly too late, I have another question: why is it so political and partisan?

I mean seriously, lets say that climate change is not truly caused by human processes but we assume it is, and in response, we find new technologies to clean up energy creation and consumption. Al Gore and some other people along with new and existing companies make millions of dollars off of the technology. So what? Energy companies already make billions of dollars off of the current options. The plume of pollution hanging over LA and Houston aren't holograms - they're proof that our current energy consumption methods are polluting, at the very least, the fucking air we breathe in.

I don't get why the fuck people who have absolutely zero affiliation to industries that get hurt by "green technologies" are so god damn adamantly against them. "Well so-and-so would get rich and that's the only reason he cares!" So fucking what? Just because the advancement in technology benefits someone that has different political standings than you financially doesn't mean it's bad for the entirety of humanity.

I seriously cannot comprehend the mindset of people that argue tooth and nail against creating new means of energy usage as if they want the entire world to look like Mexico City just to spite someone they're not a fan of.

“A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.” (Mark 14:51-52)
socialist is offline  
post #126 of 462 Old March 4th, 2015, 02:09 PM
US Air Force (retired)
 
Eagle2000GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 13,519
                     
Garage
iTrader: 1 reviews
Who are you ranting at? I support the development of new technologies. I don't care who gets rich on them. I'm an advocate of capitalism and free enterprise. I believe that standards should be set but I don't really like the government picking winners and losers. I believe technologies should compete in the market place. I dislike ethanol because it is worse for the environment than gasoline. I almost bought a windmill to power my house. The smaller windmills only put out about 400 kwh. I was going to need four. They are expensive and the breakeven point was 75 years. After installing them I would still need to be connected to the electric grid just in case the wind didn't blow. I live where we would freeze to death in the winter if we lost power. Needless to say I didn't buy it.

I have posted this link before. It is pretty much how I feel about global warming. (How to Talk About Climate Change So People Will Listen - The Atlantic) I would like to get all of the political hype out of the discussion. I want realistic solutions that does not bankrupt the country or destroy our economy. As a realist I believe we should prepare for the consequences of global warming. If it is a result of natural causes then there is nothing we can do. If it is man-made then regardless of anything that we do it is still coming. I have no hope that the entire world will damage their economies and inflict suffering on their people to significantly reduce CO2 output. That is why I'm glad the hype of catastrophic consequences is overblown.

The plume of pollution that you see hanging over cities is smog not CO2. C02 is colorless and odorless. It would be fairly easy to fix the smog problems in Houston. All you have to do is mandate that no gas powered vehicles allowed within a 50 mile radius of the city. Electric vehicles or public transportation only. Why hasn't that been done? Because it isn't realistic and it would severely damage the local economy.

ProCharger P-1SC, 9 psi, STD 396/383; Uncorrected 388/375; SAE 383/370.
Ret. USAF 1969-1973,1980-1996: Vietnam veteran. Aircraft maintenance. R & D, ICBM Operations.
Also own: 1997 Harley FXDWG, 1998 F-150, and 2002 Corvette LS1

Last edited by Eagle2000GT; March 4th, 2015 at 03:33 PM.
Eagle2000GT is offline  
post #127 of 462 Old March 4th, 2015, 02:54 PM
Pawsitively sexy
 
Sixpointslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lower Sussex, DE
Posts: 10,564
                   
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
Sitting in 2007, looking at the data would have given grave concern to anyone. But here is the thing: we are not in 2007 anymore. The ice caps didn't melt. The IPCC computer models didn't predict the pause and IPCC scientists don't know why. Scientists not looking only at atmospheric CO2 levels but at other natural cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation predicted the pause. Longer-Cycles longer than the PDO are also known to exist. Proxies, such as ice cores and tree rings, are use to estimate past temperatures. There seems to be a correlation between earth's temperature and sunspot activity but scientists are unsure exactly why. (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...mo/solact.html) Some say the energy variation from the sun isn't enough to cause climate change. And if you really want to go long-term the earth wobbles on its axis and its orbit around the sun isn't constant. Combined they cause a 21,000 year cycle and 41,000 year cycle (see Milanlovitch cycles: Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
reference stated:

Its a complicate article but it did say that: "A study of the chronology of Antarctic ice cores using oxygen-nitrogen ratios in air bubbles trapped in the ice, which appear to respond directly to the local insolation, concluded that the climatic response documented in the ice cores was driven by northern hemisphere insolation as proposed by the Milankovitch hypothesis (Kawamura et al., Nature, 23 August 2007, vol 448, pp 912–917). This is an additional validation of the Milankovitch hypothesis by a relatively novel method, and is inconsistent with the "inclination" theory of the 100,000-year cycle." This second article suggest that the orbit has had a more direct impact on Antarctic ice. Earth orbit changes key to Antarctic warming that ended last ice age

What I'm trying to explain is that there is a lot more going on that is affecting climate other than man-made CO2. Greenhouse gasses do affect climate. The question is how much.
We've been over the IPCC models. They predict long term trends, not short term (like the last pause). Long term, we continue to trend towards higher temperatures, like the IPCC models predict.

As for the ice caps being gone, that was the extreme end of one study quoted by a former vice president. This is the thing about arguing doubt. It doesn't have to be generally accepted so long as at least one person said it. As long as that one person said it we can introduce doubt to the whole concept. It's not logical, and you know that.

2012 CTS-V

Not stock


Sixpointslow is offline  
post #128 of 462 Old March 4th, 2015, 02:57 PM
missippi roolz
 
socialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,226
         
iTrader: 3 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
Who are you ranting at? I support the development of new technologies. I don't care who gets rich on them. I'm an advocate of capitalism and free enterprise. I believe that standards should be set but I don't really like the government picking winners and losers. I believe technologies should compete in the market place. I dislike ethanol because it is worse for the environment than gasoline. I almost bought a windmill to power my house. The smaller windmills only put out about 400 kwh. I was going to need four. They are expensive and the breakeven point was 75 years. After installing them I would still need to be connected to the electric grid just in case the wind didn't blow. I live where we would freeze to death in the winter if we lost power. Needless to say I didn't buy it.

I have posted this link before. It is pretty much how I feel about global warming. (How to Talk About Climate Change So People Will Listen - The Atlantic) I would like to get all of the political hype out of the discussion. I want realistic solutions that does not bankrupt the country or destroy our economy. As a realist I believe we should compare for the consequences of global warming. If it is a result of natural causes then there is nothing we can do. If it is man-made then regardless of anything that we do it is still coming. I have no hope that the entire world will damage their economies and inflict suffering on their people to significantly reduce CO2 output. That is why I'm glad the hype of catastrophic consequences is overblown.

The plume of pollution that you see hanging over cities is smog not CO2. C02 is colorless and odorless. It would be fairly easy to fix the smog problems in Houston. All you have to do is mandate that no gas powered vehicles allowed within a 50 mile radius of the city. Electric vehicles or public transportation only. Why hasn't that been done? Because it isn't realistic and it would severely damage the local economy.
Haha, sorry, that wasn't supposed to be ranting at anyone in this thread. Just in general and the arguments you can see in any news website comments section.

And I don't think I wrote CO2 specifically in my post, but if I did it was just an incorrect attempt at a synonym.

And I totally understand your view point. I consider myself a realist as well and what I'm getting at is not saying "tomorrow all gas powered vehicles need to get off the road to reduce pollution". I'm saying it'd be good if people could work together to not procrastinate on coming up with creative solutions. It's pretty obvious that, at this point, there is no single solution. But to just completely ignore the problem because it may not become a true day-to-day problem in our lifetimes is fairly ignorant and selfish (once again, not saying this towards anyone here, just the population in general). On a global scale, every little bit helps and the "short term" solution is going to be a combination of small changes.

“A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.” (Mark 14:51-52)
socialist is offline  
post #129 of 462 Old March 4th, 2015, 06:23 PM
I Post Entirely Way Too Much
 
Novanutcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 6,093
               
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by brtnstrns View Post
So since the debate for why climate change is happening is essentially just a circular process and is ultimately theoretical until it's possibly too late, I have another question: why is it so political and partisan?
Because those industries doing most of the polluting would have to spend millions retrofitting the equipment they currently have so rather than spend all that money to clean up the output of their factories they'd rather spend it on delaying the inevitable.

Children in Southern California breathing easier, study says

By ALICIA CHANG
From Associated Press
March 04, 2015 5:41 PM EST

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Smog-covered mountains, gritty sidewalks, smelly fumes from traffic-choked freeways. The Los Angeles area was a tough place to breathe several decades ago. Now a study shows how much that has changed, especially for the region's youngest residents.

Children in recent years breathed cleaner air and had stronger lungs compared to those who were studied two decades earlier, researchers found. The improved health coincided with drastic reductions in pollution in the Los Angeles basin and surrounding areas as air quality regulators cracked down on emissions from tailpipes and smokestacks.

While the research focused on Southern California, the results suggest that other cities with dirty air may see a health boost with a cleanup effort.

Since pollutants such as particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide tend to be higher in cities, reducing "those pollutants should lead to improved health for children living in any urban environment," said lead researcher Jim Gauderman, a professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine.

Smog was first documented in Los Angeles during World War II when a thick haze reduced visibility to three city blocks and irritated residents' eyes.

For decades, the city struggled with air pollution. As LA's population grew, so did the number of vehicles on the road. In the 1970s, unhealthy air was recorded more than 200 days a year. The air was so bad that it blotted out the San Gabriel Mountains and children didn't play outside when health advisories were in effect.

Air quality has since improved thanks to stricter emissions rules for cars, trucks, ships and factories.

In the study, researchers tracked the lung development of more than 2,000 children in five Southern California communities beginning in the mid-90s. Teams traveled to schools and asked children to blow into a device that measures how strong their lungs are and how much air they can exhale in one second.

As pollution declined over the years so did the percentage of children who had weak lung function, from about 8 percent during 1994 to 1998 to about 4 percent in 2007-2011.

Researchers also found that health improved with cleaner air regardless of gender, ethnicity, education and other factors.

The findings appear in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine. In an accompanying editorial, researchers not connected with the study said there's an incentive to continue cutting air pollution.

"The current report and other studies suggest that further improvement in air quality may have beneficial public health effects," wrote Douglas Dockery and James Ware of Harvard University.


John

SOLD - '03 GT, Max Moto Max Grip Box, Wilwood SL 6 front/DL4 rear Big Brake Kit, Corbeau Seats, MGW Short Shifter, MAC Long Tube Headers/Prochamber mid/ Flowmaster 40, FRPP 4.10, TrickFlow Diff Cover/75mm TB/Plenum, Eaton Posi, Moser 31 spl Axles
Novanutcase is offline  
post #130 of 462 Old March 5th, 2015, 01:28 AM
missippi roolz
 
socialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,226
         
iTrader: 3 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novanutcase View Post
Because those industries doing most of the polluting would have to spend millions retrofitting the equipment they currently have so rather than spend all that money to clean up the output of their factories they'd rather spend it on delaying the inevitable.

Children in Southern California breathing easier, study says

By ALICIA CHANG
From Associated Press
March 04, 2015 5:41 PM EST

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Smog-covered mountains, gritty sidewalks, smelly fumes from traffic-choked freeways. The Los Angeles area was a tough place to breathe several decades ago. Now a study shows how much that has changed, especially for the region's youngest residents.

Children in recent years breathed cleaner air and had stronger lungs compared to those who were studied two decades earlier, researchers found. The improved health coincided with drastic reductions in pollution in the Los Angeles basin and surrounding areas as air quality regulators cracked down on emissions from tailpipes and smokestacks.

While the research focused on Southern California, the results suggest that other cities with dirty air may see a health boost with a cleanup effort.

Since pollutants such as particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide tend to be higher in cities, reducing "those pollutants should lead to improved health for children living in any urban environment," said lead researcher Jim Gauderman, a professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine.

Smog was first documented in Los Angeles during World War II when a thick haze reduced visibility to three city blocks and irritated residents' eyes.

For decades, the city struggled with air pollution. As LA's population grew, so did the number of vehicles on the road. In the 1970s, unhealthy air was recorded more than 200 days a year. The air was so bad that it blotted out the San Gabriel Mountains and children didn't play outside when health advisories were in effect.

Air quality has since improved thanks to stricter emissions rules for cars, trucks, ships and factories.

In the study, researchers tracked the lung development of more than 2,000 children in five Southern California communities beginning in the mid-90s. Teams traveled to schools and asked children to blow into a device that measures how strong their lungs are and how much air they can exhale in one second.

As pollution declined over the years so did the percentage of children who had weak lung function, from about 8 percent during 1994 to 1998 to about 4 percent in 2007-2011.

Researchers also found that health improved with cleaner air regardless of gender, ethnicity, education and other factors.

The findings appear in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine. In an accompanying editorial, researchers not connected with the study said there's an incentive to continue cutting air pollution.

"The current report and other studies suggest that further improvement in air quality may have beneficial public health effects," wrote Douglas Dockery and James Ware of Harvard University.


John
And that makes sense for a corporation's stand point. Their sole existence relies on saving all pennies possible for maximum profits.

But why are there individual people (in general again) so hard against it as if they literally enjoy the consequences of polluting as much as possible.

“A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.” (Mark 14:51-52)
socialist is offline  
post #131 of 462 Old March 5th, 2015, 05:27 AM
US Air Force (retired)
 
Eagle2000GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 13,519
                     
Garage
iTrader: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by brtnstrns View Post
But why are there individual people (in general again) so hard against it as if they literally enjoy the consequences of polluting as much as possible.
You are now talking about two different things. Smog and CO2 are completely different. Smog is a poison. CO2 is essential for life. Smog poses an immediate threat. Congress passed the 1970 clean air act almost unanimously with the overwhelming support of both Republicans and Democrats. And since its passing the EPA has been imposing ever more strict emission standards. The clean air act was hugely successful. But smog still exists in major cities because the population density has increased so much.

Smog really is more of a state problem then it is a federal one. While it is true that all major cities have smog making it appear to be a federal problem, it is not true that all states have smog.

Houston has a population of over 2 million. Los Angeles has almost 4 million. I have lived in various parts of the country including California and South Dakota. You do not really understand the differences until you have lived there. The entire state of South Dakota has a population of 850,000 and its not a tiny little state like Delaware. It's a 7 hour drive at interstate speed between the two main population centers of Sioux Falls (164,000) and Rapid City (70,000). The capital of South Dakota, Pierre, only has 14,000 people. In California cities with populations under 200,000 are considered small towns.

There are a lot of sparsely populated states like South Dakota. This is often hard to explain to people living in cities, in California or on the eastern seaboard, but your problems are not their problems. They have an entirely different set of problems.

This is why states need to act, not the federal government. Our federal government has proposed banning wood burning stoves. That might make sense in Washington D.C. and it will help control smog in our major cities but does it really make sense to to ban a wood burning stove in the remote parts of Alaska? If you don't burn wood you will freeze to death in the winter.

California has passed their own emission laws. Those laws make perfect sense for California but are completely unneeded in South Dakota or other sparsely populated states. If smog is so bad in Houston then perhaps Texas should pass its own emission laws. Maybe they could create CARB approved mods for vehicles to make sure modifications don't increase emissions. Just leave the rest of us out of it.

That was smog. Smog is a local problem. CO2 is more of a global problem. It is a colorless, odorless gas that exists naturally in our atmosphere. CO2 is essential for life. Plant life depends on it. Plants draw in CO2 and release oxygen. We breath in oxygen and exhale CO2. Some plants, like corn, really like CO2. They thrive on it. The more the better. If not for the greenhouse affect man-made CO2 would be not be a danger to anyone.

Man-made CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels. The CO2 from fossil fuels was removed from our atmosphere millions of years ago. Releasing it adds to the natural CO2 that is a part of today's live cycle. But we cannot exist without fossil fuels. Our population is too big. Beside fossil fuels allow the masses to live at a level of comfort that only kings had a few hundred of years ago. We rely on fossil fuels for transportation, to heat and cool our homes, to preserve our food (refrigerators and freezers),to power our appliances, etc. Without modern farming, which depends on fossil fuels, we could not feed our population.

To solve our ecological problems, many believe we need to go to a utopian type existence, to a simpler, more local, less resource driven life. They envision small self-sustaining communities (Houston is not one of them.) with subsistence farming and solar panels on our homes. The only problem with their vision is about 95% of us must die and the rest must live without very many creature comforts.

Something most Americans don't understand. Poor in the United States is having a cell phone, an apartment, a car, and a television. Poor in other countries is living in a hut with a dirt floor cooking over an open campfire. A lot of people in other countries don't understand why the western nations are trying to prevent them from using fossil fuels. They don't understand why they can't have a better life as well. Why do they have to live in a dirt floor hut, suffer cold and heat, and eat rotted food when they could build a coal burning electrical generating plant, have cheap energy and live a better life? It is just proof that the great colonial powers are still trying to dominate them. That is one of the reason third world nations are demanding transfer payments. (As if any of the money would reach the poor.)

To get completely off fossil fuels would requires the people in developed countries to go back toward that type of life.

I hope this helps you understand why there is resistance. Any danger from CO2 is centuries away but restricting the use of fossil fuels causes real human suffering today.

ProCharger P-1SC, 9 psi, STD 396/383; Uncorrected 388/375; SAE 383/370.
Ret. USAF 1969-1973,1980-1996: Vietnam veteran. Aircraft maintenance. R & D, ICBM Operations.
Also own: 1997 Harley FXDWG, 1998 F-150, and 2002 Corvette LS1

Last edited by Eagle2000GT; March 5th, 2015 at 11:52 AM.
Eagle2000GT is offline  
post #132 of 462 Old March 5th, 2015, 12:25 PM
I Post Entirely Way Too Much
 
Novanutcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 6,093
               
iTrader: 0 reviews
Lots of conjecture but a lot of your points have already been discussed so I will leave it at that.

John

SOLD - '03 GT, Max Moto Max Grip Box, Wilwood SL 6 front/DL4 rear Big Brake Kit, Corbeau Seats, MGW Short Shifter, MAC Long Tube Headers/Prochamber mid/ Flowmaster 40, FRPP 4.10, TrickFlow Diff Cover/75mm TB/Plenum, Eaton Posi, Moser 31 spl Axles
Novanutcase is offline  
post #133 of 462 Old March 5th, 2015, 12:30 PM
missippi roolz
 
socialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,226
         
iTrader: 3 reviews
Haha. No, I know the difference between smog and CO2. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive though.

Our most prominent form of vehicle engine results in the creation of H2O and CO2. An overabundance of CO2 causes harm to the world's ecosystem. That same exhaust that produces CO2 also produces smog.

If you clean up a vehicle's exhaust, you are going to both reduce the propensity of smog as well as the volume of CO2 it puts out. There are a huge amount of people, obviously a majority in the car scene, that believe that regulations put forth to reduce engine emissions are retarded for one reason or another - because it's some hippy shit or whatever.

I'm saying, if you believe the regulations are stupid because you don't believe the emissions are actually contributing to climate change, you can at least look at the smog in metropolitan areas as tangible evidence that emissions from vehicles (just a small example, I understand there are other contributing factors besides vehicles) truly do have some sort of negative effect on our well-being as well as our, at the very least, local environment. If you clean up emissions to reduce the smog over cities, be it using hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, whatever, you are going to inherently reduce the volume of CO2 produced by those vehicles. To one person, they see that the smog problem gets reduced, to another, they see that both smog is reduced and have the feel-good feeling of knowing that CO2 is being reduced, just in case human's CO2 production is truly a factor in climate change.

I completely understand the implications of removing cheap fossil fuels overnight and how that would effect the parts of the world in which day-to-day survival is more at the forefront than what's going to happen 100+ years from now. It's our duty, as a nation that has the fortunate position to devote resources to researching future technology, to figure out what alternatives they are and how to make them as cheap as fossil fuels.

You can give gearheads a 1000 HP car that gets 1000 miles per gallon and there's going to be some doofus that bitches about it because the EPA got rid of their precious V8 or forced Cummins to reduce 99% of their diesel emissions with Tier IV regulations. It just doesn't make sense to me. There's almost no downside in TRYING to slowly reduce our output and there are ways of doing it that don't crumble the infrastructure of humanity and don't force every human being to drive pedal-powered vehicles.

“A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.” (Mark 14:51-52)
socialist is offline  
post #134 of 462 Old March 5th, 2015, 01:44 PM
US Air Force (retired)
 
Eagle2000GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 13,519
                     
Garage
iTrader: 1 reviews
I agree. Electric cars were never a viable alternative to gasoline powered cars in most of the country. They are getting better but they have long charge times, limited mileage especially if you have to run the heater, and whether they are better or not depends upon the source of the electricity. Hydropower, yes. Coal, no.

Hybrids are really the answers but they have only been mass produced for maybe 20 years and the cost is just now getting down to make them affordable. Ford's ecoboost turbocharged 300 horsepower 4-cylinder is another step in the right direction. I never buy new cars. When I buy a car I look for low mileage 10-year old cars. For me the ecoboost is a better option than a hybrid. I've researched the cost of replacing the batteries. That is not a repair I want to make on a used car.

These are steps in the right direction but it will take time to replace all of the cars currently on the road.

A greater impact would be to replace coal electrical generating plants with natural gas generating plants. We are sitting on one of the world's largest natural gas reserves. It is estimated to last us a couple of centuries. Natural gas has a much lower footprint than coal yet some environmentalist. Companies have an economic incentive to change because natural gas generation is less expensive than coal generation. Yet those wanting us to live a simpler life are protesting the building of natural gas plants at every turn.

We can plant trees. My wife and I have planted several trees on our property. Trees take CO2 out of the air and store it. But we do not want to replace grain farms with tree farms. I question whether deciduous trees which are dormant in the winter scrub more CO2 than corn. And we need the corn to feed ourselves.

ProCharger P-1SC, 9 psi, STD 396/383; Uncorrected 388/375; SAE 383/370.
Ret. USAF 1969-1973,1980-1996: Vietnam veteran. Aircraft maintenance. R & D, ICBM Operations.
Also own: 1997 Harley FXDWG, 1998 F-150, and 2002 Corvette LS1
Eagle2000GT is offline  
post #135 of 462 Old March 5th, 2015, 06:50 PM
I Post Entirely Way Too Much
 
Novanutcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 6,093
               
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
I agree. Electric cars were never a viable alternative to gasoline powered cars in most of the country. They are getting better but they have long charge times, limited mileage especially if you have to run the heater, and whether they are better or not depends upon the source of the electricity. Hydropower, yes. Coal, no.

Hybrids are really the answers but they have only been mass produced for maybe 20 years and the cost is just now getting down to make them affordable. Ford's ecoboost turbocharged 300 horsepower 4-cylinder is another step in the right direction. I never buy new cars. When I buy a car I look for low mileage 10-year old cars. For me the ecoboost is a better option than a hybrid. I've researched the cost of replacing the batteries. That is not a repair I want to make on a used car.
I agree that electric cars aren't really the answer as the energy source they use to power them typically will come from the very dirty source the electric car is trying to mitigate. Until we are able to mitigate the CO2 out of energy production from start to finish it will never be truly "green". I also agree that hybrids are a good stepping stone to oil independence although I'm much more concerned about the carbon footprint that gets left behind all the parts needed to build a "green" car. How green can a car be if to build it leaves a huge carbon footprint behind?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
A greater impact would be to replace coal electrical generating plants with natural gas generating plants. We are sitting on one of the world's largest natural gas reserves. It is estimated to last us a couple of centuries. Natural gas has a much lower footprint than coal yet some environmentalist. Companies have an economic incentive to change because natural gas generation is less expensive than coal generation. Yet those wanting us to live a simpler life are protesting the building of natural gas plants at every turn.
While I agree with you that it would be better to have natural gas fired plants who would foot the bill for the retrofit? The only way you would be able to get industry to comply with that thought would be to mandate it the same way they do now but conservatives are against mandating greener energy solutions claiming that it is eating into the bottom line of the companies/Kill jobs/turn the country to socialism, etc.(Just kidding about the socialism part!) that would have to foot the bill along with their opposition to forcing companies to do things as they are in the "choice" camp for everything but abortion. Conservatives have a point but I think rather than be completely against it it would be best to try and find some sort of middle ground that would make sense for both business and the environment.

I really liked Shanes idea(03sonicboom) about CO2 bubblers. This type of approach would lower CO2 emissions from coal fired plants without them having to retrofit or replace their steam generators. Much less intrusive in regards to the daily operation of the plant so minimal downtime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
We can plant trees. My wife and I have planted several trees on our property. Trees take CO2 out of the air and store it. But we do not want to replace grain farms with tree farms. I question whether deciduous trees which are dormant in the winter scrub more CO2 than corn. And we need the corn to feed ourselves.
While I agree that more plants will help I don't think their is enough acreage available to really make a difference here in the US. Before anything what we need to really be concerned with is the need to halt the deforestation of the Amazon jungles but Brazil/Peru/Colombia are emerging industrial nations and don't want to halt that process regardless of the damage it has and is doing to the global oxygen supply. That and the acidification of our oceans. The Amazon jungle provides more than 20 percent of all the oxygen we breathe today. Our oceans provide over half the oxygen we breathe today. Phytoplankton is the main source of oxygen production in the ocean and the acidification of our oceans through the increase in CO2/Acid rain and changing weather patterns through climate change are diminishing these vital animals.

These are the impacts that a lot of climate deniers don't take into account. It's not just how CO2 impacts us directly but the delicate balance our ecosystem has in being able to produce what we need as a species to continue living on this blue ball!

John

SOLD - '03 GT, Max Moto Max Grip Box, Wilwood SL 6 front/DL4 rear Big Brake Kit, Corbeau Seats, MGW Short Shifter, MAC Long Tube Headers/Prochamber mid/ Flowmaster 40, FRPP 4.10, TrickFlow Diff Cover/75mm TB/Plenum, Eaton Posi, Moser 31 spl Axles

Last edited by Novanutcase; March 5th, 2015 at 08:20 PM.
Novanutcase is offline  
post #136 of 462 Old March 10th, 2015, 03:44 AM Thread Starter
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,047
           
iTrader: 1 reviews
EPA Chief doesn’t know whether climate model projections are accurate

“I do not know what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to”

EPA Chief Gina McCarthy struggled to answer questions, at a recent Senate Environment and Public Works committee hearing, refusing to provide immediate answers even to basic questions, such as whether IPCC climate models were skilful at forecasting global temperature. The EPA is seeking an inflation busting 6% increase to their budget.
According to Yellow Hammer News (video below)

“Would you acknowledge that over the last 18 years,” Sessions asked, “that the increase in temperature has been very little, and that it is well below, matter of fact 90 percent below most of the environmental models that showed how fast temperature would increase?”
“I do not know what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to,” McCarthy responded.
“This is a stunning development,” Sessions shot back, “that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency—who should know more than anybody else in the world, who is imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in cost to prevent this climate temperature increase—doesn’t know whether their projections have been right or wrong.”

A video of the question and answer session between McCarthy and Sessions:


Based on Gina’s performance, it seems likely the EPA will face significant ongoing opposition to its request for a budget increase.

2010 CGM Camaro 2SS RS 6L90
Stage II ProCharger D1X
760rwhp @ 14 PSI

JohnC is online now  
post #137 of 462 Old March 10th, 2015, 04:26 AM
Pawsitively sexy
 
Sixpointslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lower Sussex, DE
Posts: 10,564
                   
iTrader: 0 reviews
Turning a budget meeting into political folly. That is a perfect example of how fucked up the GOP is on this issue.

2012 CTS-V

Not stock


Sixpointslow is offline  
post #138 of 462 Old March 10th, 2015, 04:29 AM Thread Starter
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,047
           
iTrader: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixpointslow View Post
Turning a budget meeting into political folly. That is a perfect example of how fucked up the GOP is on this issue.
Yeah, like the clowns need a 6x budget increase for a problem that doesn't realy exist. The cat's out of the bag.

We're cooling... Not warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...cientists.html

2010 CGM Camaro 2SS RS 6L90
Stage II ProCharger D1X
760rwhp @ 14 PSI

JohnC is online now  
post #139 of 462 Old March 10th, 2015, 04:57 AM
Pawsitively sexy
 
Sixpointslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lower Sussex, DE
Posts: 10,564
                   
iTrader: 0 reviews
Do you think playing political games is acceptable when it's to your benefit? Do you think making a mockery of a budget meeting is excusable as long as it makes some sweet headlines on Breitbart and the Blaze? Of course, because you're being outstandingly hypocritical here. There were valid concerns raised over the proposed budget, but Senator Sessions did nothing more then go down the tired old list of poor skeptic arguments.

And when you say things like "we're cooling, not warming" in the context of a discussion on climate change, you're only showing how ignorant you are on the topic.

2012 CTS-V

Not stock


Sixpointslow is offline  
post #140 of 462 Old March 10th, 2015, 05:19 AM Thread Starter
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,047
           
iTrader: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixpointslow View Post
Do you think playing political games is acceptable when it's to your benefit? Do you think making a mockery of a budget meeting is excusable as long as it makes some sweet headlines on Breitbart and the Blaze? Of course, because you're being outstandingly hypocritical here. There were valid concerns raised over the proposed budget, but Senator Sessions did nothing more then go down the tired old list of poor skeptic arguments.

And when you say things like "we're cooling, not warming" in the context of a discussion on climate change, you're only showing how ignorant you are on the topic.
So you deny we're cooling now?

Because even your UN IPCC scientists are admitting it (they call it a pause in warming because they can't admit we're cooling at the moment).

2010 CGM Camaro 2SS RS 6L90
Stage II ProCharger D1X
760rwhp @ 14 PSI


Last edited by JohnC; March 17th, 2015 at 01:48 AM.
JohnC is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Forums at Modded Mustangs forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome