Ceramic Tile Advice Forums - John Bridge Ceramic Tile

Welcome to John Bridge / Tile Your World, the friendliest DIY Forum on the Internet


Advertiser Directory
JohnBridge.com Home
Buy John Bridge's Books

Go Back   Ceramic Tile Advice Forums - John Bridge Ceramic Tile > Tile & Stone Forums > The Mud Box

Sponsors


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Unread 04-04-2015, 07:03 PM   #226
cx
Moderator emeritus
 
cx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Boerne, Texas
Posts: 89,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravin's NASA article
"Despite considerable advances in recent decades, estimating the direct climate impacts of aerosols remains an immature science."
Which didn't keep your government from banning the manufacture and use of R-12 and R-22 back twenty or so years ago, eh? We don't need no steenkin' science!
__________________
CX

Y'ALL NEW VISITORS READ THIS HERE!
cx is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-04-2015, 08:41 PM   #227
blue_can
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 556
Umm...don't you mean your govt cx

Ozone depletion is a different thing and yes you're correct - there is controversy on that too but it is generally accepted these days as halogens in halogenated hydrocarbon refrigerants such as R-12 and R-22 do cause ozone depletion.

It is not clear from the report if the aerosols in question include ODP refrigerants. What I did not get from that report is whether these aerosols do have harmful content or is toxic in other ways. Probably in there but I did not read it in detail. Of course this may form a foundation for controlled use of non-toxic aerosols for help with greenhouse gas effects.

In general though I don't think the ac/refrigeration industry has not suffered too much by switching to non ODP refrigerants. In some cases there are benefits - R-410a for example has better heat absorption capability to R-22 - that why a lot of R-410a ac units with comparable tonnage to R-22 have smaller condenser unit and evaporators.

The phase out is definitely an issue for those of us who own R-22 systems. The drop in blends do not perform as well and may require oil changeout.
__________________
Ravin
blue_can is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-05-2015, 06:43 AM   #228
HS345
Tile Contractor
 
HS345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sherrodsville, Ohio
Posts: 6,577
With the last couple of winters we've had, I don't think we need no steenkin' "controlled use of non-toxic aerosols for help with greenhouse gas effects". That's all we need, moronic "scientists" attempting to mess with the atmosphere.
__________________
The name's Greg
HS345 is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-05-2015, 10:31 AM   #229
jvcstone
Stone Carver
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: woods of North Texas
Posts: 1,827
What the report is saying, is the same thing many (denier) scientists have been saying---the science is not completely understood, there are too many known and unknown factors that effect climate, and the "science is settled" BS is exactly that---BS. It is also saying that aerosols may not have had as much of a cooling effect during the 50's and 60's while CO2 continued to rise as some claim

All the hysteria is coming from a political driven agency, and is based on computer models that do NOT include all variables, and so far have Not proven to be very accurate anyway. Shoot, the 10 day forecast changes everyday--if they can't accurately predict the weather next week, how can they possible predict what is going to happen 20-50 years down the line?? Answer--they can't.

JVC
__________________
Come visit me at www.hunkerdownranch.com

-- John VanCamp
we should not accept something as true until it has been officially denied!
jvcstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-05-2015, 10:57 AM   #230
blue_can
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcvstone
(denier) scientists
Who are you referring to exactly - the people who believe in global warming or those who believe it does not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvcstone
based on computer models that do NOT include all variables
What variables are missing in the model and how would you propose to create a realistic model the for the situation?
__________________
Ravin
blue_can is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-05-2015, 10:58 AM   #231
cx
Moderator emeritus
 
cx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Boerne, Texas
Posts: 89,556
Ravin, have you ever seen a single reputable (or even not so reputable) study that had demonstrated that a molecule of Freon could in any way destroy a molecule of Ozone?

Still the Freon was said, by the government, to be causing giant holes in the Ozone layer around the globe and banned the manufacture and use of such products.

Where was the science for that one?
__________________
CX

Y'ALL NEW VISITORS READ THIS HERE!
cx is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-05-2015, 12:41 PM   #232
T_Hulse
Tile Contractor
 
T_Hulse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,332
John you cherry-picked 4 climate scientists from that link to try to show 'variation' in their education, to justify also using your non-climate-scientists as sources. Here is a more realistic version of those 4:
Dr. Michael Mann - PhD Geophysics, Yale University, named by Scientific American as one of 50 leading visionaries in science and technology, many other degrees & awards. A leading true-blue research scientist & educator in climate study.
Dr. James Hansen - PhD Physics, University of Iowa, member of the National Academy of Sciences (one of the highest honors in science), one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People, along with many other notable science awards. Formerly head of Goddard Institute for Space Studies, currently director of the Program on Climate Science at Columbia University. An epic, key, research scientist.
Dr. Kathleen Miller - National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado. PhD in economics from the University of Washington. Works on the possible future economic effects of global warming, not on the type of climate science you are inferring; and it was made clear at the link where you found her.
Dr. Aiguo Dai - PhD Atmospheric Science, Columbia University. Currently a professor of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences at Albany. 83 peer-reviewed articles & books on climate science. Cited by other scientists over 8200 times. Works on Climate variability and change, future climate change, the global water cycle, hydroclimate, drought, Asian monsoons, and climate data analysis.
So four solid, hardworking, respected, well-educated and highly awarded scientists working and publishing every day on just climate science. Lets compare to the 'experts' you've been quoting:
James Taylor - a slippery lawyer blogger (not scientist, not an author in the real Forbes Magazine) that gets his money from big oil to lie about climate science. His current employer (Heartland) is a key cog in the corporate denial machine (that's not just climate denial, they'll deny anything for a buck). He's been called out by scientific study authors for misrepresenting their work, but still republishes the lies and refuses to recant the hogwash. John, he lied to YOU, telling you a majority of scientists are skeptical of global warming, and you had to pretend like you knew all along that was merely tar-sands oil industry geologists (and even most of them still believe in AGW!, do you agree with them?), and made you look like a fool (above) for drinking the kool-aid and mindlessly repeating his lies without even a simple Google double-check.
David Rose - tabloid journalist (!), another liar & truth-twister non-scientist who has been consistently debunked by real scientists. He makes wild claims that no one seriously believes; without even understanding the science he is commenting on. His bunk only sounds good if you are a self-believer who doesn't want to honestly check facts and only looks for talking points to support a previous world view. Not part of the pro denier machine, but as a tabloid journalist will say anything, twist anything for a sensational buck. Look him up. Seriously slimy.
Dr Tim Ball - PhD in Historical Geography, University of Winnipeg. He's not criticized "for being just a geographer" as you claim. He's famous for lying about his climate credentials (while getting his money, again, from big oil).
Dr. Roy Spencer - PhD in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA, where he was a specialist in the technology of satellites (not the planet), and in that way tangentially became a "climate scientist". Because of his radical quasi-religious & biased climate views, leveraged the NASA gig into a real climate science denier career. At first his peer-reviewed articles were published in major journals due to his nice credentials. Now, because of serious repetitive mistakes (that he has acknowledged), and because he doesn't acknowledge or comment on previous conflicting science as part of his work (as is required of every scientist), no one will publish him but the most obscure, non-related journals. The errors in his last one cost the editor of that obscure journal his job for publishing the mistakes with a biased denier-only peer review panel that missed them. So he's actually an expert in satellite technology (not the planet), biased, error-prone, widely discredited, humiliated.
Chris Horner - another really slimy lawyer and professional climate denier for the the Competitive Enterprise Institute. You might think it's harsh to call them pro deniers, but that's what they actually do. CEI is a another major part of the pro denier cabal. They will deny ANYTHING for a corporate buck. Tobacco denial was one of their big ones, but also climate denial, pollution defender, chemical risks defense, food safety denial, and monopoly defense. You don't just hire lawyers or lobbyists anymore, now you hire professional "think tanks" to try to cast public doubt at any cost and no matter how overwhelming the science.


John, your world view, while it is honorable, has allowed you to fall victim to a massive, professional effort financed by mega corps to deceive you. They made a chump out of you, man. Quit drinking the kool-aid and try critically vetting your own sources for a change, instead of just posting easily-debunked rubbish. 97%-experts-AGW is real. I dare you to see the new Sony Pictures film "Merchants of Doubt", about these people you are using as "sources". I double dare you. The paid shills cried "conspiracy!" and you bought it... hook, line, and sinker.
__________________
Tom Hulse
Visit my web site here
T_Hulse is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-05-2015, 02:07 PM   #233
Oldrem
Registered User
 
Oldrem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kenosha, WI
Posts: 1,096
Send a message via Yahoo to Oldrem
Mathematicians have calculated the impossibility of man made global change. There has been no change in the worlds temperatures since the early 2000's yet some of you hang on to the notion that we can change what nature deals us. The big business here that continues to try and fog the minds of the masses is that of the global change market - billions have been spent trying to prove hypothetical ideas that true science and mathematics cannot.
__________________
Eric

Lifetime DIYer, Cowboy Action shooter, Gun collector

http://www.computer-adventure.com
Oldrem is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-05-2015, 04:20 PM   #234
T_Hulse
Tile Contractor
 
T_Hulse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,332
Eric, I'm sorry, but all of that is just plain wrong. Try looking a little deeper than just skeptic web sites. 93.4% of all increased heat from the sun is quickly stored in the ocean, not the atmosphere. So, by using only atmospheric temperatures (comparatively minuscule importance to overall GW) you can imagine how easy it is for paid corporate denial machine to manufacture fake facts that have been widely and easily debunked. Just look, it's as easy as pie to find the facts, like here and here, if you are honest and willing to do searches that conflict with previous world view. Look at any real science for goodness sake! They all say the total global warming trend has been still rising, if you don't cheat by leaving out over 90% of the total.
__________________
Tom Hulse
Visit my web site here
T_Hulse is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-05-2015, 05:28 PM   #235
jvcstone
Stone Carver
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: woods of North Texas
Posts: 1,827
First of all Tom, I haven't "cherry Picked" any more than you have. You mention again Horne, who I said when I first mentioned his book was a lawyer for a oil company funded outfit ---doesn't mean that his book is nothing but BS--Have you read it???

The AGW hysterics are quick to label any contrarian viewpoints as being from "deniers"--a modern way of discrediting someone without having to answer the science. I guess that you can stick with the science is settled if you want, but many many scientist would disagree with that assumption, and quite a few who formerly were on the AGW bandwagon have since joined the "deniers" side

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18889-desperate-dash-of-global-warming
Prominent AGW “defectors” include Dr. Judith Curry, professor of climatology and chair of the Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences; Dr. Patrick Moore, chemist/ecologist/activist co-founder of Greenpeace and former director of Greenpeace International; Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a leader in the European environmental movement and “green” energy; Dr. Richard S. J. Tol, IPCC author and professor at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, Netherlands; and Dr. James Lovelock, inventor/scientist/ecologist and formulator of the “Gaia hypothesis.”
The same article has a long list of prominent anti AGW scientists and their credentials, along with this interesting quote from Dr. Michael Hulme of East Anglia University (a strong AGW school)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Hulme
“Climate change seems to fall in this category” of post-normal science, he writes. “Disputes in post-normal science focus [as much] … on the process of science — who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy — as on the facts of science.”

Truth is not the objective of the post-normal advocates. In fact, the old-fashioned scientific pursuit of truth is counterproductive to the post-normal crowd. “The danger of a ‘normal’ reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow,” Hulme says.

Within “normal” science, Hulme says, “exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences.” And he sees that as a problem. He writes:

Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists — and politicians — must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.

“The function of climate change … really is not about stopping climate chaos,” Hulme concedes. “Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change — the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals — to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.”
In other words,ignore (or modify) the scientific facts in order to promote social change.
The entire article is well worth reading if one is interested in what the IPCC hysteria is really about--I won't waste space by quoting any more.

As I said before, I choose to believe the skeptics side of the issue, based on 50 years as a geologist who has never stopped reading about earth science. You choose to believe your side based on whatever--I have no idea of your background. However, in light of what the aims of the 2015 Paris meeting are, you might take some time and answer the problems I mentioned in my post on energy alternatives--what do you (and the bandwagon you are on) propose to do about the worlds energy needs until such time as alternatives become viable??? That's really the crux of the problem.

Ravin--"deniers" would be the skeptics--No one denies that climate is a bit warmer than in the 1880's--but since climate is always changing, and we are well within recent paleoclimate ranges, (and even historic ranges) the "skeptics" dare to question that man is the causal agent, and not the numerous other factors that have been responsible for climatic changes for the past 4.5 billion years.

JVC
__________________
Come visit me at www.hunkerdownranch.com

-- John VanCamp
we should not accept something as true until it has been officially denied!
jvcstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-05-2015, 07:24 PM   #236
blue_can
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by cx
Ravin, have you ever seen a single reputable (or even not so reputable) study that had demonstrated that a molecule of Freon could in any way destroy a molecule of Ozone?

Still the Freon was said, by the government, to be causing giant holes in the Ozone layer around the globe and banned the manufacture and use of such products.

Where was the science for that one?
cx - I cannot claim to have looked deep into the science behind refrigerants and ozone depletion - the little I know comes from the HVAC course I took a year ago - I'm both EPA 608 universal and EPA 609 certified. Therefore I can refer you to Wikipedia and the related article there - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion. The little I know is that a lot of this is based on the Rowland-Molina hypothesis on ozone depletion for which I believe they won the Nobel prize so I would imagine there is some substance to their work. I do know some of it is based on observations of the ozone depletion and the correlating levels of CFCs and HCFCs in the atmosphere. But if you want to get into the actual chemistry - the traditional refrigerants are formed by adding halogens such as Chlorine and Fluorine to Hydrocarbons. When CFCs and HCFCs reach the upper atmosphere the chlorine binds to the Ozone breaking down the O3 into O2 and forming ClO which then goes on to attack other O3 molecules.

Since you don't believe any of this (which is what I take from your post) what evidence do you have to present to the contrary?

Other than the US most major govts recognize this as an issue and is transitioning away from CFC and HCFC based refrigerants and aerosols.

You can expect more change to come. It has now been shown that refrigerants such as R-134a and R-410a have large global warming potential - I think R-134a is about 1300 times that of CO2. Current candidates being looked at are HFO-1234YF and CO2. It is likely refrigerators and freezers will use hydrocarbons such as propane and isobutane (R-600a). It is already happening in other parts of the world and the EPA I believe has now approved of them in the US.

Moving to more efficient and greener refrigerants is a good thing IMO.
__________________
Ravin
blue_can is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-05-2015, 07:27 PM   #237
blue_can
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldrem
Mathematicians have calculated the impossibility of man made global change.
Any links to the papers or scientific work for what you claim?
__________________
Ravin
blue_can is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-05-2015, 08:34 PM   #238
mullet
░░░░░░░
 
mullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,258
Ok so we are at 16 pages and we could argue this till a meteor hit the planet and kills everyone. Now who is going to tell me how to fix the temp issue?
__________________
chuck
my first Kerdi Shower
mullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-06-2015, 08:52 AM   #239
jvcstone
Stone Carver
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: woods of North Texas
Posts: 1,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
Now who is going to tell me how to fix the temp issue?
Can't fix what isn't broken. Momma nature rules in spite of what man thinks. Any effort to engineer the climate will have multiple unintended consequences, just like every other effort we make to control nature does.

Just relax, and enjoy a bit warmer planet (if that actually comes to pass) for a while. The higher CO2 levels will be a boon for all the green growing things. Greenland wasn't named that because it was covered by an ice sheet when the vikings settled there during the medieval warm period.

Raven--I forgot to answer your second question. The variables that drive climate here on earth include solar output (which is far from a constant),amount of cloud cover and type, amounts of aerosols and atmospheric dust (both land and space derived), the multidecadal ocean cycles, the degree of tilt towards or away from the sun of the earth's rotational axis (constantly changing just like a top wobbles), the type of and amount of cosmic radiation hitting the atmosphere, and just where the sun (and solar system) are in it's journey around the center of the galaxy--the 225-250 million year long cosmic year.
How do you make a computer program to include all that--don't believe it's possible.

JVC
__________________
Come visit me at www.hunkerdownranch.com

-- John VanCamp
we should not accept something as true until it has been officially denied!
jvcstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-06-2015, 09:58 AM   #240
cx
Moderator emeritus
 
cx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Boerne, Texas
Posts: 89,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by JVC
...just where the sun (and solar system) are in it's journey around the center of the galaxy--the 225-250 million year long cosmic year.
Don't know that I've ever heard that before, John.

Although, the sun's pretty old in our terms, looks like it don't get a lotta birthday parties, eh?
__________________
CX

Y'ALL NEW VISITORS READ THIS HERE!
cx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Stonetooling.com   Tile-Assn.com   National Gypsum Permabase


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Global Warming ddmoit The Mud Box 154 12-09-2008 11:29 PM
Eating Kangaroos could help fight global warming ceramictec The Mud Box 8 10-02-2008 06:16 PM
More global warming hypocrisy HS345 The Mud Box 37 07-19-2008 10:51 PM
Canadians and their beer fridges are the cause of global warming! Rob Z The Mud Box 40 12-05-2007 12:34 PM
global warming customceramicsllc The Mud Box 14 01-10-2007 01:46 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:23 AM.


Sponsors

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2018 John Bridge & Associates, LLC