PDA

View Full Version : Assault and moonbattery!



LWW
08-28-2011, 06:20 PM
Increases in greenhouse gases ... which are claimed to cause global warming ... have caused a halt to global warming! (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704)

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 08:13 PM
Yes, you have assaulted and moonbattered the truth with your link title.

Sulphur is a particulate aerosol, not a greenhouse gas.

The claim is that 'dirty' burning of 'dirty' hydrocarbons has created this atmospheric rise in sulphur in the air, and that has cooled the earth enough to temporarily halt the warming trend.

It's about the same with volcanic events. When Krakatoa blew its top, it created the famous 'year without summer,' from the cooling effects of its shooting a large amount of ash and other material into the atmosphere, helping to block the sun's radiation from reaching the ground.

I'm thinking you knew this, and decided to play a cynical game with this post. Because it's not tricky, and blatantly obvious. That, or you are quite ignorant about this general topic, as with others?

LWW
08-29-2011, 01:22 AM
Don't blame me because the Goremons believe in jumk science:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(Reuters) - Smoke belching from Asia's rapidly growing economies is largely responsible for a halt in global warming in the decade after 1998 because of sulphur's cooling effect, even though greenhouse gas emissions soared, a U.S. study said on Monday.

The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.

World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show.</div></div>

The claim has long been that pollution causes AGW ... specifically the greenhouse gases contained within them.

The new claim is that the pollution which causes the greenhouse gases is the reason the greenhouse gases haven't caused AGW to continue ... and that AGW will accelerate once the pollution is cracked down upon.

The implied third claim is that allowing the pollution to continue ... which would increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere even further ... is the only proven means of stopping AGW.

Dude ... the Goremons are at this point going to unbelievable links to keep the congregation loyal to the faith.

Soflasnapper
08-29-2011, 11:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fox News Confuses Sulfur Pollution with Greenhouse Gases

By Joe Romm on Jul 5, 2011 at 9:27 pm

Here is my headline: “Study: Hottest Decade on Record Would Have Been Even Hotter But for Chinese Coal Plant Sulfur Pollution.”

Here is the Reuters headline: “Asia pollution blamed for halt in warming: study.”

The FOX NationHere is the Fox News headline (for the same Reuters story): “Reuters Bombshell: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduce Global Warming.”

Seriously. Or, rather, unseriously. Sulfur pollution is not a greenhouse gas. Quite the reverse, as the Reuters article Fox News links to makes clear. Indeed, its ability to cool the globe has been known for many, many decades.

I suppose it is too generous to claim that Fox Nation “a conservative news website operated by the Fox News Channel” is merely confusing sulfur pollution with greenhouse gases. By now, they must know their headline is dead wrong. They just don’t care (see Warning: “Greater exposure” to Fox News will lead to “increased misinformation” on policy issues, especially climate science).

As Media Matters reports, the study’s lead author, Robert Kaufmann, denounced the headline as “patently false” via email:

Now come the worst part of publishing an article on a topic of general interest … the distortions. Sulfur emissions ARE NOT GREENHOUSE GASES and the article carefully separates the two. Sulfur emissions are known as radiatively active gases because they reflect incoming solar radiation back to space. But they are not greenhouse gases, which affect Earth’s energy balance by absorbing out-going long wave radiation. So the headline is PATENTLY FALSE….

Sulfur emissions are bad air pollutants–with severe health (e.g. respiratory disease that contribute to tens of thousands of deaths) and environmental effects (acid deposition, which makes entire lakes lifeless). I am no an expert in this area, but these effects are the reasons that all industrial nations have strict limits on sulfur emissions and now developing nations are scrubbing their emissions too.

The Media Matters story notes:

The Associated Press also reported that “sulfur’s cooling effect is only temporary, while the carbon dioxide from coal burning stays in Earth’s atmosphere a long time.” The new study suggests that as China and other developing nations begin to control their sulfur emissions, it will be more difficult for the long-term global warming trend to hide.

Kaufmann himself has also pointed out the study is the furthest thing from evidence that we should keep listening to the deniers of Fox News and keep delaying action to reduce GHG emissions:

“If anything the paper suggests that reductions in carbon emissions will be more important as China installs scrubbers [on its coal-fired power stations], which reduce sulphur emissions. This, and solar insolation increasing as part of the normal solar cycle, [will mean] temperature is likely to increase faster.”

Related Post: </div></div>

LWW
08-30-2011, 03:24 AM
You can deny that the article says what it says ... but it still says what it says.

Soflasnapper
08-30-2011, 05:46 PM
Yes it does, but not what you wrongly say it says, mischaracterizing its meaning.

Your ridicule is a tactic that pretends an easily understood difference cannot be understood at all (possibly true for yourself and fellow 'thinkers'), and must be ridiculous.

But it sounds funny to the rubes, and so your side resorts to its left-becomes-right Alinsky tactics.

I'd think you'd be embarrassed to associate yourself with the former hard left that became the hard right, but kept their propagandistic tendencies intact. But what am I saying??? You have no shame or integrity, or you'd never post half of what you post.

LWW
08-31-2011, 03:50 AM
It is truly comical what lengths you will go to in order to defend the Obama regime's ideology. hat's funnier still is how vehemently you will deny doing it ... while you are doing it.

From the article, let's review:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show. </div></div>

Meaning that man made carbon emissions raised the green house gases which are claimed to cause GW.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The researchers from Boston and Harvard Universities and Finland's University of Turku said pollution, and specifically sulphur emissions, from coal-fueled growth in Asia was responsible for the cooling effect. </div></div>

Meaning that carbon emissions ... that raised the green house gases which are claimed to cause GW ... caused global cooling.

In closing:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role," the paper said. </div></div>

But ... I have an unfair advantage in that I read the article.

Soflasnapper
08-31-2011, 04:38 PM
Sure, and that carbon = sulfur, simply closes the case! Very tidy.

Qtec
09-04-2011, 03:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure, and that carbon = sulfur, simply closes the case! Very tidy. </div></div>

Geez. What a moron. At least he admits there is a link between global temp and man made emissions.

This info only goes to support the GD theory.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We are all seeing rather less of the Sun. Scientists looking at five decades of sunlight measurements have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface has been gradually falling. Paradoxically, the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought.

The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel. Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation. "There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me," he says.

Intrigued, he searched out records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked, with sunlight falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the British Isles. Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to 1-2% globally per decade between the 1950s and the 1990s.

Gerry called the phenomenon global dimming, but his research, published in 2001, met with a sceptical response from other scientists. It was only recently, when his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming.

Dimming appears to be caused by air pollution. Burning coal, oil and wood, whether in cars, power stations or cooking fires, produces not only invisible carbon dioxide (the principal greenhouse gas responsible for global warming) but also tiny airborne particles of soot, ash, sulphur compounds and other pollutants.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>This visible air pollution reflects sunlight back into space, preventing it reaching the surface. But the pollution also changes the optical properties of clouds. Because the particles seed the formation of water droplets, polluted clouds contain a larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. Recent research shows that this makes them more reflective than they would otherwise be, again reflecting the Sun's rays back into space.</span> </div></div>

watch the docu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLfBXRPoHRc)

Q

LWW
09-04-2011, 06:29 AM
Actually what I admit is that are people stupid enough to believe this junk science being spoon fed to them.