15 Responses to ** Hoboken Breakfast Nuggets – 1/4/2010 **

• 1. midtownauthentic January 4th 2010 - 07:25:47 |

  P

  Please email the girl who lost the wallet and tell her I will give her a new Coach wristlet for free. I am certain the girl is bummed and hopefully my gesture will bring a smile to her face?

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 2. jazzeru January 4th 2010 - 09:30:50 |

  A classic “watch the bird, pay no attention to the hand” article. This study is an example of how skeptics misunderstand the science. The study does not say that CO2 levels in the atmosphere aren’t rising, it says that the fraction of the increasing CO2 that goes into the atmosphere vs being absorbed by the oceans etc is remaining relatively constant.

  For instance if we are releasing 1000 times more CO2 now than in 1850, approx 43% of that remains in the atmosphere. Emssions have increased from near-zero in 1850 to nearly 30 billion mertic tonnes now, there is clearly a huge amount of man-made c02 in the atmosphere compared to 150 years ago – 43% of 30 billion tonnes is much more than 43% of next to nothing!

  1. Most carbon dioxide produced by human activity gets absorbed by the earth… Ok great but thanks to our massive industrial expansion that still leaves nearly 13 billion metric tonnes a year in man made CO2 that is not absorbed why should we feel good about that?

  2. And there has been no real change in the past 150 years… Well actually there’s been massive change in man made emmissions over the last 150 years, only the rate of absorbtion has remained relatively constant.

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 3. mooshu January 4th 2010 - 11:02:02 |

  The arctic dome of frigid air is going to especially suck for those of us who don’t have heat, thanks to an ancient, craptastic heating system that breaks down on the coldest nights!

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 4. HansBrix January 4th 2010 - 12:50:19 |

  Maybe the long term climate trend is actually global cooling – and the hot 90s was the blip. Maybe Time magazine (next ice age is nigh) was right in 1974.

  BTW anyone remember Paul Ehrlich? He predicted in the late 60s that the world would suffer over population/famine/mass die-offs/general ecological misery by the early 1980s. His book “Population Bomb” had dire warnings and recommended gubmint policy changes (and vocal followers) much like Al’s screeds today.

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 5. MidnightRacer January 4th 2010 - 15:29:16 |

  jazzeru wrote: “A classic “watch the bird, pay no attention to the hand” article. This study is an example of how skeptics misunderstand the science. The study does not say that CO2 levels in the atmosphere aren’t rising, it says that the fraction of the increasing CO2 that goes into the atmosphere vs being absorbed by the oceans etc is remaining relatively constant.”

  my response: The way I read it was that this recent reexamination of the “available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850″ by Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol contradicts the studies you refer to which have failed to make the case, as per faulty climate models, that airborne fraction of CO2 should be increasing. Knorr finds that after reanalyzing the data, there is actually no increase. That’s at odds at the studies the articles say rely on a decreasing ability of natural sequestration (as well as biosequestration) of CO2.

  jazzeru wrote: “For instance if we are releasing 1000 times more CO2 now than in 1850, approx 43% of that remains in the atmosphere. Emssions have increased from near-zero in 1850 to nearly 30 billion mertic tonnes now, there is clearly a huge amount of man-made c02 in the atmosphere compared to 150 years ago – 43% of 30 billion tonnes is much more than 43% of next to nothing!”

  my response: Humans contribute 5% of the CO2 into the atmosphere. Natural sources contribute 95%.
  ~600 million years ago, CO2 in the atmosphere was ~6000 ppm. Many ice ages came and went regardless of CO2 comprising 0.6% of the atmosphere. It didn’t matter what CO2 as ppm in the atmosphere – ice ages and warming periods came and went conditional upon a young active Sun and solar activity.

  During the Global Warming Period which ended roughly around the 1300’s (700 years ago), the British grew grapes that rivaled the French’s for wine in the U.K. (weird right?). During that G.W.P., CO@ was around 250 ppm (0.0250% of the atmosphere). Then it slowly increased to 315 ppm up through the Little Ice Age. Wow, are you serious? CO2 increased and global temperatures fell? No way!
  Today, it’s ~385 ppm (0.0385% of the atmosphere)

  jazzeru wrote: “1. Most carbon dioxide produced by human activity gets absorbed by the earth… Ok great but thanks to our massive industrial expansion that still leaves nearly 13 billion metric tonnes a year in man made CO2 that is not absorbed why should we feel good about that?
  2. And there has been no real change in the past 150 years… Well actually there’s been massive change in man made emmissions over the last 150 years, only the rate of absorbtion has remained relatively constant.”
  my response and summary: Humans contribute 5% of the CO2 into the atmosphere. Natural sources contribute 95%.
  600 million years ago, CO2 was 6000 ppm (0.6% of the atmosphere)
  During the GWP and LIA, CO2 was between 250 ppm to 315 ppm (0.0315% of the atmosphere)
  Today, CO2 is 385 ppm (0.0385% of the atmosphere)
  Humans contribute 5%, nature contributes 95%.
  The climate models Al Gore, IPCC scientists (the scandal), and AGW believers rely upon assumed that the ability for the planet to absorb CO2 was decreasing, which would predict CO2 would increase dramatically – it has not. The point of the article was that Knorr’s analysis of the data contradicts all the models. Unless I read the article in error.

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 6. MidnightRacer January 4th 2010 - 15:33:31 |

  I read the article again, and still reading it to say Knorr’s reexamination of the data contradicts the studies which assumed the airborne fraction of CO2 (past 150 years) CO2 should be rising due to the assumed decrease in ability of natural and biosequestration of CO2- when in fact they are not. Especially contradicting since developed and emerging nations (i.e. China and India) are increasing CO2 dramatically.

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 7. MidnightRacer January 4th 2010 - 15:38:24 |

  To be specific, Knorr’s reexamination of the data creates a problem for an article a year earlier:

  Global Warming From Carbon Dioxide Will Increase Five-Fold Over The Next Millennium, Scientists Predict
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090128104533.htm

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 8. MidnightRacer January 4th 2010 - 15:58:30 |

  Here’s a crazy experiment for everyone to try at home – create your own Global Warming experiment…

  Take a clear drinking glass and fill it with ice, then pour liquid water until the ice and water reach the top of the glass. Allow the glass of ice and water to sit and melt over a few hours. As the ice melts, will the water overflow the glass – just as AGW believers think melting glaciers will flood the planet? There will be slight condensation between cold and warm air around the glass, but besides that; a) how much water will overflow the glass, or b) will no water overflow the glass?

  Read this article:

  Sea Level Rise Due To Global Warming Poses Threat To New York City
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090315155112.htm

  Results:
  DO NOT READ (spoiler). Ever wondered why ice floats? Ice made of water, is the solid state of matter for H2O from a liquid. In it’s ice form, water molecules expand and increase the volume of space it takes as compared to liquid water – thus the water displacement moves away more water in weight than the ice weighs (ice is 9% less dense than liquid water). Ice floats on water because it’s less dense and the molecules and crystals spread themselves outward to take up more space.

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 9. YipYap January 4th 2010 - 16:16:25 |

  Don’t believe the hype folks Oil is used in allot of products that don’t go into your gas tank. Here is the real problem for an enterprising lefty tree hugger to solve. This is a physical issue, and not a political one.

  The basic deal with eliminating oil consumption and refining oil is that we still need oil because of “fractional distilling”. Crude oil when refined is heated in the refinery and as the temperature increases and then cools, the crude oil separates into its constituent parts, each of which has a different boiling point, one of which is gasoline. To get
  the products other than gasoline that we need from a barrel of oil such as propane, butane, naphtha (petrochemical feedstock) kerosene, jet fuel, diesel, fuel oil, asphalt (millions of miles of road), lubricants (KY anyone?), paraffins, solvents, and so forth, we still have to refine that oil and release that gasoline which is about 40% of the refined products. If we plan on substituting gasoline burning cars with electric vehicles we still need to refine millions of barrels of crude oil daily to get the other products we need to live our modern lives. So unless we start whittling electric cars out of wood and wrapping them in leather with heavy metal frames we will need these other refined products from crude oil, which by volume would still be 40% gasoline which can be an environmental nightmare to get rid of it you cannot burn it.

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 10. MidnightRacer January 4th 2010 - 17:03:59 |

  V = pi*(r^2)*h = mass x density

  When we’re talking ice bergs (in reviewing the experiment above), an ice berg floating in the ocean is ~12% above and ~88% below the water. Given that ice is 9% less dense than water, it also takes up 9% more space than water in its ice state (molecules and ice lattice expand during liquid to solid conversion). Given that 88% of an iceberg is underwater, consideration has to be given to density and water displacement.

  Ice floats because it’s less dense (weighs less) than the water that it displaces. But the conversion back to liquid from solid provides no change in water level. Same reason why ponds freeze with ice at the top. Same reason why when you fill an ice tray with water and put it in the freezer it grows upward (taking more space/volume), and when it melts returns to the lower level in the ice trays as originally poured (very slight evaporation not significant).

  Are all those climate models correct about NYC and the planet being flooded from melting ice? Or do all those “scientific” predictions miss a simple lesson in physics and chemistry?

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 11. YipYap January 4th 2010 - 17:12:34 |

  Mindnight cumon now everyone knows the glacial ice in Greenland is sitting on land and slowly sliding into the North Atlantic, it is responsible for about 50 mm rise in sea level for the last 100 years.

  In response to MidnightRacer who said:

  V = pi*(r^2)*h = mass x density

  When we’re talking ice bergs (in reviewing the experiment above), an ice berg floating in the ocean is ~12% above and ~88% below the water. Given that ice is 9% less dense than water, it also takes up 9% more space than water in its ice state (molecules and ice lattice expand during liquid to solid conversion). Given that 88% of an iceberg is underwater, consideration has to be given to density and water displacement.

  Ice floats because it’s less dense (weighs less) than the water that it displaces. But the conversion back to liquid from solid provides no change in water level. Same reason why ponds freeze with ice at the top. Same reason why when you fill an ice tray with water and put it in the freezer it grows upward (taking more space/volume), and when it melts returns to the lower level in the ice trays as originally poured (very slight evaporation not significant).

  Are all those climate models correct about NYC and the planet being flooded from melting ice? Or do all those “scientific” predictions miss a simple lesson in physics and chemistry?

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 12. MidnightRacer January 4th 2010 - 17:41:45 |

  During the Global Warming Period (ending 1300’s), Greenland reflected its name – vikings used the continent for farming and settlement. CO2 at 250 ppm didn’t account for that warming period. The ice returned a bit later during the Little Ice Age. No change in levels like anything the above article predicts to flood NYC.

  Even as CO2 increased from 250 ppm to 315 ppm at the end of the LIA, and 385 ppm today, we haven’t seen NYC flood still.

  Ice ages and warming periods have come and gone, Greenland and Antarctica (used to be tropical) have had no or little ice to being entirely covered by ice.

  NYC’s Central Park was carved by (look at the gauges in the brown rocks) glaciers over a mile high and then melted – yet why are we not underwater?

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 13. YipYap January 4th 2010 - 22:27:45 |

  Midnight – during the Late Cretaceous period when CO2 levels were believed to be higher than they are today, there was a shallow sea covering most of the East Coast of the US. There was no snow and ice at the poles, the earth was amuch hotter place 65 million years ago.

  Here is a drawing that is based upon where Ocean Fossils from that period have been found, far inland from today’s Ocean shorelines.

  upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/US_cretaceous_general.jpg

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 14. MidnightRacer January 5th 2010 - 09:25:26 |

  * tectonic movements should be mentioned in your graphic (lifting of continents), but yes millions of years ago sea levels were higher as less ice covered land masses. Too bad for AGW theorists humans weren’t around to be blamed. Whether it’s the warming or cooling periods even as recent as the GWP and LIA just a 800 and 150 years ago.

  Depending on which era you want to look at, Earth’s atmosphere has varied from 80% water vapor (greenhouse effect) and 10% CO2 (10,000 ppm), to today’s water vapor = 0.4% and CO2=0.0387% (387 ppm).

  If humans were around 65 million years ago with today’s industry, economies, and technologies during the time you say CO2 was a lot higher and the planet’s sea levels higher, what would they have done to stop the warming cycle? If they all killed themselves, what impact would that have had to stop the cycle of warming?

  Humans contribute somewhere around 5% of the CO2 into the atmosphere (40% of that total is absorbed naturally by the Earth), whereas natural sources contribute somewhere around 95%. In nature, animals and microbes’ consumption of vegetation contribute 220 gigatonnes of CO2/year (CO2 is plant food, so 440 Gt of CO2 are absorbed by plant photosynthesis per year), oceans contribute 330 Gt of CO2 per year, while humans contribute 26.4 Gt of CO2 per year (in comparison). And for the other greenhouse contributors; volcanoes (eruptions) and ocean floor activity release the methane (and volcanoes over years slowly release sustained and significant amounts of CO2), and you’ve got to include water vapor. So, if all humans were to die today and that 5% of CO2 per year were elminated, how would that have an impact on global warming?

  The only thing which could be a primary cause to all the glaciers on Earth melting would be a significant increase in cyclical solar activity (or an exceptional series of sustained flares). Methane, water vapors, CO2 all retain it, but don’t create heat nor sustain it… unless you have a runaway greenhouse effect like that on Venus (CO2 = 97%, or 970,000 ppm as compared to Earth’s 387 ppm). Mars has something like ~95%, or CO2 = 950,000 ppm with temperatures ranging from 68º F to -220º F, the big () difference being considerably less water vapor.

  About 40 years ago, the same kind of theorists warned of global cooling and a coming ice age, and one of the lead cheerleaders demanded that humans actually create more CO2 (plant food) to be jammed into the atmosphere to provide a “blanket” to keep the Earth from freezing over.

  Irony

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 15. MidnightRacer January 5th 2010 - 09:35:31 |

  The claim is that CO2 increased during human’s industrial age from 280 ppm to 315 ppm (1958) and to 387 ppm today.

  If humans are responsible for 5% of all CO2 (plant food) into the atmosphere, then that would represent an increase in CO2 of about 1%, whereas the increase by nature is 136%. If humans were all to die, what impact would it have to stop a cycle?

  The article in the beginning of this thread

  “No Rise of Airborne Fraction of Carbon Dioxide in Past 150 Years, New Research Finds”
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

  points at the problem of AGW theorists. Once you examine the data, it contradicts the models. The hypothesis is that humans are causing global warming, yet the results contradict the premise and the AGW crowd claims the science is settled? From the IPCC lead scientists who trick up data, try to ban from publication scientists whose work contradicts theirs, and climate models attempting to pretend to be evidence when they’re mere faulty models, we see a trend in contaminating the natural sciences with political science.

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.