Investing in Precious Metals 101 Ad

Completely false

Login or register to post comments Last Post 7299 reads   45 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 45 total)
  • Wed, May 27, 2009 - 02:11pm

    #1
    alcatwize

    alcatwize

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 24 2008

    Posts: 1

    count placeholder

    Completely false

 

Look below at the response I got from Bill Foster. The text in italic is highly debatable, yet it is thrown in as absolute fact. The issue of human impact on global warming is widely contested. In fact many scientists think humans have no impact on climate change through CO2 emissions at all. Atmospheric gases make up such a small percentage of global temperatures compared to water that it is almost statistically insignificant.  
 
This statement is like saying "Everyone knows the world is flat", why are you questioning the status quo?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thank you for writing to me with your concerns about the proposed American Clean Energy and Security Act – and I apologize for the delay in responding. My office has received tens of thousands of emails, letters and faxes in the past few months and my staff and I are hard at work in responding to the concerns of the families of the 14th District of Illinois

As a scientist and businessman, I understand both the necessity of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the commercial implications of doing so. At least half of global warming is man-made, and attempts to reduce emissions must make economic and environmental sense.

 

 

 

  • Wed, May 27, 2009 - 08:25pm

    #2
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Completely false

Look below at the comment from alcatwise. The text in italic is highly debatable, yet it is thrown in as absolute fact.

[quote=alcatwize]

Look below at the response I got from Bill Foster. The text in italic is highly debatable, yet it is thrown in as absolute fact. The issue of human impact on global warming is widely contested. In fact many scientists think humans have no impact on climate change through CO2 emissions at all. Atmospheric gases make up such a small percentage of global temperatures compared to water that it is almost statistically insignificant.

[/quote]
 

This statement is like saying "Everyone knows the world is flat", why are you questioning the status quo?

Come on! A hunderd million years worth of carbon stored in the ground being exacted, burned and blown out into the atmosphere is almost statistically insignificant?

  • Wed, May 27, 2009 - 11:14pm

    #3
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    But there are some good news…..!

Anyone who follows what I have posted over the past months about AGW should know where I stand….  I am no skeptic!  However, I have come across some very interesting info lately that I must share with you all.  There are in fact so few fossil fuels left to extract economically (and I mean both money wise and energy wise) that it will be impossible to emit enough GH gases for the worst case scenario to occur…  Look at this:

I now have a pre-print copy of the MIT paper "Probabilistic forecast for 21st century climate based on uncertainties in emissions … "
by Sokolov et al [1.75 MB] if anyone wants it.
 
The key chart is the forecast amount of carbon to be added :
http://www.peak oil.org.au/char ts/sokolov.cumu lative.carbon.g if
 
So they are predicting no limit to carbon growth at all ! No wonder they get such a hot result.
 
These numbers are based on IEA data and a sub-model of the world economy that itself doesn’t recognise limits to growth, hence the problem.

I’ve been meaning to do this for a long time – to chart the history and forecasts for oil, gas and coal stacked together so that we can see when Peak Fossil Energy might be.
 
The thing that makes it difficult is that ASPO don’t release their data set, only their chart, and that is only for oil and gas, not coal.
So I have deconstructed their chart at each decade point, and done the same for the EWG coal chart, converting the units to Gboe = billions of barrels of oil equivalent .
 
This is a bit naughty since the data is theirs but the deconstruction inaccuracies are mine. (Well they can sue me if they don’t like it )
 
http://www.peak oil.org.au/char ts/world.oil-ga s-coal-prod.195 0-2050.gif
 
So the closest decade point to Peak Fossil is 2020. Note that these data are measured in energy equivalents, and that it will need another chart with different weightings to show Peak Carbon which is more relevant to the Global Warming problem.

the spreadsheet http://www.its. caltech.edu/~ru tledge/Hubbert% 27s%20Peak,%20T he%20Coal%20Que stion,%20and%20 Climate%20Chang e.xls [ 7.8 MB ]
has enough data to keep someone out of mischief till the peak happens.
 
This is a Peak Carbon chart
http://www.peak oil.org.au/char ts/rutledge.fos sil.emissions.1 990-2100.gif
 
This shows that Peak Oil-Gas-Coal would only limit fossil emissions to 10% below 1990 levels by 2050.
These fossil fuel emissions are not the only emissions though,
and there is certainly scope for reductions in those other sectors,
and for developing sinks too – switching from cattle to forests.
 
This is the comparison between Rutledge’s forecast and IPCC’s various forecast scenarios,
from http://www.its. caltech.edu/~ru tledge/Hubbert% 27s%20Peak,%20T he%20Coal%20Que stion,%20and%20 Climate%20Chang e.ppt  [ 3.6 MB ]
 
http://www.peak oil.org.au/char ts/rutledge.ipc c.emissions.com parison.2000-21 00.gif
 
This shows the Peak Fossil Fuel scenario is only 80% of the lowest IPCC scenario,
which has an outcome of a temperature rise of 1.8°C .

I have found the part of the spreadsheet that was used to create the chart in Slide 62 of
http://www.its. caltech.edu/ ~rutledge/ Hubbert%27s% 20Peak,%20The% 20Coal%20Questi o n,%20and% 20Climate% 20Change. ppt 
so I can understand it better now.
 
http://www.peak oil.org.au/char ts/rutledge.co2 .temp.forecast. 1800-2400.gif
 
The Mauna Loa data is measured in CO2 ppm, while the Hadley data is temperature. And remember this is for Fossil Fuel emissions that peak in 2025, and presumably the other greenhouse factors are kept the same as something ( B1 ?).
 
It shows CO2 peaking in 2065 (40 years after Peak Fossil Fuels) at 452 ppm, and falling to 439 ppm by 2100
and is still falling at 353 ppm by 2400.
 
Temperature peaks in 2090 (25 years later) at 1.99°C above 1850-1900 and falls to +1.6°C by 2200 and +1.1°C by 2400.
 
These forecasts were made by the MAGICC v5.3 model which was used by IPCC for their earlier work, but not the latest AR4 stuff.
 

Of course if you believe Peak Oil will cause society to crash then this is all a bit esoteric.

This comes from the IPCC’s AR4 report ( the latest one )
http://www.peak oil.org.au/char ts/ipcc.ar4.sce narios.gif
 
That orange bottom line is for Year 2000 constant concentrations and it reaches ~0.6°C above 1990 levels in 2100 with a fuzziness of +/-0.1 but even if we stopped all new emissions now, concentrations wouldn’t stay the same – they will start falling,
losing half the anthropogenic emissions in the first 27 years and tailing off over centuries, and temperatures will follow concentrations down, but lagging by another 25 years or so.

  • Thu, May 28, 2009 - 04:10am

    #4
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Completely false

OK, let’s back way up here and start at the beginning. I will openly admit that I am in the ‘man-made carbon production is leading us to global warming’ camp that sees it as bunk science and a progressive liberal agenda to bury us all in new carbon offsetting taxes. In fact, Obama has already announced Cap and Trade.

Fact, the world has been cooling at least as long as GW Bush has been in office:

Planet Has Cooled Since Bush Took Office’ – Gore Admits ‘I’ve failed badly’

Fact, plants breathe carbon and "exhale" oxygen. If we reduce the carbon that plants need to breathe, aren’t we also reducing the oxygen that WE breathe as those plants are no longer creating that oxygen to keep us alive because they will die?

Finally, can someone show me scientifically how carbon has jack sh*t to do with causing anything to heat up when that heat relates to the environment?

Does Al Gore simply wish to extinguish life as we know it on planet Earth, or am I just lost?

 

 

 

 

  • Thu, May 28, 2009 - 05:13am

    #5
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Completely false

Surprise – it is still true that regional weather tells you nothing of about climate.  Now that the Microwave Temperature Images for October have been released we can see just how true that is.  The October 2008 continental U.S. anomaly was -0.135 K ie slightly below normal, while the Northern Hemisphere anomaly was +0.283 K, ie above normal. Globally the (land/sea) anomaly: +0.181 Kelvin ie warmer than normal.

The data also emphasizes how completely useless popular media stories about weather are for giving one any sense of even global weather, much less climate. Looking at the global temperature anomaly map below (red is warmer than normal, blue colder) we can see just how the world looked in Oct.

 

RSS (TLT) global temperature anomaly map for October 2008

RSS (TLT) global temperature anomaly map for October 2008

Reds are warm anomalies, while the darker blues are cold anomalies.

Is anyone really surprised that we got bombarded with stories about cold snaps in the US and Britain, regions saturated with media, while the heat in Africa, Australia,  Northern Canada and Northern Russia was largely ignored?  (where’s my Homer Simpson emoticon?).

Believe me Jerry, it is NOT getting cooler in Australia, as I have posted here several times, just four days out from the official start of winter, all my fruit trees are flowering, some are even fruiting……

Regarding the CO2/O2 question, you needn’t worry about the level of Oxygen, which at ~ 210,000 ppm (parts per million) is not exactly going to be affected by the CO2 level rising by  2 or 3 ppm per annum….. especially when you consider that the O2 bit of CO2 is only 2/3 of the molecule.  There isn’t enough C on the entire planet to use up all the O2!!

Carbon in the air is not the problem as far as greenhouse warming goes, it’s how many other atoms it’s attached to that matters.  Large gaseous molecules in the air ABSOLUTELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY trap heat energy, absolutely no one contests this notion, not even the deniers….  That is why CO2, CH4, CFC’s are so harmful..

Having said that, I’m in your camp when it comes to cap’n’trade systems, they will not work, we need a Carbon tax.

In the end, Peak Fossil Fuels might just save us anyway.  I’d much rater make do with no fossil fuels at all (we did this for 99.99999% of the history of humanity) than fry my children’s future planet.

Mike

  • Thu, May 28, 2009 - 01:21pm

    #6
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Completely false

i think cap and trade is useless, but that said…

No, we won’t be reducing carbon (or our oxygen) below the point necessary for life to continue on earth.  Assuming you know that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen dramatically since they started measuring in the 50’s, and that clearly there WAS life on earth at those lower levels of carbon dioxide previous to the 1950s, I think we have a LOOOOOONG way to go before we’re cutting out carbon in our atmosphere to levels that will affect photosynthesis.  Beyond that, the 1950s was only when they started measuring, but I think it’s pretty undeniable that we’d been freeing carbon from fossil fuels for probably almost a century previous (I’m not exactly sure when we started using coal… anyone know?), so thus, we’d have increases from that. 

The carbon problem is that we’re releasing carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years.  MILLIONS of years.  It was (obviously) sitting deep in the ground in the form of coal, oil, tar sands, etc, and thus not part of the carbon cycle on the surface/atmosphere of the earth.  Now, burning it releases it into the carbon cycle, from which it was previously not part (at least not for millions of years).  This is where our problem lies.  Beyond that, we’re clearing land across the world which makes sequestration of this excess carbon more difficult, and also releases the latent carbon that had been tied up in trees/plants/whatever for probably hundreds of years into the carbon cycle, too.  Even more, the warming in areas of permafrost is allowing the previously continuously frozen plant material in the soil to decompose – decomposition is another carbon releasing process. 

Whether or not it will cause serious warming, I can not buy that that much change of the equilibrium will cause *NO* reaction.  The way equilibrium works is that every change on one side causes an effect somewhere else in the system.  Maybe warming, maybe cooling… in my ecology classes, they discussed it in terms of "global climate change" – basically… some areas will be cooler, some will be warmer, and we can expect hellish changes in weather patterns as well as increases in desertification and drought.  The effects we’re having on the water system really will play into that…

Think about equilibrium like a basketball game with a red team and a blue team… for every red or blue player that enters the court, one must come off to keep everything equal.  Now imagine you take an entire extra TEAM worth of blue players and you let them out on the court, along with the blue players that were already out there.  You’ve got too much for it to work as a decent game… you just can’t tell me that nothing would change.  Maybe it’d be good (for who?), maybe bad, but SOMETHING would change.

  • Thu, May 28, 2009 - 05:48pm

    #7
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Completely false

The debate around this issue just helps show my original point.  For a politician to come out and state "At least half of global warming is man-made" is complete garbage and is driven by an agenda completely unrelated to the environment.  

Just use your brain and make a commen sense decision.  Meteorologists can’t accurately predict the weather 24 hours in advance, yet Bill Foster knows the exact reason for  50% of global warming???????????????????

 

  • Thu, May 28, 2009 - 09:27pm

    #8
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Completely false

That’s a strawman argument.  He didn’t say 50%, he said HALF.  Half is a very round number.  Had he said 50.23%, then yes you could have accused him of illogical accuracy, but half, like 50%, leaves you to doubt accuracy to within 10%, just like quoting 50.23% would open yourself up to inaccuracies of +/- 0.01% which is totally ridiculous.

What amazes me about this thread though is that absolutely NOBODY’s picked on the fact we will be experiencing such serious energy shortfalls within ten years that even climate change might become irrelevant……

Don’t you people read ANYTHING I post…..?

Mike

  • Thu, May 28, 2009 - 11:09pm

    #9
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Completely false

Actually, I had thought of that.  It’ll be interesting to see where climate change goes once we’re in the energy crisis up to our eyeballs…

  • Thu, May 28, 2009 - 11:12pm

    #10
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1613

    count placeholder

    Re: Completely false

 Yes, I understand that and appreciate your posts (very interesting), but in the next 10 years there are plenty in Washington ready to tax you to death on an irrelevant issue.  Of course it isn’t the issue at all they care about, it’s just getting your money.  Doesn’t this make you want to vote NO for Cap and Trade tax?

 

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 45 total)

Login or Register to post comments