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.
Look below at the comment from alcatwise. The text in italic is highly debatable, yet it is thrown in as absolute fact.
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?
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?
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:
Of course if you believe Peak Oil will cause society to crash then this is all a bit esoteric.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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???????????????????
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…..?
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…
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?