Completely false

45 posts / 0 new
Last post
alcatwize's picture
alcatwize
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 24 2008
Posts: 78
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.

 

 

 

pleaseremoveme's picture
pleaseremoveme
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 24 2009
Posts: 115
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.

alcatwize wrote:

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?

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
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 :
 
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 )
 
 
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.
has enough data to keep someone out of mischief till the peak happens.
 
This is a Peak Carbon chart
 
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,
 
 
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
so I can understand it better now.
 
 
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 )
 
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.
jerrydon10's picture
jerrydon10
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 442
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:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/planet-has-cooled-since-bush-took-office%E2%...

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?

 

 

 

 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
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

Juvysen's picture
Juvysen
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 30 2008
Posts: 121
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.

alcatwize's picture
alcatwize
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 24 2008
Posts: 78
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???????????????????

 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
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

Juvysen's picture
Juvysen
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 30 2008
Posts: 121
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...

alcatwize's picture
alcatwize
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 24 2008
Posts: 78
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?

 

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: Completely false
Quote:

Doesn't this make you want to vote NO for Cap and Trade tax?

Voting is so last-decade.  What makes you think it will be up for a vote outside the democrat-controlled congress anyway?  Even if it wasn't democrat-controlled, the original fleecing - I mean, bail-out last year when republicans had at least enough votes to take a stand, made it clear neither party's representatives care what we think. 

That's why I am on this site - to become so self-sufficient that it doesn't matter what all the idiots in government (US or other) decide to do.  My goal is to boycott the grip they have on my life and to stick it where the sun don't shine. 

Juvysen's picture
Juvysen
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 30 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Completely false
Patrick Brown wrote:

That's why I am on this site - to become so self-sufficient that it doesn't matter what all the idiots in government (US or other) decide to do.  My goal is to boycott the grip they have on my life and to stick it where the sun don't shine. 

Meeeeee too.  Not just the government, but corporations, too.

Mike Pilat's picture
Mike Pilat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 929
Re: Completely false

Patrick and Jenna: ditto that.

I confess, it was the bailout that really did it for me. To me it's nearly black and white and we got robbed in broad daylight. When 90%+ of Americans strongly opposed it, there should not have even been any debate. The Patriot Act was the military industrial / security complexes Enabling Act, and it seems that the Wall Street Bailout was an analog. And Joe Taxpayer doesn't even know what hit him.

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: Completely false

And the Patriot Act is being expanded upon to go after all matter of things.  The following is from my local paper.  Looks like the Patriot Act might become part of the IRS's ammo bag.  They obviously have no idea how many torn US Passports they are going to get in the mail isntead of 1040's.  The US is the ONLY country in the world that taxes its citizens overseas.  The arrogance in that is beyond belief.

Expats may face more rules with U.S. tax changes
 
By the A.M. Costa Rica staff
 

Proposed U.S. legislation to restrict the use of so-called tax shelters would invoke the Patriot Act to punish firms that are deemed to be impeding U.S. tax enforcement.

The legislation also would deny uncooperative foreign banks the authority to issue credit cards that would be valid in the United States. The use of the Patriot Act now is reserved for institutions that are active money launderers.

In addition, U.S. citizens who deposit money or receive a benefit from a private foreign corporation would be considered to have control of that firm for U.S. tax purposes. Under current law U.S. citizens who hold a foreign bank account that accumulates more than $10,000 at any time in the year have to file paperwork with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The legislation would expand that requirement to all foreign bank accounts located in one of 34 countries identified as a tax haven.

Costa Rica is one of those countries.

The legislation and President Barack Obama's plan to clamp down on offshore corporations is starting to generate opposition in foreign countries as officials there begin to understand the ramifications.

The U.S. Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act bill actually is two separate pieces of legislation. U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat introduced  Senate bill 506 March 2. It was sent to the Senate Finance Committee for study. The bill has five cosponsors.

The next day Rep. Lloyd  Doggett, a Texas Democrat with 64 co-sponsors, introduced a similar H.R.1265 in the House. That bill went to the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy.

The legislation would have wide impact in Costa Rica because many expats here own corporations. Some are involved in business but others are used to hold the ownership of real estate or automobiles. Even  a U.S. citizen with a minor interest in a corporation could become involved in reporting and tax requirements under the proposal because the bill presumes that the person owned and exercised control over such entity, regardless of the paper ownership.

In other words, the U.S. citizen would have to provide clear and convincing evidence to the contrary if he or she really did not operate the corporation.

Levin and Doggett this month asked Obama to make approval of the Panama Free Trade Agreement contingent on Panama’s cooperation with efforts to combat international tax evasion.

“In this time of economic distress, we can no longer afford to ignore the billions of dollars of tax revenue lost to the U.S. Treasury due to the bank secrecy practices of Panama and other tax havens,” wrote Doggett and Levin, adding:

“Implementing an agreement on trade while ignoring Panama’s status as one of the world’s recognized tax havens would not only undermine your efforts to address offshore tax evasion, but would also thwart the best opportunity our nation will have to obtain cooperation from a country that has resisted for years American efforts to encourage changes to its secretive banking and regulatory practices.”

The United States taxes the income of its citizens even when they are overseas, although individuals get an $87,600 annual earned income tax exemption on money from foreign sources.

Another element of the twin bills would be to consider a foreign corporation as a U.S. entity for
 

taxman cometh

tax purposes if the management of the company lived in the United States.

Costa Rica found itself labeled a tax haven April 2 when the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development put it on its so-called black list with three other small countries. Guillermo Zúñiga, minister of Hacienda, quickly announced that lawmakers would be given a bill to end bank secrecy. In other words, bank records of individuals and corporations would become open to tax collectors here and elsewhere in the world.

Zuñiga, in a press release, said that Costa Rican tax authorities can only open bank accounts with the authorization of a judge and that the lifting of bank secrecy for tax purposes would be a very valuable tool to fight tax fraud. He noted that the Arias administration had a program to fight tax fraud.

It was not reported at the time that the U.S. Treasury Department maintains its own list of 37 countries it labels tax havens. Panamá and Costa Rica are on that list. They are called "offshore secrecy jurisdictions."

According to the proposed legislation transferring anything of value to or from a foreign corporation in a secrecy jurisdiction by a U.S. citizen will be presumed to represent previously unreported income in the year of transfer.

"These presumptions are needed in civil judicial and administrative proceedings because the tax, corporate, or bank secrecy laws and practices of these jurisdictions make it nearly impossible for U.S. authorities to gain access to needed information," said a U.S. Senate summary of the bill. "Presumptions may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. No evidence may be accepted from a non-U.S. person unless the person appears to testify in the proceedings."

The proposed legislation also orders foreign banks to file an IRS Form 1099 report on any account that has a U.S. citizen as an owner.  The same rule applies when a U.S. citizen opens an account.

The bills also increase to five years from three the amount of time that the IRS has to investigate cases in offshore secrecy jurisdictions.

The legislation also addresses trusts and requires reporting of real estate distributions, securities, personal property or objects such as artwork, furnishing or jewelry.

The bills also limit the protection taxpayers would receive from legal opinions about their tax situation if they were involved in an offshore secrecy country. Usually taxpayers elsewhere who receive bad advice pay no or reduced penalties.

Ambassador to the United States from the Bahamas and from Barbados both were critical of the proposals in a discussion on the Levin-Doggett bills Wednesday, according to Carib World News. Officials from Bermuda were said to have met with congressional leaders.

 

Mike Pilat's picture
Mike Pilat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 929
Re: Completely false

I would just stay in C.R., Patrick. Are you there on a semi-permanent basis right now? If so, I'm having difficulty thinking of a compelling reason why I would return to the US if I was in your position.
 

btw - Your next passport will have an RFID chip in it. Conspiracies aside, it's already been hacked and can be read at a long enough distance so as to easily jeopardize your private information. Just Big Brother protecting you, of course.

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: Completely false

 Oh, I will certainly be staying.  My favorite part of this proposed legislation is how the US is threatening countries that do not comply with denying their banks the ability to issue US-based credit cards!  I would love to ask the brilliant congressmen behind this just what the US produces anymore that I might want to purchase with a credit card.  

jerrydon10's picture
jerrydon10
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 442
Re: Completely false

But,,,,Since we are going in this direction (hope I'm not hijacking the thread, just tell me)......I want to know how Carbon can heat things up. Carbon is in everything that even thought about being organic.

I put some carbon in my pants pocket and the pocket gets warm? How?

I breathe carbon dioxide out when I exhale and the room gets warm?? What??

Who came up with this? This whole concept is simply bunk science. Until someone shows how Carbon heats something up, the other side simply has lost the argument hands down and is trying to dumb down the competition, IMHO.

 

r's picture
r
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 262
Re: Completely false

I'm not a skeptic myself because I understand that while CO2 is a trace gas it is a green house gas and production of CO2 is increasing exponentially.  But I am wondering why there is so much more discussion "out there" about global warming than resource depletion.   On the web I can find peak oil skeptics but nothing like the MSN articles pro and con about global warming.  Maybe someone like Al Gore (ok, not Al Gore) is needed to make a movie about it (e.g., "An even more inconvenient truth")?

Trees need CO2 and breathe out Oxygen so we're agreed cutting down the Amazon rain forest is not a good thing?

When there is not enough oil we'll be going through the poorer and poorer grades of coal which won't be good for the environment.

Other blogs here about the economy are more frightening when you think about how resource depletion scenarios haven't arrived yet.

 

jerrydon10's picture
jerrydon10
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 442
Re: Completely false

Oh, and since carbon is all around us and it can heat things up (he he), it seems that we can get a spontaneous, exothermic chemical reaction out of Carbon (an ash in it's purest form). This will revolutionize science.

I challenge any of you who still believe this Carbon thingy to bring your favorite chemistry PhD in here to debate the science with me on this.

To the readers, this will not happen as global warming via rising C02 is simply bunk science. You should question every so called scientist that weighs in favor of this as suspect (politically so) and question every other utterance they have made in science. If they are pro man-made global warming due to Carbon emissions, they are not a scientist, but a politician who wants your money.

Juvysen's picture
Juvysen
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 30 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Completely false
jerrydon10 wrote:

Oh, and since carbon is all around us and it can heat things up (he he), it seems that we can get a spontaneous, exothermic chemical reaction out of Carbon (an ash in it's purest form). This will revolutionize science.

I challenge any of you who still believe this Carbon thingy to bring your favorite chemistry PhD in here to debate the science with me on this.

To the readers, this will not happen as global warming via rising C02 is simply bunk science. You should question every so called scientist that weighs in favor of this as suspect (politically so) and question every other utterance they have made in science. If they are pro man-made global warming due to Carbon emissions, they are not a scientist, but a politician who wants your money.

I'm trying to understand where YOUR science comes from.  I mean, it's not the carbon that's heating up, it's absorbing infra red radiation and then emitting heat.  Water is a greenhouse gas, too.  It's not the carbon, per se, it's the fact that there's extra floating around the atmosphere that isn't normally there.  Chloroflourocarbons were a big issue, too.  As is methane.  As is water... but we're not adding extra water to the atmosphere (although if the planet heats up a bit, we will be because warmer air will hold more water).  In fact, the greenhouse effect is what paved the way for life on the planet at all, afaik- that is, if we didn't have gasses in the atmosphere to warm us up, we'd lose all our heat each night (or not have any to begin with) as the moon does with it's far thinner atmosphere.

so... um, could you give me some credible sources on this assertion that this is bunk science?  No one that I've heard is saying it's related to chemical reactions of the CO2 in the atmosphere.  I'm curious where you're getting that idea.

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2367
Re: Completely false

Juveysen, JerryDon,

IIRC, the issue with carbon is that it will interfere with O3, damaging the gas's structure and effectively making it O2.

However, the actual amount of O3 up there is almost negligable to begin with, and almost ALL the heating in the atmosphere is occuring at the boundary layer. I work with climate/climotology every day, and no one is paying attention to upper air soundings - climo is only interested in surface heating.

Knowing this, we can reasonably assume that what we're dealing with is a Surface Based phenomonon.
Warwick Hughs did a good study on this, and weather stations reporting in rural areas aren't drastically different than they've ever been.

This can further be substantiated by understanding the composition of urban areas, which are exothermic by nature, and have a very low albedo. They absorb vast quantities of heat, and when forecasting for urban areas, we have to take into account several degrees celsius difference; which does have an effect on your local weather, especially in coastal climates where moist air is available to heat rapidly.

One of these climate threads has a long write up I did on the basic atmospheric principles that I base my thoughts on. 

If you ask me, Global Warming is occuring, will be a small scale issue, and is 40% natural, 60% man-made.

The theory isn't bunk - it's just drastically incomplete and emotionally charged.

Cheers!

Aaron

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Completely false

Jerry, are you being pedantic purposely...?  The term "Carbon" is now used as short for Carbon Dioxide, and Methane.  Of course, NOBODY means straight Carbon....

Re "I breathe carbon dioxide out when I exhale and the room gets warm?? What??" you better believe it.  Why do you think skyscrapers in Toronto have to be airconditioned even in wintter when it's 30 below outside?  The occupants of any building have to be taken into account when designing the condtioning of any buikding, or, as I do, energy rate a house.  Each and every occupant generates 100W of heat 24/7.....

"Carbon" as you call it, doesn't heat anything up at all, but it DOES trap the sun's energy in the atmosphere.  I thought this was common knowledge by now....  Not even the scientists who constantly argue against AGW argue about heat trapping.

Mike

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: Completely false

 Wow, Patrick, your in Costa Rica....I had no idea, but then again, how could I have known. Its definitely a smart move on your part, if you feel "safe" there, and I'm sure you do. But I have to say, we need people of your character here in the U.S. if we have any chance of making it through this mess. We need patriots!

Ok...I got a little dramatic there with the whole "patriot" thing. Sorry, I guess I'm just a little envious.

Oh yeah, about the global warming issue, did anyone notice that a very, very large ice sheet formed in the Artic last winter? 

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2367
Re: Completely false

Mike,

It doesn't "trap" them as much as let them pass. The Ozone layer acts as a sort of 'refractory' layer in the troposphere, and it channels solar rays away from the earth when they're at oblique angles. Less Ozone means more heat passing through the atmosphere, but the amount of heating in the mid and upper troposphere depend largely on the amount of re-radiated heat from the ground in the form of short wave radiation.
Typically, the effects of less Ozone is only really seen by the polar regions, which because of their angle don't recieve the full punishment of the sun anyway. Carbon flows towards the poles like bubbles float to the top of a soda.

Anyway, this type of energy is what causes "heating" or radiational warming. The more moisture, the more potential for water vapor to condense into clouds and the warmer the ambient temperature can get.

The less moisture, the cooler the temperatures will be, and quicker heat will dissipate.

As such, "heating" doesn't really occur because of carbon, but because of where the carbon is, and its relation to available O3.
The main point to take is all of this is occuring at or below 15,000' in the Troposphere - which is about 100,000' thick.

I firmly believe that if it were not for urbanization, it wouldn't matter how many smelting plants or cars were running. It's the asphalt, concrete and collective energy absorbers that are causing this event. The earth is plenty capable of dealing with Co2 - and it won't take long for nature to reclaim these things either.
Warm, carboniferous air is like the happy hunting grounds to plants.

Cheers!

Aaron

SagerXX's picture
SagerXX
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 11 2009
Posts: 2219
Re: Completely false
jerrydon10 wrote:

Oh, and since carbon is all around us and it can heat things up (he he), it seems that we can get a spontaneous, exothermic chemical reaction out of Carbon (an ash in it's purest form). This will revolutionize science.

I challenge any of you who still believe this Carbon thingy to bring your favorite chemistry PhD in here to debate the science with me on this.

To the readers, this will not happen as global warming via rising C02 is simply bunk science. You should question every so called scientist that weighs in favor of this as suspect (politically so) and question every other utterance they have made in science. If they are pro man-made global warming due to Carbon emissions, they are not a scientist, but a politician who wants your money.

Where I come from on this subject is essentially the same place where I come from on the "6 Billion And Counting" subject.  Whether the science on climate change is bunk or not, we're about 15 or 20 years from having a preposterous number of people on this planet.  Wait, strike that.  We already have a preposterous number of people on this planet.  In 15 or 20 years we'll have a toxic number.  Wait, strike that.  In 15 to 20 years we'll have twice the toxic number (IMO).  Haranguing the "Global Warming is Bunkum" vs. "Global Warming is Real" subject is, in my opinion, a waste of time.  This ain't the age for debate...'tis the age for action.

Instead of concerning ourselves about the back end of things ("we are producing too much carbon" [or stated another way:  "too many people are here {burning petro fuels}"] why not simply meet the problem out front and say "There's too many danged people on the planet."  (I guess if you're a Julian S person then this post is irrelevant in which case you could just post back saying "Irrelevant" because there's no point in our debating "human ingeneuity will save us" vs. "we're running outta resources"...).  

IMO there are at least a dozen other major Human-Habitat-Related issues that are just as likely to swiftly reduce our numbers.  But they really get no play.  While a certain segment of the activist folks of the world have spent 2 decades trying to crowbar climate change into the common consciousness (to mixed effect), untold damage has been done to the overall carrying capacity of this planet (and all the while the human population has grown unchecked).

At root, I believe that unless we swiftly become more conscious of the (IMO) delicate situation in which we are in -- and act to remediate same, then we (as a species) are setting ourselves up for quite the pruning.  

Viva -- Sager

pleaseremoveme's picture
pleaseremoveme
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 24 2009
Posts: 115
Re: Completely false

Cardondioxyde doesn't create heat, but retains the heat form sunlight. And it retains more of it than oxygen does. The atmosphere get it's warmth form sunlight, and then radiates this energy back into space in the form of infrared radiation. But oxygen radiates more at lower temperature than cardondioxyde does. So the higher the cardondioxyde concentration in the atmosphere, the warmer its needs the be to radiate all the incoming energy away. I should say that I'm not a chemist and I not 100% sure that I got that right. But this is the explanation of the greenhouse effect that's commonly shown on television here.

 

Juvysen's picture
Juvysen
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 30 2008
Posts: 121
Re: Completely false

I believe the Ozone issue is a completely separate issue from greenhouse effect.

The ozone layer *is* a refractory layer.  It keeps the amount of ULTRA VIOLET radiation hitting the earth from the sun/other sources in space low.  It's a different matter than the greenhouse effect since it has nothing to do with the infrared (heat), but problems with greenhouse gasses are all about the infrared.

Here's some light reading on the subject. 

http://www.environment.gov.au/education/publications/greenhouse.html

http://kccesl.tripod.com/hypertextstudy/greenhousecontrolled.html

You will, however, hear about ozone levels being high in cities.  This is from pollution and heat, but it's dangerous because ozone is extremely reactive at ground level and can cause all sorts of havoc on human health. 

I have to agree that the heat island effect is a major concern in even small cities, though.

beez123's picture
beez123
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 17 2009
Posts: 40
Re: Completely false

 "By questioning the science on global warming, these environmentalists say, groups like the Global Climate Coalition were able to sow enough doubt to blunt public concern about a consequential issue and delay government action."

“They didn’t have to win the argument to succeed,” Mr. Monbiot said, “only to cause as much confusion as possible.”

full article:

www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html

just some food for thought. just be wary of where some of these arguments may come from. people are getting paid to spread doubt.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition

GCC seems to be mainly defunct now, but surely some of the same pr firms, lobbyists and backers are just regrouped into different ventures. 

i am fascinated by the behind the scenes struggles for the hearts and minds, the swaying of public opinion on the matter of global warming. there is a lot of action going on in the lobbying and pr worlds over this.

i wonder if any of this guy's employees ever post to forums on the interwebs?

www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/us/politics/10morano.html

the article below is a looong one, but interesting.

www.motherjones.com/environment/2005/05/some-it-hot

 

 

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 854
Re: Completely false
alcatwize wrote:

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???????????????????

 

Do you think there might be an agenda driving the cyclic solar cycle theory, too? Looks like the public relations battle of the titans. Big Oil up against Big Nuclear Energy. Those who claim it's all  pretty clear "just look at the scientific data or evidence" don't understand that raw data can often be interpreted any number of ways. The idea that a carbon fixated international community, will illicit changes that support one world govt is interesting and could be true. But that ignores the reality that we have had something akin to one world govt, through Oil for several decades. What's the difference?

Broadspectrum's picture
Broadspectrum
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 14 2009
Posts: 88
Re: Global Dimming and So Goes the Sun

Keep in mind the results of the 3 day expierment conducted after 9/11/01, when all aircraft were supposedly grounded from flying over US air space.  It confirmed an atmospheric condition that scientists named Global Dimming.  Watch the BBC documentary here: http://www.documentary-film.net/search/sample.php  Someone else may have a better source. This is the link I happen to have handy.

The pan evaporation techniques and experiments being practiced all over the world for over 100 years is amazing.  The paradox will astound you.

In conclusion, If in our "haste" to correct the problem of air pollution, i.e. reduce green house gases, if air pollution is reduced too quickly, we would end up accelerating the effect of "Global Warming".  The paradox being the stuff that we find to be so dangerous in one aspect is exactly the stuff that is saving us from being cooked.  But, only later than sooner.  So, it's the proverbial slow death of the frog in the slowly boiling pot.

In consideration of this evidence, the related subject of the experiments being conducted in our skies everyday must be put on the table.  We have all seen them since 1999 more and more.  Here's another everyday occurrence that MOST people haven't noticed or considered.  Whitish, dim blue skies are the norm now.  I am talking about Chem Trails that end up becoming fake clouds all over what should be clear blue skies.  What's going on here?  This takes on enormous implications in the context of the above documentary.

Let us not forget that the Earth's environment is totally dependent on the Sun.  Where the Sun goes, the little Earth is soon to follow along with all the other planets, moons and objects in our Solar System, all entered into their relationships because of gravity.  The Sun is also moving through the space of the Milky Way Galaxy.  The Sun is also in orbit.  Its path has taken our planet into a different quadrant of space where properties of this space are exerting forces on the Sun that are causing changes to its magnetic fields.  This space is characterized by higher pressure and extreme amounts of dust.

What we must realize that we the people living on this planet are experiencing not just a Global event but an event that is impacting all the planets in OUR Solar System.  Sorry to say, but we are involved in something SO MUCH LARGER than our small little selves and this planet.  The whole Solar System is warming up.

 

 

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 854
Re: Global Dimming and So Goes the Sun
Broadspectrum wrote:

Keep in mind the results of the 3 day expierment conducted after 9/11/01, when all aircraft were supposedly grounded from flying over US air space.  It confirmed an atmospheric condition that scientists named Global Dimming.  Watch the BBC documentary here: http://www.documentary-film.net/search/sample.php  Someone else may have a better source. This is the link I happen to have handy.

The pan evaporation techniques and experiments being practiced all over the world for over 100 years is amazing.  The paradox will astound you.

In conclusion, If in our "haste" to correct the problem of air pollution, i.e. reduce green house gases, if air pollution is reduced too quickly, we would end up accelerating the effect of "Global Warming".  The paradox being the stuff that we find to be so dangerous in one aspect is exactly the stuff that is saving us from being cooked.  But, only later than sooner.  So, it's the proverbial slow death of the frog in the slowly boiling pot.

In consideration of this evidence, the related subject of the experiments being conducted in our skies everyday must be put on the table.  We have all seen them since 1999 more and more.  Here's another everyday occurrence that MOST people haven't noticed or considered.  Whitish, dim blue skies are the norm now.  I am talking about Chem Trails that end up becoming fake clouds all over what should be clear blue skies.  What's going on here?  This takes on enormous implications in the context of the above documentary.

Let us not forget that the Earth's environment is totally dependent on the Sun.  Where the Sun goes, the little Earth is soon to follow along with all the other planets, moons and objects in our Solar System, all entered into their relationships because of gravity.  The Sun is also moving through the space of the Milky Way Galaxy.  The Sun is also in orbit.  Its path has taken our planet into a different quadrant of space where properties of this space are exerting forces on the Sun that are causing changes to its magnetic fields.  This space is characterized by higher pressure and extreme amounts of dust.

What we must realize that we the people living on this planet are experiencing not just a Global event but an event that is impacting all the planets in OUR Solar System.  Sorry to say, but we are involved in something SO MUCH LARGER than our small little selves and this planet.  The whole Solar System is warming up.

 

 

I heard somewhere (how's that for scientific) that one of the reasons Africa is experiencing such terrible drought is that cloud cover produced by the Europeans, that wafted over Africa, has diminished so much in the last couple of decades. This makes sense to me. It also makes sense that the reason we, in the Pacific Northwest have been so cold and rainy lately is all the particulate matter from industrial China has formed clouds that pour even more rain than usual on us.--Actually read that in the paper. Didn't make it up.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments