Two Simple Facts About Global Warming

[Contrails]

Two simple facts should tell anyone that global warming is real and is still happening.

First, there is the fact that CO2 in Earth's atmosphere absorbs heat, leading to higher surface temperatures. This is so simple and uncontroversial that it was discovered over 150 years ago and there is no serious alternative theory.

Second, there is the fact that human activity is still adding about 20 gigatones of CO2 to Earth's atmosphere each year. This is confirmed by measuring the ratio of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2.

Back when the greenhouse effect was discovered, an atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 280 ppm was sufficient to account for 6 °C of the 33 °C total warming the greenhouse effect causes. Human CO2 emissions since the 1800's have increased atmospheric CO2 by another 120 ppm, and at current rates will exceed 800 ppm by the end of the century. While global mean surface temperature has increase by about 1 °C since the 1800's, the only question is not if it will rise more, but how much and how fast.

[Peter1469]

Probably 1C to 1.5C per hundred years as some of the less radical models show.

[GrassrootsConservative]

What's a gigatone?

Do you have a link or is it all made up?

[Liberal Doses]

Two simple facts should tell anyone that global warming is real and is still happening.

First, there is the fact that CO2 in Earth's atmosphere absorbs heat, leading to higher surface temperatures. This is so simple and uncontroversial that it was discovered over 150 years ago and there is no serious alternative theory.

Second, there is the fact that human activity is still adding about 20 gigatones of CO2 to Earth's atmosphere each year. This is confirmed by measuring the ratio of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2.

Back when the greenhouse effect was discovered, an atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 280 ppm was sufficient to account for 6 °C of the 33 °C total warming the greenhouse effect causes. Human CO2 emissions since the 1800's have increased atmospheric CO2 by another 120 ppm, and at current rates will exceed 800 ppm by the end of the century. While global mean surface temperature has increase by about 1 °C since the 1800's, the only question is not if it will rise more, but how much and how fast.

Fact, grant seeking scientists, in a dicipline politicized by those seeking personal financial gain, such as Al Gore, conveiniently left out the fact that water vapor has been and is the cheif cause of the greenhouse gas effect. Approximately 95%. Like a 150 years is to billions of years, so to is the mere pittance of man's contribution to global warming.

Somehow 150 years in the billions of years of the Earths formation is not a blink of an eye in the scientists minds. So to is the fact that the Earth came from being a molten orb of poisonous gas to what it is today without the aid of man. There is no valid benchmark for the Earth's optimum temperature. Personally, I would not mind seeing some of those snobbish Hollywood types losing their homes to the Gore predicted, "rising sea levels." Gore purchased a multi-million dollar mansion on the "endangered," shores.

Obama, has taken on the task of saving our planet when he cannot manage a health care delivery system in the computer age. Amazing that libs believe such nonsense. Find something more tangible to craft your God-complex upon.

[Contrails]

Probably 1C to 1.5C per hundred years as some of the less radical models show.
1 to 1.5 °C is the bottom end of the climate model projections, but 3 °C is much more likely.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2014/03/RoeBaker-590x469.gif
http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/roe-and-baker-2007.pdf

[Kalkin]

It's now called global climate change. Get up to speed with the propaganda, please.

[Contrails]

What's a gigatone?
Gigaton = giga (billion) + ton = a billion tons (sorry if the spelling error confused you).


Do you have a link or is it all made up?
http://www.epa.gov/climatestudents/basics/today/greenhouse-effect.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

[Contrails]

It's now called global climate change. Get up to speed with the propaganda, please.

Still listening to Frank Luntz (http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf)?

[Kalkin]

Still listening to Frank Luntz (http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf)?
I've never heard of that guy, much less listened to him. Are you still worshipping Al Gore and his private jets and mansions?

[Contrails]

I've never heard of that guy, much less listened to him. Are you still worshipping Al Gore and his private jets and mansions?

Are you going to ask a relevant question?

[Kalkin]

Are you going to ask a relevant question?
Mow your own lawn before you bitch about mine:

Still listening to Frank Luntz (http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf)?

[Captain Obvious]

It's a shame these threads get hijacked and trolled over by the indoctrinated RW bucket brigade who bring nothing but regurgitated radio talking point rhetoric idiocy to the discussion.

What ever happened to that suggestion of having a "by invitation only" section? This way issues like these can be discussed without all of the idiot noise in the background.

[Peter1469]

It's a shame these threads get hijacked and trolled over by the indoctrinated RW bucket brigade who bring nothing but regurgitated radio talking point rhetoric idiocy to the discussion.

What ever happened to that suggestion of having a "by invitation only" section? This way issues like these can be discussed without all of the idiot noise in the background.

We have blogs and group discussions for members only.

[Kalkin]

It's a shame these threads get hijacked and trolled over by the indoctrinated RW bucket brigade who bring nothing but regurgitated radio talking point rhetoric idiocy to the discussion.

What ever happened to that suggestion of having a "by invitation only" section? This way issues like these can be discussed without all of the idiot noise in the background.
It's equally shameful that leftist sympathizers are allowed to bitch about their RW boogeymen, but we just have to deal with the ramifications of free speech.

[Captain Obvious]

We have blogs and group discussions for members only.

I still think the idea has (or had) merit.

Blogs and group discussions seem fairly off-forum.

[Peter1469]

I still think the idea has (or had) merit.

Blogs and group discussions seem fairly off-forum.

I think that the suggested change would tear the forum apart. The only real negative to the blogs and group discussions are that they don't show up in What's New. And if we ever had a way to reject members from specific threads I would turn of the What's New feature for that. That is just rubbing people's face into it. It is so much easier for members to just not read posts from other members that they can't stand.

[Bob]

Two simple facts should tell anyone that global warming is real and is still happening.

First, there is the fact that CO2 in Earth's atmosphere absorbs heat, leading to higher surface temperatures. This is so simple and uncontroversial that it was discovered over 150 years ago and there is no serious alternative theory.

Second, there is the fact that human activity is still adding about 20 gigatones of CO2 to Earth's atmosphere each year. This is confirmed by measuring the ratio of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2.

Back when the greenhouse effect was discovered, an atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 280 ppm was sufficient to account for 6 °C of the 33 °C total warming the greenhouse effect causes. Human CO2 emissions since the 1800's have increased atmospheric CO2 by another 120 ppm, and at current rates will exceed 800 ppm by the end of the century. While global mean surface temperature has increase by about 1 °C since the 1800's, the only question is not if it will rise more, but how much and how fast.

Gosh, are you one of these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guyana_Tragedy:_The_Story_of_Jim_Jones

[zelmo1234]

It's a shame these threads get hijacked and trolled over by the indoctrinated RW bucket brigade who bring nothing but regurgitated radio talking point rhetoric idiocy to the discussion.

What ever happened to that suggestion of having a "by invitation only" section? This way issues like these can be discussed without all of the idiot noise in the background.

You could create a great circle jerk with invitation only!

[zelmo1234]

Here are 2 things that I know. For the past 15 years Global Warming has taken a vacation.

And the scientist that need to keep their funding were lying their asses off about it.

So I am going to have to see a lot more information to stop calling it the weather

[Bob]

Two simple facts should tell anyone that global warming is real and is still happening.

First, there is the fact that CO2 in Earth's atmosphere absorbs heat, leading to higher surface temperatures. This is so simple and uncontroversial that it was discovered over 150 years ago and there is no serious alternative theory.

Second, there is the fact that human activity is still adding about 20 gigatones of CO2 to Earth's atmosphere each year. This is confirmed by measuring the ratio of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2.

Back when the greenhouse effect was discovered, an atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 280 ppm was sufficient to account for 6 °C of the 33 °C total warming the greenhouse effect causes. Human CO2 emissions since the 1800's have increased atmospheric CO2 by another 120 ppm, and at current rates will exceed 800 ppm by the end of the century. While global mean surface temperature has increase by about 1 °C since the 1800's, the only question is not if it will rise more, but how much and how fast.

Today I introduce you to the santa claus model of science.

This concept is based on FACTS.

First we make any premise.

Ergo.... I got X mas presents last year and was told that Santa brought them.

To test for accuracy, again this past December, more presents appeared.

I know I did not buy them. Nothing was removed from my cash. No credit card was used.

This my friends is proof of Santa Claus.

The idea of the warmists is to pin the story of warming only on man. If they blame man, what happens.

They change society. The get taxes spent on this rip off.
They lead people to FEAR.

Some holidays also were intended to lead people to fear.

The left hates man being led to fear something like GOD. To them, GOD is just amusement for some humans.

Well, I say this.

I have lived over 75 years. (damn, that sure looks old)

So far, I am no less comfortable today than I was in my year of birth, 1938. Matter of fact, America suffered some or maybe the worst heat on record in the mid 30s. I am sure glad I was not yet born.

Even in my state that they say is in a drought, that was very normal for CA until man built reservoirs.

They had to build them or the population could not increase.

We have done poor planning. I was speaking of water shortages to a board of directors I was then on for several years up to 1990. I warned them the state must provide more reservoirs. I can't recall any of us discussing global warming then. We sure did not blame man. We understood the then drought in CA that lasted 7 years.

But it then went away. The reservoirs filled back up.

Dammit, somebody has to tell me again why this is all my fault.

I keep wondering if the left blames man for global warming during the 1930s? So fierce this country had a dust bowl. I see none of that today.

Do you?

[Bob]

Here are 2 things that I know. For the past 15 years Global Warming has taken a vacation.

And the scientist that need to keep their funding were lying their asses off about it.

So I am going to have to see a lot more information to stop calling it the weather

Wait, you mean to say that despite more carbon dioxide, it is stable?

Hell, they know that. But that is not what their story is.

I honestly did not believe it during the 1990s. I learned of a prominent scientist who truly understands climate and does the math.

The left insulted him by making shit up about the man. They lied by saying he was paid by oil to make his claims. I decided to see if he would reply.

I e mailed him at MIT. A top notch university.

Amazed, I got a reply fairly soon.

Rather than him spending a lot of his time educating me, he chose to show me his peer reviewed scientific papers he had published.

I am telling you this ... thank god I had a lot of math when I was much younger. I even bought more calculus books to brush up. I got from the library in my town, tapes on physics, chemistry, etc. just to ensure I was able to comprehend his work.

I then studied his papers.

And learned that he works with many scientists. Choi for instance from Korea.

So, Dr. Lindzen clearly is not alone in his work.

Well, I then mailed him and asked directly, has anything new shown up that causes you to change your mind?

He says, nothing new. That I believe was his last comment to me. Some of you heard of Richard Lindzen. Maybe I am the only forum poster you read that actually communicated with the man.

Nothing he told me causes me alarm.

As to the shitty claim he got paid by oil companies, the man told me his income is as a professor and is paid by MIT located in Boston.

[Common Sense]

Today I introduce you to the santa claus model of science.

This concept is based on FACTS.

First we make any premise.

Ergo.... I got X mas presents last year and was told that Santa brought them.

To test for accuracy, again this past December, more presents appeared.

I know I did not buy them. Nothing was removed from my cash. No credit card was used.

This my friends is proof of Santa Claus.

The idea of the warmists is to pin the story of warming only on man. If they blame man, what happens.

They change society. The get taxes spent on this rip off.
They lead people to FEAR.

Some holidays also were intended to lead people to fear.

The left hates man being led to fear something like GOD. To them, GOD is just amusement for some humans.

Well, I say this.

I have lived over 75 years. (damn, that sure looks old)

So far, I am no less comfortable today than I was in my year of birth, 1938. Matter of fact, America suffered some or maybe the worst heat on record in the mid 30s. I am sure glad I was not yet born.

Even in my state that they say is in a drought, that was very normal for CA until man built reservoirs.

They had to build them or the population could not increase.

We have done poor planning. I was speaking of water shortages to a board of directors I was then on for several years up to 1990. I warned them the state must provide more reservoirs. I can't recall any of us discussing global warming then. We sure did not blame man. We understood the then drought in CA that lasted 7 years.

But it then went away. The reservoirs filled back up.

Dammit, somebody has to tell me again why this is all my fault.

I keep wondering if the left blames man for global warming during the 1930s? So fierce this country had a dust bowl. I see none of that today.

Do you?

The dust bowls were fought using an aggressive planting program and various other practices were used to prevent future dust bowls. It was that damn FRD and all his meddling.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Fact, grant seeking scientists, in a dicipline politicized by those seeking personal financial gain, such as Al Gore, conveiniently left out the fact that water vapor has been and is the cheif cause of the greenhouse gas effect. Approximately 95%. Like a 150 years is to billions of years, so to is the mere pittance of man's contribution to global warming.

Somehow 150 years in the billions of years of the Earths formation is not a blink of an eye in the scientists minds. So to is the fact that the Earth came from being a molten orb of poisonous gas to what it is today without the aid of man. There is no valid benchmark for the Earth's optimum temperature. Personally, I would not mind seeing some of those snobbish Hollywood types losing their homes to the Gore predicted, "rising sea levels." Gore purchased a multi-million dollar mansion on the "endangered," shores.

Obama, has taken on the task of saving our planet when he cannot manage a health care delivery system in the computer age. Amazing that libs believe such nonsense. Find something more tangible to craft your God-complex upon. Even if the Warmalarmies have a point, won't the Earth just adjust? It seems it would just pull the cold air from the Northern latitudes down south, creating a whole planet with the climate of Hawaii.

[Bob]

I wish Troll face had not baited me by speaking of some RW bucket brigade.

I believe at the time I was born, his parents were not yet married. I suspect they may have married after I finished high school.

He resents honest discussion over a post first posted by a troll.

Hell, trolls don't bother me all that much.

I read Captain Obvious for the sake of amusement, so why not the other trolls?

The topic of global warming is as valuable to the left as Thor's hammer was to the mythology of the Norsemen.

Test

Your first personal encounter with global warming is?

Such as your home was swamped by the ocean or you are simply so hot you are in danger of going to the hospital.

They keep saying humans are burning the planet to a crisp and the seas are rising.

Florida is flat and very much just above sea level.

So, why is Florida still a state rather than a lagoon?

[Peter1469]

Famous scientist. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen)


Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_physics), known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_tides) and ozone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone) photochemistry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photochemistry). He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983,[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-CV-1) until he retired in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan) Professor of Meteorology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT).[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-eapsweb.mit_Spring_2013-2) He was a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change) Third Assessment Report (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Assessment_Report) on climate change (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change). He has criticized the scientific consensus about climate change (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Scientific_consensus)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-stevenswnyt-3) and what he has called climate alarmism.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-4)






Wait, you mean to say that despite more carbon dioxide, it is stable?

Hell, they know that. But that is not what their story is.

I honestly did not believe it during the 1990s. I learned of a prominent scientist who truly understands climate and does the math.

The left insulted him by making shit up about the man. They lied by saying he was paid by oil to make his claims. I decided to see if he would reply.

I e mailed him at MIT. A top notch university.

Amazed, I got a reply fairly soon.

Rather than him spending a lot of his time educating me, he chose to show me his peer reviewed scientific papers he had published.

I am telling you this ... thank god I had a lot of math when I was much younger. I even bought more calculus books to brush up. I got from the library in my town, tapes on physics, chemistry, etc. just to ensure I was able to comprehend his work.

I then studied his papers.

And learned that he works with many scientists. Choi for instance from Korea.

So, Dr. Lindzen clearly is not alone in his work.

Well, I then mailed him and asked directly, has anything new shown up that causes you to change your mind?

He says, nothing new. That I believe was his last comment to me. Some of you heard of Richard Lindzen. Maybe I am the only forum poster you read that actually communicated with the man.

Nothing he told me causes me alarm.

As to the shitty claim he got paid by oil companies, the man told me his income is as a professor and is paid by MIT located in Boston.

[Common Sense]

Even if the Warmalarmies have a point, won't the Earth just adjust? It seems it would just pull the cold air from the Northern latitudes down south, creating a whole planet with the climate of Hawaii.

The earth will be fine...it's the effects of the "adjustment" on us may not be pretty.

[Kalkin]

The earth will be fine...it's the effects of the "adjustment" on us may not be pretty.
Adapt or die. That's been the rule since the dawn of life.

[Common Sense]

Richard Lindzen is the same guy who doesn't think there is any correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

[Common Sense]

Adapt or die. That's been the rule since the dawn of life.

Sure...but does that mean we have to inflict more hardships on ourselves?

[Bob]

Even if the Warmalarmies have a point, won't the Earth just adjust? It seems it would just pull the cold air from the Northern latitudes down south, creating a whole planet with the climate of Hawaii.

The climates, note not climate, but climates, are many and very complex. Some of this has to do with the Sun. Some has to do with the rotation of Earth. Some has to do with physics.

And the tropics of the bands above and below the equator do shove out heat. The path above the equator is air moves to the far north. The spin of the earth, combined with the movement north, produces circles. Look at weather maps. You notice fronts. The are curved.

A lot of frigid cold is dumped from the far north to our eastern shores from the Arctic. Those in the east have snow at the time a state such as Washington is less cold. I remind you guys reading this that you need many science books to get this. Biology gives us data from the North. Fossils of giant insects taken from borings in the sea of the Arctic show a lot warmer earth. Clearly this was not done by man.

The Earth ebbs and flows.

Men wanting to rule other men create some stories. This is just more such stories to blame man for what happens on Earth. They once blamed gods. Today they blame man.

To give you a short illustration of the truth, look at the history spanning the past 20 years.

Many posters lived that same history.

Yet their stories do not match each others stories.

But in their minds, they told the truth. The lies they told about president Bush for instance still stand yet are enormous lies. Then they want to persuade us of this stuff they call global warming.

That is very amusing to say the least.

[Kalkin]

Sure...but does that mean we have to inflict more hardships on ourselves?
Exercise is a hardship, but it makes the organism stronger.

[Bob]

Richard Lindzen is the same guy who doesn't think there is any correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

This is news to me. He and I did not discuss smoking. Is that your best evidence of alleged global warming caused by people such as you and your family?

[Common Sense]

Exercise is a hardship, but it makes the organism stronger.

Hell, then let's just throw every caution to the wind. Shit in our drinking water...it'll just make us stronger!

[Common Sense]

This is news to me. He and I did not discuss smoking. Is that your best evidence of alleged global warming caused by people such as you and your family?

You should ask him.

You and I have discussed him in the past. I'm not going that futile road with you again.

[Kalkin]

Hell, then let's just throw every caution to the wind. Shit in our drinking water...it'll just make us stronger!
You first. I'll stick with exercising.

Personally, chicken-little predictions don't cause me to lose any sleep.

[Peter1469]

Famous scientist. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen)

More


Climate sensitivity Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis). A sea surface temperature increase in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_cloud) and thus more infrared radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_radiation) leakage from Earth's atmosphere.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-FOOTNOTELindzenChouHou2001-8) This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity). Satellite data from CERES (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clouds_and_the_Earth%27s_Radiant_Energy_System) has led researchers investigating Lindzen's theory to conclude that the Iris effect would instead warm the atmosphere.[45] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-47)[46] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-NASA_satellite_instrument_warms_up_global_cooling_ theory-48) Lindzen disputed this, claiming that the negative feedback from high-level clouds was still larger than the weak positive feedback estimated by Lin et al.[47] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-49)
Lindzen has expressed his concern over the validity of computer models (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model) used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that predicted warming may be overestimated because of inadequate handling of the climate system's water vapor feedback (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor_feedback). The feedback due to water vapor is a major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide). Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-stevenswnyt-3) This claim has been sharply criticised.[48] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-50)
Contrary to the IPCC's assessment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Third_Assessment_Report), Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud), modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[49] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-guterlfnewsweek-51) Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5°C based on ERBE data.[50] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-erbe-52) These estimates were criticized by other researchers,[51] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-53) and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceedings_of_the_National_Academy_of_Sciences_of _the_United_States_of_America).[52] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-www.nytimes_120501-54) The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[53] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-55) Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a relatively unknown Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[52] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-www.nytimes_120501-54)[54] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-56) Andrew Dessler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Dessler) published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."[55] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#cite_note-57)

[Common Sense]

This idea that we are just a tiny non consequential entity on this great big earth is laughable. Sure the earth has gone through huge cycles and the climate does change without the effects of man...but that doesn't mean we can't have an effect.

This illustrates our impact on the earth. Note the shallowness of our atmoshpere. Is it completely unfathomable that over the past few hundred years we have not had an impact on climate?

http://m5.paperblog.com/i/17/176168/flying-over-the-earth-at-night-L-d1seUw.jpeg

[bladimz]

It's equally shameful that leftist sympathizers are allowed to bitch about their RW boogeymen, but we just have to deal with the ramifications of free speech.Yes it is, isn't it?

[Peter1469]

Richard Lindzen is the same guy who doesn't think there is any correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

Link?

[Common Sense]

You first. I'll stick with exercising.

Personally, chicken-little predictions don't cause me to lose any sleep.


Come on...it'll make you stronger. It was your logic.

[Bob]

Some of you are real smart asses. How many of you can explain the Coriolis effect?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003JTurb...4...17E

[Kalkin]

Come on...it'll make you stronger. It was your logic.
I said exercise was a hardship that makes the organism stronger. You're the one wanting to drink poopwater.
I did 72 pullups earlier, and feel fantastic. Let me know how your cocktail makes you feel.

[Common Sense]

Link?

http://www.newsweek.com/truth-about-global-warming-154937

[bladimz]

Richard Lindzen is the same guy who doesn't think there is any correlation between smoking and lung cancer.
So he's done some "research" on behalf of Big Tobacco, too...:grin:

[Common Sense]

Lindzen is one of the 3% of scientists who don't think AGW is as bad as predicted. Don't get me wrong, he still believes the planet is warming, he's not as nuts as some here. But he is always paraded out as the one quasi legit denier. He's characterized as a nut by his peers and a person who just likes to be contrary. I think he likes the attention. Anyways, he's one...yet the vast vast majority of scientists disagree with him. But please, latch onto him...he's about all you have.

[bladimz]

You first. I'll stick with exercising.

Personally, chicken-little predictions don't cause me to lose any sleep.Chicken-little predictions? You mean like the "sky-is-falling" Obamacare foretelling?

[Matty]

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html


climate change is normal and cyclical!

[Kalkin]

Chicken-little predictions? You mean like the "sky-is-falling" Obamacare foretelling?
No, I mean like the man-made global warming hoax. Obamacare isn't the end of the world, it's just another brick in the wall being constructed between Americans and liberty.

[bladimz]

So what's the problem with making an effort to reducing our contribution to rising CO2 levels? Even if you don't believe the climate change facts, why take the chance that you just might be wrong. That we've been burning fossil fuels almost exclusively for the last 100+ years only means that by now technology should have surely found a way to significantly reduce our oil dependency. I wonder why we're still waiting.

[Common Sense]

So what's the problem with making an effort to reducing our contribution to rising CO2 levels? Even if you don't believe the climate change facts, why take the chance that you just might be wrong. That we've been burning fossil fuels almost exclusively for the last 100+ years only means that by now technology should have surely found a way to significantly reduce our oil dependency. I wonder why we're still waiting.


Money...

[Kalkin]

So what's the problem with making an effort to reducing our contribution to rising CO2 levels? Even if you don't believe the climate change facts, why take the chance that you just might be wrong. That we've been burning fossil fuels almost exclusively for the last 100+ years only means that by now technology should have surely found a way to significantly reduce our oil dependency. I wonder why we're still waiting.
Nothing is wrong with making an effort. Mandating everyone make the effort is what I oppose. There are many differing opinions on whether we can have any significant effects on the cyclical climate change of the earth. If one person feels so strongly about it that he eschews automobiles, plastics, and other things that may emit greenhouse gasses in their use or manufacture, more power to him. Don't saddle everyone with your dogma, though.

[Peter1469]

http://www.newsweek.com/truth-about-global-warming-154937

thanks.

[Bob]

The dust bowls were fought using an aggressive planting program and various other practices were used to prevent future dust bowls. It was that damn FRD and all his meddling.

First, I may be the only poster, posting on this forum, that remembers FDR (NOT FRD) as a living person. He was admired by my parents thus they listened to him on their radio and I was in the same room.

We may have come to CA in part due to that dust bowl.

So, as you claim, experts on soil and plants did work hard on the dust bowl areas. It took them years to change some things. I have no recall of FDR doing that. I doubt he understood why it happened.

[bladimz]

No, I mean like the man-made global warming hoax. Obamacare isn't the end of the world, it's just another brick in the wall being constructed between Americans and liberty.Ohhhhh, ok. I get it. Obama isn't the end of the world as we know it. It's just the end of the Republican's world.

Meanwhile, when we've officially lost all of our liberties, start a thread letting us know, please.

[bladimz]

Nothing is wrong with making an effort. Mandating everyone make the effort is what I oppose. There are many differing opinions on whether we can have any significant effects on the cyclical climate change of the earth. If one person feels so strongly about it that he eschews automobiles, plastics, and other things that may emit greenhouse gasses in their use or manufacture, more power to him. Don't saddle everyone with your dogma, though.Am i to understand you believe that the EPA should be eliminated, giving industry the freedom to self-regulate? Mandate is a dirty word these days, isn't it. Most states mandate car registration, and that all drivers be licensed. Most states mandate regular auto inspections. Taxes are mandated (to one degree or another). I appreciate your opposition; it sounds so noble in theory. But let's look at reality. We are forced to pay taxes without having any say in where we want our money spent. Mandates are everywhere. Being opposed to one or two or all of them is a personal thing. Government really doesn't give a crap about that.

[Common Sense]

Am i to understand you believe that the EPA should be eliminated, giving industry the freedom to self-regulate?

I'd wager that many here would think that would be awesome.


It's as if some desperately want to live in the mid 19th century.

[Matty]

So what's the problem with making an effort to reducing our contribution to rising CO2 levels? Even if you don't believe the climate change facts, why take the chance that you just might be wrong. That we've been burning fossil fuels almost exclusively for the last 100+ years only means that by now technology should have surely found a way to significantly reduce our oil dependency. I wonder why we're still waiting.
Can you manage that without taxing the crap out of us?

[Refugee]

Can you manage that without taxing the crap out of us?

Nope, its all your fault, pay up! :smiley:

I've been telling everyone for years I can reduce global warming if they give me their money, but so far it hasn't worked. :sad:

[Peter1469]

First, I may be the only poster, posting on this forum, that remembers FDR (NOT FRD) as a living person. He was admired by my parents thus they listened to him on their radio and I was in the same room.

We may have come to CA in part due to that dust bowl.

So, as you claim, experts on soil and plants did work hard on the dust bowl areas. It took them years to change some things. I have no recall of FDR doing that. I doubt he understood why it happened.

It was unsustainable farming practices.

[Contrails]

Famous scientist. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen)
The same Richard Lindzen who used to think (http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf) that clouds were a negative feedback (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html) that would lead to cooling? Didn't he also predict 10 years ago that climate would be significantly cooler in 20 years (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1552092,00.html)? How's that working out for him so far?

[Peter1469]

The same Richard Lindzen who used to think (http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/adinfriris.pdf) that clouds were a negative feedback (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html) that would lead to cooling? Didn't he also predict 10 years ago that climate would be significantly cooler in 20 years (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1552092,00.html)? How's that working out for him so far?

About the same as those who said it would be significantly warmer today than then. :smiley:

[Contrails]

Can you manage that without taxing the crap out of us?

We've been able to cut SO2 emissions nearly in half in two decades with a cap and trade program. Why do you think CO2 will be so difficult to reduce?

[Peter1469]

We've been able to cut SO2 emissions nearly in half in two decades with a cap and trade program. Why do you think CO2 will be so difficult to reduce?

What makes you think that CO2 is a real pollution like SO2?

[Contrails]

What makes you think that CO2 is a real pollution like SO2?
What makes you think any amount of SO2 constitutes pollution? Some wine aficionados might take issue with that. The point is, too much of anything can be a problem.

[Peter1469]

What makes you think any amount of SO2 constitutes pollution? Some wine aficionados might take issue with that. The point is, too much of anything can be a problem.

The market reacted to SO2 pollution (acid rain and whatnot). The market is largely ignoring CO2 pollution (more trees, less deserts).

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Common Sense http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=586530#post586530)
http://www.newsweek.com/truth-about-...warming-154937 (http://www.newsweek.com/truth-about-global-warming-154937)


Lindzen has more company than the warmers claim he has.

[Bob]

I have not heard of cap and trade vis a vis Sulfur Dioxide, but I have heard of these nifty ways to reduce Sulfur Dioxide.

http://www.writing.engr.psu.edu/speaking/figure4_21.pdf

[Bob]

looking for cap and trade yet this is all the EPA has to say. Sorry to report, no cap and trade.

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html

[Contrails]

looking for cap and trade yet this is all the EPA has to say. Sorry to report, no cap and trade.

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html
SO2 Reductions and Allowance Trading Under the Acid Rain Program
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/arp/s02.html

[Contrails]

The market reacted to SO2 pollution (acid rain and whatnot). The market is largely ignoring CO2 pollution (more trees, less deserts).

Except that we're not seeing more trees (http://landcover.org/research/portal/gfcc/stats.shtml) or less deserts (http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-72438-4_1).

[Common Sense]

Lindzen has more company than the warmers claim he has.

Oh I know...he has the remainder of the 3%. Plus he has all you guys.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The earth will be fine...it's the effects of the "adjustment" on us may not be pretty.

Or it may be the best thing that ever happens to us. If the leveling of temperatures is slow, it won't create hurricanes. As for the ice melt, we can pipe it all down into the drought areas. We should be doing that anyway with the seasonal melt we have always had.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Sure...but does that mean we have to inflict more hardships on ourselves? No, it does not mean that.

[The Sage of Main Street]

This idea that we are just a tiny non consequential entity on this great big earth is laughable. Sure the earth has gone through huge cycles and the climate does change without the effects of man...but that doesn't mean we can't have an effect.

This illustrates our impact on the earth. Note the shallowness of our atmoshpere. Is it completely unfathomable that over the past few hundred years we have not had an impact on climate?

http://m5.paperblog.com/i/17/176168/flying-over-the-earth-at-night-L-d1seUw.jpeg You're assuming that the Earth's climate was designed in mankind's best interest. That is superstition.

[Common Sense]

You're assuming that the Earth's climate was designed in mankind's best interest. That is superstition.

I don't assume anything. I definitely don't assume the earth's climate was designed. How exactly did you reach that conclusion?

[The Sage of Main Street]

So he's done some "research" on behalf of Big Tobacco, too...:grin: His imaginary plutocratic sponsors should bribe him to join the Tobacco Nazis. Cigarette taxes are a tax cut for the rich.

[Kalkin]

Ohhhhh, ok. I get it. Obama isn't the end of the world as we know it. It's just the end of the Republican's world.
Apparently you don't get it. The republican's world hasn't ended. As a matter of fact, most polls show them moving forward and quite possibly retaking the senate this fall. Ironically, it appears Obama may be the end of the democrat party. Such are the consequences of affirmative action when it hits the real world, where results count more than good intentions.

Meanwhile, when we've officially lost all of our liberties, start a thread letting us know, please.
Intelligent people know the time to protect rights is before you've lost them all.

[Common Sense]

Or it may be the best thing that ever happens to us. If the leveling of temperatures is slow, it won't create hurricanes. As for the ice melt, we can pipe it all down into the drought areas. We should be doing that anyway with the seasonal melt we have always had.

The melting ice goes mainly into the oceans. I don't think you want to pump sea water inland.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Lindzen is one of the 3% of scientists who don't think AGW is as bad as predicted. Don't get me wrong, he still believes the planet is warming, he's not as nuts as some here. But he is always paraded out as the one quasi legit denier. He's characterized as a nut by his peers and a person who just likes to be contrary. I think he likes the attention. Anyways, he's one...yet the vast vast majority of scientists disagree with him. But please, latch onto him...he's about all you have.

The article also states that climatologists used be minor-leaguers but have become Hall of Famers after propagandizing Warmalarmism megalomania. More verification of what the Sage has stated without borrowing his brains from self-appointed authorities.

Authoritarians: Where's the link?
Sage: Where's the chain?

[nic34]

Apparently you don't get it. The republican's world hasn't ended. As a matter of fact, most polls show them moving forward and quite possibly retaking the senate this fall. Ironically, it appears Obama may be the end of the democrat party. Such are the consequences of affirmative action when it hits the real world, where results count more than good intentions.

Intelligent people know the time to protect rights is before you've lost them all.

Hopefully, Obama will be the last conservative democrat.

[The Sage of Main Street]

So what's the problem with making an effort to reducing our contribution to rising CO2 levels? Even if you don't believe the climate change facts, why take the chance that you just might be wrong. That we've been burning fossil fuels almost exclusively for the last 100+ years only means that by now technology should have surely found a way to significantly reduce our oil dependency. I wonder why we're still waiting.

Because not being paid for our grades shrinks the talent pool into a puddle. We're not living in an Age of Giants. Also, totally owned corporate patents reduces incentive.

[Kalkin]

Am i to understand you believe that the EPA should be eliminated, giving industry the freedom to self-regulate?
You're half right (a match to your wit, IMO). Let the states decide, not the Feds, not the industries.

Mandate is a dirty word these days, isn't it.
I don't date men, so it's always been a dirty word for me. Btw, questions end with question marks.

Most states mandate car registration, and that all drivers be licensed. Most states mandate regular auto inspections. Taxes are mandated (to one degree or another).
That doesn't mean you can mandate anything you'd like and I'll submit.

I appreciate your opposition; it sounds so noble in theory. But let's look at reality. We are forced to pay taxes without having any say in where we want our money spent.
A tragedy, that.

Mandates are everywhere.
Not at the st patty's day parade.

Being opposed to one or two or all of them is a personal thing. Government really doesn't give a crap about that.
Government is my employee, I don't give a crap about what it doesn't give a crap about.

[Kalkin]

The point is, too much of anything can be a problem.
As in liberalism infesting the federal gov.

[Kalkin]

Hopefully, Obama will be the last conservative democrat.
Hopefully, he'll be the last democrat. Period.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I don't assume anything. I definitely don't assume the earth's climate was designed. How exactly did you reach that conclusion? Because you're in the "It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature" cult. I believe we should do to MN what others here want to do to Ravi: Tie her to a chair and shave her head!

[The Sage of Main Street]

The melting ice goes mainly into the oceans. I don't think you want to pump sea water inland. Just the melt at the shoreline does. Nice try, but nice guys finish last.

[bladimz]

That doesn't mean you can mandate anything you'd like and I'll submit.But you did submit to car registration, didn't you? (There's the question mark you were concerned about.) Why is that? Is it because the mandate was in place before you even cared about it? I also assume that you submitted freely to mandated licensing for the same reason. If you are stopped and are found driving with an expired license, you get fined, right? So what's the difference if you are caught without mandated health insurance. You'll be fined whether it's the state or the fed that fines you. Again; what's the difference? Not much. One entity isn't any cleaner or more invested in it's residents than the other, no matter what you want to believe.

[bladimz]

Apparently you don't get it. The republican's world hasn't ended. As a matter of fact, most polls show them moving forward and quite possibly retaking the senate this fall. Ironically, it appears Obama may be the end of the democrat party. Such are the consequences of affirmative action when it hits the real world, where results count more than good intentions.Silly rabbit. Polls are for kids. It's time to come to grips with it. If screaming "Obamacare" during the last election cycle didn't sink Obama and the Democrats, it's pretty clear that the GOP is quickly losing that battle. Failed IRS and Benghazi Issa witch-hunts didn't work out well for them either, did it?


Intelligent people know the time to protect rights is before you've lost them all.No argument there. I just don't believe that you'll be able to recognize when you've "lost" them all. The Oligarchs will make sure that you never know.

[bladimz]

Can you manage that without taxing the crap out of us?Closing certain loopholes like the one that directs approx. 4 billion to the oil industry could help. We could start with that. And, if you want to really get into it, check out the Orion Project report on suppressed energy technologies:


The U.S. Patent Office has a nine-member committee that screens patents in order to protect “national security”.

An understandable reason for suppressing certain types of energy inventions is that the knowledge behind them is also capable of producing tremendously destructive advanced electromagnetic weapons such as the “death ray” apparently invented by Nikola Tesla. Hence many such new energy technologies, particularly those using this kind of knowledge of advanced electromagnetic principles, are considered "dual use" technologies that are among the 4,000 un-numbered patent applications confiscated in a vault at the US Patent and Trademark Office because of their military potential and the need to keep that knowledge from America's enemies.

A hidden purpose of this committee is to also find and remove from public access energy-related patents which could threaten the fossil fuel and power monopolies.

Canada's patent office doesn't have a similar screening committee. It is recommended that energy patents possibly in danger of being classified should be first applied for in Canada. Once granted, up to one year is allowed to apply for the same patent in the U.S. Patent Office. Now the patent can not be classified because it is already out in the public domain, courtesy of Canada.
http://www.theorionproject.org/en/suppressed.htmlWhen you consider the very real possibilities that these technologies exist, you might want to think about how much money we might actually save if they weren't suppressed.

[Peter1469]

Except that we're not seeing more trees (http://landcover.org/research/portal/gfcc/stats.shtml) or less deserts (http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-72438-4_1).

Your links don't work. Edit (the second link is working as of the time of this edit)

More trees (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true)

CO2 greening deserts (http://www.livescience.com/37055-greenhouse-gas-desert-plants-growing.html)

[Bob]

SO2 Reductions and Allowance Trading Under the Acid Rain Program
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/arp/s02.html

Yeah, there are regulations.

I still am unable to locate facts showing either it is being done, or that it works.

It is my opinion that any improvements are those industry created due to technology, etc, rather than any government creation.

[Bob]

Your links don't work. Edit (the second link is working as of the time of this edit)

More trees (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true)

CO2 greening deserts (http://www.livescience.com/37055-greenhouse-gas-desert-plants-growing.html)

During Clinton's administration, my research from official sources, showed that today, this country has more trees (I did not say forests to be harvested) than when white men came to settle this country. I once had a map that showed so much data that it debunked those that claimed this country has less treed.

Peter's data confirms this nation has more harvest-able forests. We owe him our thanks. I plan to look at his data on deserts next.

Back from his link.

This is very interesting. Source Peter's link.
http://www.livescience.com/37055-greenhouse-gas-desert-plants-growing.html


http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/053/365/i02/pr_2013-24-1-hi-res.jpg?1370031757





http://assets.pinterest.com/images/PinExt.png (http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3A//www.livescience.com/37055-greenhouse-gas-desert-plants-growing.html&media=http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/053/365/original/pr_2013-24-1-hi-res.jpg?1370031757&description=New research links gradual greening of arid areas like Australia’s Outback to increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. )New researchhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.livescience.com/37055-greenhouse-gas-desert-plants-growing.html#) links gradual greening of arid areas like Australia’s Outback to increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Credit: Bruce DoranView full size image



Beep, beep! There's more camouflage for sneaky roadrunners and wily coyotes in the deserts thanks to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, a new studyhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.livescience.com/37055-greenhouse-gas-desert-plants-growing.html#) finds.
Between 1982 and 2010, leaf cover on plants (http://www.livescience.com/topics/plants/) rose by 11 percent in arid areas, including the southwestern United States, Australia's Outback, the Middle East and some parts of Africa, the study found. The results were published May 15 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
The research confirms a long-held suspicion that one of the side effects of global warming (http://www.livescience.com/topics/global-warming/) will be lusher plant life. Plants pull carbon dioxide from the air — the gas is part of a chemical process calledphotosynthesis (http://www.livescience.com/30689-plant-glow-detected-from-space-nasa.html) that plants use to make foodhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/lb_icon1.png (http://www.livescience.com/37055-greenhouse-gas-desert-plants-growing.html#). More carbon dioxide should lead to an average increase in vegetation across the globe, which studieshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://www.livescience.com/37055-greenhouse-gas-desert-plants-growing.html#) have found in recent decades. But increased rainfall or changing temperatures could also be responsible for the new growth.

[Max Rockatansky]

Two simple facts should tell anyone that global warming is real and is still happening.

First, there is the fact that CO2 in Earth's atmosphere absorbs heat, leading to higher surface temperatures. This is so simple and uncontroversial that it was discovered over 150 years ago and there is no serious alternative theory.

Second, there is the fact that human activity is still adding about 20 gigatones of CO2 to Earth's atmosphere each year. This is confirmed by measuring the ratio of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2.

Back when the greenhouse effect was discovered, an atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 280 ppm was sufficient to account for 6 °C of the 33 °C total warming the greenhouse effect causes. Human CO2 emissions since the 1800's have increased atmospheric CO2 by another 120 ppm, and at current rates will exceed 800 ppm by the end of the century. While global mean surface temperature has increase by about 1 °C since the 1800's, the only question is not if it will rise more, but how much and how fast.

Two simple facts about human behavior.

First, people don't like change. They especially don't like changing if they are fat, dumb and happy. Something will have to harm them to cause them to change, bite them in the ass so to speak. This is almost always true of the 82% of humanity with an IQ less than 115.

http://psychclasses2.wikispaces.com/file/view/Untitled2.png/222846950/350x157/Untitled2.png

Second, highly politicized situations result in a "push", a stalemate. Although you might think parents might defer to the side of caution where their kids are concerned, but bottom line goes back to the first point; if they are fat, dumb and happy now, they won't worry about what "might" be where their kids are concerned. Those kids will just have to grow up and fix the problems they face on their own just like mankind has been doing for thousands of years.

IMO, it's evolution in action. If we wipe ourselves out, some other species will eventually come along. It's all part of the way of the Universe. Not a big deal.

[Contrails]

About the same as those who said it would be significantly warmer today than then. :smiley:

Remind me again how many of the 10 hottest years were in the last decade.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Remind me again how many of the 10 hottest years were in the last decade.

None, probably.

Do you have any idea how short-term you're looking at this?

[Contrails]

Your links don't work. Edit (the second link is working as of the time of this edit)
Both links are working just fine. You need to put your sources in context though.


More trees (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true)
The source behind your link (http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/x4995e.htm) says "After two centuries of decline, the area of US forestland stabilized in about 1920 and has since increased slightly." So despite 380% more growth than in 1920, US forestland has only increased slightly since then to about 300 million hectares. Brazil, on the other hand, which had 400 million hectares of forest in 1970, has lost 75 million hectares (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Brazil) since then. Russia has over 1 billion hectares of forest but is loosing about 2 million hectares a year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Russia#Asia). Do you think we'll be able to keep up with them (http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1757e/i1757e.pdf)?


CO2 greening deserts (http://www.livescience.com/37055-greenhouse-gas-desert-plants-growing.html)
The benefits of CO2 fertilization is nothing new, but research shows (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01511.x/abstract) that the effects on important food crops like wheat, rice, barley and potatoes are less than desirable. And do you think an 11% increase over 30 years even begins to offset global deforestation?

[Contrails]

None, probably.
Try most of them.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

Do you have any idea how short-term you're looking at this?
Richard Lindzen was the one that picked the 20 year time frame for his bet. Aren't you the one arguing that an 15 year pause means more than 100 years of warming?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Try most of them.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

Richard Lindzen was the one that picked the 20 year time frame for his bet. Aren't you the one arguing that an 15 year pause means more than 100 years of warming?

Ah. Thank you.


since records began in 1880

Do you have any idea how much time there was before 1880?

This should be obvious.

Again, you're looking at this in a way that is so short term it couldn't possibly have anything to do with climate and more about recent weather.

The last 10 years as compared with 1880? Not even a drop in the pool compared to the overall history of everything.

Just give things a bit more thought next time, okay?

[Contrails]

Do you have any idea how much time there was before 1880?

This should be obvious.

Again, you're looking at this in a way that is so short term it couldn't possibly have anything to do with climate and more about recent weather.

The last 10 years as compared with 1880? Not even a drop in the pool compared to the overall history of everything.

Just give things a bit more thought next time, okay?

Do you really think that a 12C temperature change over 10,000 years is worse than a 1C change in just 100 years? It's exactly because this is such a short term change that makes it so critical.

[Kalkin]

Do you really think that a 12C temperature change over 10,000 years is worse than a 1C change in just 100 years? It's exactly because this is such a short term change that makes it so critical.
One of the reasons I moved from Michigan to California was because I like warmer weather. If this trend continues, I can move back home!

[Peter1469]

Do you really think that a 12C temperature change over 10,000 years is worse than a 1C change in just 100 years? It's exactly because this is such a short term change that makes it so critical.

1C in 100 years isn't critical. It is manageable. It is not a crisis to warrant the alarmism of the IPCC.

[Peter1469]

Regarding the more trees link, read further down. More info on CO2.


Both links are working just fine. You need to put your sources in context though.


The source behind your link (http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/x4995e.htm) says "After two centuries of decline, the area of US forestland stabilized in about 1920 and has since increased slightly." So despite 380% more growth than in 1920, US forestland has only increased slightly since then to about 300 million hectares. Brazil, on the other hand, which had 400 million hectares of forest in 1970, has lost 75 million hectares (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Brazil) since then. Russia has over 1 billion hectares of forest but is loosing about 2 million hectares a year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Russia#Asia). Do you think we'll be able to keep up with them (http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1757e/i1757e.pdf)?


The benefits of CO2 fertilization is nothing new, but research shows (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01511.x/abstract) that the effects on important food crops like wheat, rice, barley and potatoes are less than desirable. And do you think an 11% increase over 30 years even begins to offset global deforestation?

[Contrails]

1C in 100 years isn't critical. It is manageable. It is not a crisis to warrant the alarmism of the IPCC.
1C in 100 years isn't what the IPCC is projecting, is it? What rate of change would you consider unmanageable?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Closing certain loopholes like the one that directs approx. 4 billion to the oil industry could help. We could start with that. And, if you want to really get into it, check out the Orion Project report on suppressed energy technologies:

When you consider the very real possibilities that these technologies exist, you might want to think about how much money we might actually save if they weren't suppressed.
Why would countries like Japan and those in Europe suppress them when they are so dependent on OPEC? You've been seeing too many sci-fi fantasy movies and listening to too much Art Bell.

Besides there being nothing like what Hollywood makes money off creating with special effects, there will be no breakthroughs anyway because of the way talent is neglected. No one with the raw talent to do anything spectacular will be left with the pride needed to develop himself. The only harmful thing the oil companies are doing in this area is creating this fantasy that will never be fulfilled as long as we have Investor Supremacy instead of Inventor Supremacy. Fantasizers are in denial about the infertility of the soil in which we plant our seeds of genius.

[Max Rockatansky]

1C in 100 years isn't what the IPCC is projecting, is it? What rate of change would you consider unmanageable?

It's all manageable. It's not like we're "harming the planet" here. At worse, we'll remove our race from existence, but I doubt that'll happen. We may kill off a few billion in time, turn a planet that is 75% water into one that is 85% water but so what? It's time humanity left this planet anyway. "Necessity is the Mother of Invention". When the crisis arrives, we'll either devise a solution or perish. "We" meaning those humans still alive 50-100 years from now. Not you and me.

If you were really concerned, wouldn't you only fly "green" airplanes?

[Peter1469]

1C in 100 years isn't what the IPCC is projecting, is it? What rate of change would you consider unmanageable?

No it isn't what they are predicting. They consider several difference CO2 level scenarios and predict the warming for the 21st century. All predictions are over 1 C.

[Liberal Doses]

1 to 1.5 °C is the bottom end of the climate model projections, but 3 °C is much more likely.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2014/03/RoeBaker-590x469.gif
http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/roe-and-baker-2007.pdf

[Liberal Doses]

Uh-where is the 95% of water vapor in this model which would render this model useless?

[Liberal Doses]

Even if the Warmalarmies have a point, won't the Earth just adjust? It seems it would just pull the cold air from the Northern latitudes down south, creating a whole planet with the climate of Hawaii.

Yes, just like the Earth adjusted from it's molten beginings. You have a point with your changing the climate. If you are going to deal with making a change then dealing with the 95%+ of the greenhouse effect, water vapor, makes the most sense, rather than the 3% CO2, caused naturally and by man. Of that 3% natural CO2 is 97%, man caused 3%. In short an insignificant amount.

Like you say deal with something which has a greater impact. For example, we could seed the water vapor over high desert plains and cause rain fall there. Seeding clouds is something which they can already do. That would decrease the water vapor in the atmosphere and allow more heat to escape.

But I am not going to worry about it as I think, as you say the Earth takes care of itself. I worry more about the fantasy ridden minds of the left which enact zany, eviron-mentally disturbed regulations, based of cooked data provided by scientists who deliver pre-determined results they were paid to do.

[Liberal Doses]

This idea that we are just a tiny non consequential entity on this great big earth is laughable. Sure the earth has gone through huge cycles and the climate does change without the effects of man...but that doesn't mean we can't have an effect.

This illustrates our impact on the earth. Note the shallowness of our atmoshpere. Is it completely unfathomable that over the past few hundred years we have not had an impact on climate?

http://m5.paperblog.com/i/17/176168/flying-over-the-earth-at-night-L-d1seUw.jpeg

Then for God's sake! Turn off your lap top, mothball your car and any petroleum based products go live in a cave with as many people as you can because you are going to need the body heat as you cannot burn wood as that releases CO2. Then at least we will have a few less dots of light to worry about.

[Liberal Doses]

It's all manageable. It's not like we're "harming the planet" here. At worse, we'll remove our race from existence, but I doubt that'll happen. We may kill off a few billion in time, turn a planet that is 75% water into one that is 85% water but so what? It's time humanity left this planet anyway. "Necessity is the Mother of Invention". When the crisis arrives, we'll either devise a solution or perish. "We" meaning those humans still alive 50-100 years from now. Not you and me.

If you were really concerned, wouldn't you only fly "green" airplanes?

It will likely be a retired janitor tinkering in his garage that discovers an endless supply of clean energy from something the size of a sugar cube.

[Peter1469]

It will likely be a retired janitor tinkering in his garage that discovers an endless supply of clean energy from something the size of a sugar cube.

That won't stop the warmists from demanding massive transfers of wealth to suit what ever goals they have in mind.

[Liberal Doses]

That won't stop the warmists from demanding massive transfers of wealth to suit what ever goals they have in mind.

True. Only a return to sanity will ensure that. The removal of progressives from political influence will be a good start.

[Contrails]

That won't stop the warmists from demanding massive transfers of wealth to suit what ever goals they have in mind.

Nobody has yet to explain how programs like cap-and-trade transfer wealth from developed countries when they are the ones most likely to be selling excess credits.

[Peter1469]

But we are talking about the recommendations of the warmists. Not your claimed unclear recommendation (I doubt that cap and trade is your only trick). And you haven't stated the costs associated with your cap and trade. Cap and trade cnd destroy fossil fuel industries and if you don't have a doable plan B, destroy the economy.

And just to remind you, I am anti fossil fuel and think we can replace it with alcohol within a decade if we desired. (And not corn ethanol). And it would actually turn the US into a manufacturing power house- as opposed to destroying our economy, as the warmists want.


Nobody has yet to explain how programs like cap-and-trade transfer wealth from developed countries when they are the ones most likely to be selling excess credits.

[Max Rockatansky]

It will likely be a retired janitor tinkering in his garage that discovers an endless supply of clean energy from something the size of a sugar cube.

I think we've moved past the garage-inventor with an IQ of 90 inventing a new product for Ronco when it comes to fusion and rockets to Mars.

If you think there is a conspiracy by the oil companies to suppress such inventions in the US, there is little to stop other nations from doing so. Especially since they would benefit the most from it. Japan and Korea would love to be able to cut the petro-strings attached to their economies.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yes, just like the Earth adjusted from it's molten beginings. You have a point with your changing the climate. If you are going to deal with making a change then dealing with the 95%+ of the greenhouse effect, water vapor, makes the most sense, rather than the 3% CO2, caused naturally and by man. Of that 3% natural CO2 is 97%, man caused 3%. In short an insignificant amount.

Like you say deal with something which has a greater impact. For example, we could seed the water vapor over high desert plains and cause rain fall there. Seeding clouds is something which they can already do. That would decrease the water vapor in the atmosphere and allow more heat to escape.

But I am not going to worry about it as I think, as you say the Earth takes care of itself. I worry more about the fantasy ridden minds of the left which enact zany, eviron-mentally disturbed regulations, based of cooked data provided by scientists who deliver pre-determined results they were paid to do.

A real scientist would work on transforming the weather. Even if he believed in AGW, he'd invent a molecule that would capture excess "greenhouse gases" instead of shutting industry down. New Age climatologists are non-creative bench-warmers jealous of the main players. That's why they try to say that all the inventors of the last 400 years have only come up with things that will lead to our destruction.

"...a falsetto vocalist screams, squeaks, and squawks his way through every number like some rambling madman..."

[bladimz]

It will likely be a retired janitor tinkering in his garage that discovers an endless supply of clean energy from something the size of a sugar cube.Wouldn't that be a wonderful turn of events? I'm sure that the current huge power conglomerates would just love to see that technology made available to the world. They'd just sit back and let it happen, with a big smile on their corporate puss. To think that they'd interfere (like maybe they would like to protect their interests...) is just silly. Doncha think?

[bladimz]

That won't stop the warmists from demanding massive transfers of wealth to suit what ever goals they have in mind.Like this form of wealth-transfer is any worse than what's been happening here in the last 50 years...

[Peter1469]

Like this form of wealth-transfer is any worse than what's been happening here in the last 50 years...

You ain't seen nothing yet!

[bladimz]

You ain't seen nothing yet!I'm sure i haven't.

[Contrails]

But we are talking about the recommendations of the warmists.
Recommendations which you have conveniently neglected to define.


Not your claimed unclear recommendation (I doubt that cap and trade is your only trick).
Cap-and-trade and carbon taxes, the only serious proposals for limiting CO2 emissions, are anything but unclear.


And you haven't stated the costs associated with your cap and trade. Cap and trade cnd destroy fossil fuel industries and if you don't have a doable plan B, destroy the economy.
There are already numerous (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/pdfs/WM-Analysis.pdf) studies (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf) estimating (http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt146.pdf) the cost of emissions trading programs. Cap-and-trade programs are up and running in several large economies such as the European Union, Australia, and Japan. While their success has been mixed (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140321095506.htm), nobody's economy has been destroyed as a result.


And just to remind you, I am anti fossil fuel and think we can replace it with alcohol within a decade if we desired. (And not corn ethanol). And it would actually turn the US into a manufacturing power house- as opposed to destroying our economy, as the warmists want.
While I share your opinion that this problem can be solved without destroying our economy, I disagree that it can be done in the absence of a regulatory limit on emissions. The same doomsday predictions were made about the ban of CFC's a few decades ago, and not only did our economy survive but it started a whole new industry for CFC replacements.

[Peter1469]

Recommendations which you have conveniently neglected to define.


Cap-and-trade and carbon taxes, the only serious proposals for limiting CO2 emissions, are anything but unclear.


There are already numerous (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/pdfs/WM-Analysis.pdf) studies (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf) estimating (http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt146.pdf) the cost of emissions trading programs. Cap-and-trade programs are up and running in several large economies such as the European Union, Australia, and Japan. While their success has been mixed (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140321095506.htm), nobody's economy has been destroyed as a result.


While I share your opinion that this problem can be solved without destroying our economy, I disagree that it can be done in the absence of a regulatory limit on emissions. The same doomsday predictions were made about the ban of CFC's a few decades ago, and not only did our economy survive but it started a whole new industry for CFC replacements.

I appreciate your last paragraph. You should have helped the IPCC write their recommendations so they don't seem so alarmist.

I have advocated very specific policies (http://energyvictory.net/). Unfortunately it requires reading. And it would turn the US into a manufacturing powerhouse. And happily it would devastate the Middle East to an extent that could only be exceeded with nuclear weapons.

And no it is not corn based ethanol.

[Liberal Doses]

Wouldn't that be a wonderful turn of events? I'm sure that the current huge power conglomerates would just love to see that technology made available to the world. They'd just sit back and let it happen, with a big smile on their corporate puss. To think that they'd interfere (like maybe they would like to protect their interests...) is just silly. Doncha think?

Yeah, like all those rich cattle ranchers with massive herds of horses stood in the way of the invention of the car.

The problem with carbon credits is they are a false commodity with a built-in insider trading advantage. Ascribing a monetary value to something which is a non-usable by-product of manufacturing is creating a false commodity. In contrast for example. Pulp is a by-product of the lumber business which is then processed to form products which can be sold and counsumed. This is a tangible product.

Carbon credits are derived from production. The determination of how much CO2 is being expelled from a particular company will be made by a so-called certified organization directly or very closely tied to the Federal government. One then can the easily and arbritarily ascribe to one company as having a value of carbon credits to be purchased for allowing another company to continue their level of emmissions. Those who will enter the investment in the false commodity, with governmental connections can easily have fore-knowledge of who will and will not have credits available.

Companies that receive monetary compensation for their false commodity will have additional disposable income. It is the nature of business to grow or die. A small company will use additional income to re-invest and grow. By growing, their emmission levels will increase and the cycle starts over. The origional purchaser of the credits made no change in their level of emmissions so that is a wash. What is really is happening is a transfer of wealth which will finance the growth of another company and the only effect will be an increase in CO2.

However, I think the liberal mind will only come to realize that this is a money making scheme when they personally feel its effects after having had opened their now much larger energy bill, which will in turn coerce them to change their energy driven lifestyles. All in the name of junk science, and self enriching men. Much like finding out that they had to pay for health care, while not being able to keep your doctor, or health plan. And the other negative effects of a disaster of a bill. More still to come.

You speak of oil conglomerates not wanting their interests to be compromised. What do you think people who are enriching themselves in the false commodity market of CO2 will want? Will they want less CO2 or more? Will they want to see oil and coal disappear and be replaced by something which doesn't produce CO2?

This type of environmental remedy will only encourage the need for CO2. For example, once a liberal zealot derives his administrative salary from the need to protect endangered polar bears, they must either remain in a state of endangerment, or constant monitoring if they are taken off of the list in order for that administrator to receive compensation.

[Contrails]

I appreciate your last paragraph. You should have helped the IPCC write their recommendations so they don't seem so alarmist.
You mean the same IPCC that said (http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf) holding atmospheric CO2 below 450 ppm would only reduce global consumption growth by 0.04 to 0.14 (median: 0.06) percentage points over the 21st century? What do you find so alarmist about that?


I have advocated very specific policies (http://energyvictory.net/). Unfortunately it requires reading. And it would turn the US into a manufacturing powerhouse. And happily it would devastate the Middle East to an extent that could only be exceeded with nuclear weapons.

And no it is not corn based ethanol.
I was referring to the undefined policies you attribute to alarmists. Other than cap-and-trade and carbon taxes, which I've already addressed, I'm not aware of any specific policy proposals that would destroy any economy. Maybe you could be a little more specific with your criticism.

[Peter1469]

You know that the economy can't sustain the IPCC recommendations just like Kyoto. Which is why most nations that signed the Kyoto Accord didn't follow through.


You mean the same IPCC that said (http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf) holding atmospheric CO2 below 450 ppm would only reduce global consumption growth by 0.04 to 0.14 (median: 0.06) percentage points over the 21st century? What do you find so alarmist about that?


I was referring to the undefined policies you attribute to alarmists. Other than cap-and-trade and carbon taxes, which I've already addressed, I'm not aware of any specific policy proposals that would destroy any economy. Maybe you could be a little more specific with your criticism.

[Contrails]

You know that the economy can't sustain the IPCC recommendations just like Kyoto.
Our economy can't sustain a .14% reduction? It varies by 10 times that much every quarter.


Which is why most nations that signed the Kyoto Accord didn't follow through.
And the US, despite never ratifying it, actually met its target (http://berc.berkeley.edu/is-the-us-about-to-accidentally-meet-kyoto-protocol-targets/). How bad could it be if we didn't even have to try?

[Bob]

Our economy can't sustain a .14% reduction? It varies by 10 times that much every quarter.


And the US, despite never ratifying it, actually met its target (http://berc.berkeley.edu/is-the-us-about-to-accidentally-meet-kyoto-protocol-targets/). How bad could it be if we didn't even have to try?

This was not a sudden event.

The error made by the warmists is they believe WE want low fuel mileage cars.

We want comfort; safety; best fuel economy; reliability; long lasting

But democrats are driving us into worse than that, current autos are death traps.

[Bob]

Warmists will hate this

We knew the truth


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEaFzhoS67I

[Bob]

Another scientist speaks


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI

[Max Rockatansky]

We're all going to die anyway. It's not whether we die at 40 years old or 80, but how we live.

Even baby birds know not to shit in the place they sleep. If we think we can dump toxic chemicals into our land, our water and our air and not have to worry about the effects, then we aren't as smart as we think we are. No matter because we're all going to die anyway. It's the way of the Universe.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/30/nations-air-quality-worsens/8466889/
The 2014 State of the Air (http://www.stateoftheair.org/) report out Wednesday from the American Lung Association presents a good news/bad news mix showing improvements in America's air quality compared with previous decades, but more recently an increase in ozone readings since its 2013 report. Bottom line, the association says, is that 147.6 million people live in areas where air quality remains unhealthy, almost 16 million more than the 2013 report.

[Bob]

We're all going to die anyway. It's not whether we die at 40 years old or 80, but how we live.

Even baby birds know not to shit in the place they sleep. If we think we can dump toxic chemicals into our land, our water and our air and not have to worry about the effects, then we aren't as smart as we think we are. No matter because we're all going to die anyway. It's the way of the Universe.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/30/nations-air-quality-worsens/8466889/
The 2014 State of the Air (http://www.stateoftheair.org/) report out Wednesday from the American Lung Association presents a good news/bad news mix showing improvements in America's air quality compared with previous decades, but more recently an increase in ozone readings since its 2013 report. Bottom line, the association says, is that 147.6 million people live in areas where air quality remains unhealthy, almost 16 million more than the 2013 report.

Without the plants creating Oxygen, there would be no human life. But for Carbon Dioxide, plants would not have food.

It is a cycle. Nothing to fear.

[Contrails]

Without the plants creating Oxygen, there would be no human life. But for Carbon Dioxide, plants would not have food.

It is a cycle. Nothing to fear.

Arsenic is also a natural substance found in many plants (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/20/5-things-should-know-about-arsenic/) that some consider essential to life (http://ezinearticles.com/?Arsenic---An-Essential-Nutrient-For-Growth&id=5661173), but I doubt you would recommend consuming too much of it.

[Max Rockatansky]

Without the plants creating Oxygen, there would be no human life. But for Carbon Dioxide, plants would not have food.

It is a cycle. Nothing to fear.

Agreed. Neither you nor I have nothing to fear from this. 50-100 years down the road? Who gives a shit, amiright? :D

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=595528#post595528)
Without the plants creating Oxygen, there would be no human life. But for Carbon Dioxide, plants would not have food.

It is a cycle. Nothing to fear.


Arsenic is also a natural substance found in many plants (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/20/5-things-should-know-about-arsenic/) that some consider essential to life (http://ezinearticles.com/?Arsenic---An-Essential-Nutrient-For-Growth&id=5661173), but I doubt you would recommend consuming too much of it.

Weak AnalogyExplanationArguments by analogy rest on a comparison. Their logical structure is this:
(1) A and B are similar.
(2) A has a certain characteristic.
Therefore:
(3) B must have that characteristic too.
For example, William Paley’s argument from design (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-teleological-argument/the-argument-from-analogy/) suggests that a watch and the universe are similar (both display order and complexity), and therefore infers from the fact that watches are the product of intelligent design that the universe must be a product of intelligent design too.
An argument by analogy is only as strong as the comparison on which it rests. The weak analogy fallacy (or “false analogy”, or “questionable analogy”) is committed when the comparison is not strong enough.
ExampleThe example of an argument by analogy given above is controversial, but is arguably an example of a weak analogy. Are the similarities in the kind and degree of order exhibited by watches and the universe sufficient to support an inference to a similarity in their origins?

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=595528#post595528)
Without the plants creating Oxygen, there would be no human life. But for Carbon Dioxide, plants would not have food.

It is a cycle. Nothing to fear.


Agreed. Neither you nor I have nothing to fear from this. 50-100 years down the road? Who gives a shit, amiright? :D

I have offered many proofs to support my contentions.

Look, will there be a USA in 100 years?

Can it survive this economic clusterfleck?

[Max Rockatansky]

I have offered many proofs to support my contentions.

Look, will there be a USA in 100 years?

Can it survive this economic clusterfleck?You and I will be dead so give a good reason why we should care?

[Bob]

You and I will be dead so give a good reason why we should care?

My children are still important as are my grand children. At that time, I won't care.

[Max Rockatansky]

My children are still important as are my grand children. At that time, I won't care.

They can't be that important if you are willing to roll the dice on greenhouse gas and other forms of pollution.

No worries. No matter how fucked up we make this planet, I'm sure they'll be able to handle it. "Necessity is the Mother of Invention", right? They'll be fine.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Wouldn't that be a wonderful turn of events? I'm sure that the current huge power conglomerates would just love to see that technology made available to the world. They'd just sit back and let it happen, with a big smile on their corporate puss. To think that they'd interfere (like maybe they would like to protect their interests...) is just silly. Doncha think?
You forget that families stuck with one corporate goal own hardly any corporations. The stockholders in oil could sell out and buy a Solyndra very quickly if it had any real promise. And with the closed club on Wall Street, they'd be the first to know of any practical invention they could acquire the rights to put on the market (the actual inventor has no rights) instead of performing in this Hollywood Science plot of keeping it off the market.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I appreciate your last paragraph. You should have helped the IPCC write their recommendations so they don't seem so alarmist.

I have advocated very specific policies (http://energyvictory.net/). . And happily it would devastate the Middle East to an extent that could only be exceeded with nuclear weapons.

It would take only ground troops to seize the jihadis' oilfields. They would suffer very few casualties, as long as we evicted the natives instead of trying nation-building for people who never deserved to have a nation.

First, we could infiltrate special forces posing as oilfield workers, their weapons hidden in oilfield supplies. Then we assassinate the Saudi royal family and key members of their military. This is very doable. I wish Putin would be the first to take the area I assigned to Russia; then we could pretend to occupy the Arabian fields just to protect them. Big Oil is protecting their price-gouging allies, so we'll have to rely on some nation not owned by the Western petrocrats.

[The Sage of Main Street]

You and I will be dead so give a good reason why we should care? Exactly my reason for abolishing inheritance. Dead Daddy is not going to rise from the grave and scare us into giving unearned advantages to his spoiled pompous brats.

[Contrails]

Weak Analogy
No weaker than the original argument. No one says that all of the CO2 in our atmosphere is bad, just the extra 15 billion gigatons humans are adding that nature cannot absorb.


I have offered many proofs to support my contentions.

Look, will there be a USA in 100 years?

Can it survive this economic clusterfleck?

What economic clusterfleck is that? Do you realize that the US met its Kyoto targets despite never ratifying the treaty and while in a recession.

[Peter1469]

No weaker than the original argument. No one says that all of the CO2 in our atmosphere is bad, just the extra 15 billion gigatons humans are adding that nature cannot absorb.



What economic clusterfleck is that? Do you realize that the US met its Kyoto targets despite never ratifying the treaty and while in a recession.

How much would it cost for China, India, and other larger non-first world economies to comply at the level western nations were targeted for?

[Contrails]

How much would it cost for China, India, and other larger non-first world economies to comply at the level western nations were targeted for?

When targets for the US and other first-world economies are only 5% to 10% below 1990 emissions, while China, India and other non-first world economies only emit a fraction of what the first world does (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html), aren't they already there?

[Peter1469]

When other larger non-first world economies produce only a fraction of the CO2 per capita that the US and other first-world economies do, why
Focus. China. How much to turn green?

If the Chinese pay that cost, fine. I am not.

[Contrails]

Focus. China. How much to turn green?
Hit the post button by accident. You'll have to address my last post again.


If the Chinese pay that cost, fine. I am not.
How much did China contribute to the current 400 ppm of CO2? This problem has been a century in the making, so judging how much one should contribute to fixing it based on current emissions is inequitable.

[Peter1469]

Hit the post button by accident. You'll have to address my last post again.


How much did China contribute to the current 400 ppm of CO2? This problem has been a century in the making, so judging how much one should contribute to fixing it based on current emissions is inequitable.

The 1st world will not pay the costs to have other nations skip 2-3 generations of energy development / production.

[Contrails]

The 1st world will not pay the costs to have other nations skip 2-3 generations of energy development / production.

In other words, you want non-developed nations to help pay for a problem that develop nations created.

[Peter1469]

In other words, you want non-developed nations to help pay for a problem that develop nations created.

No. But I won't pay for them to skip generations of technology.

You consistently come across as if this process isn't that expensive. If that were true it would already be happening and this thread is useless. You make a poor spokesperson for the IPCC: they can't achieve their goals on your budget. That is what it all comes down to. Politics: who gets what, where, and how. And people can bed wet all they want; the IPCC goals will not be implemented. But soon man will create cleaner technology and all of this bed wetting will have been for not.

[Contrails]

You consistently come across as if this process isn't that expensive. If that were true it would already be happening and this thread is useless.
You're assuming that all of the people in Congress are actually rational about this issue (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/28/3215971/house-members-deny-climate-change/). If we've been able to reduce CO2 emissions in this country by over 10% (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html) in the last decade without any national policy, imagine what we could do if we actually tried. Your suggestion of mandating flex fuel vehicles is a perfect example of zero-cost solutions that won't happen without a mandate from Washington.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/USCO2EmissionsTimeSeries.png

[Peter1469]

You need global solutions. The US could return to a pre-industrial age existence and it won't matter a bit.

Come on. Talk about what you really want the global community to do and what it will cost.

I say let science lead us beyond this bump in the road. Don't let Luddites dag us down. :smiley: What say you?



You're assuming that all of the people in Congress are actually rational about this issue (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/28/3215971/house-members-deny-climate-change/). If we've been able to reduce CO2 emissions in this country by over 10% (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html) in the last decade without any national policy, imagine what we could do if we actually tried. Your suggestion of mandating flex fuel vehicles is a perfect example of zero-cost solutions that won't happen without a mandate from Washington.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/USCO2EmissionsTimeSeries.png

[Peter1469]

You never commented on my solution- I can only suppose it is because you are in the Luddite camp and want a retrograde in our way of life.

[Contrails]

You never commented on my solution- I can only suppose it is because you are in the Luddite camp and want a retrograde in our way of life.

That wouldn't be the first time you were wrong. I didn't comment because I find it pointless to debate solutions with someone who doesn't accept that there is a problem.

[Peter1469]

That wouldn't be the first time you were wrong. I didn't comment because I find it pointless to debate solutions with someone who doesn't accept that there is a problem.

Massive deflection. I offered a solution that did not depend on your problem but would solve your problem 100% and which would return the US to a manufacturing superpower status. So who do you work for? Some global power that wants to destroy the US? Yes. On your posts here, I call you out as a fraudster. In the 1800s American west you would be covered with hot tar and then feathers and run out of town. People back then didn't take very kindly to fraudsters. Yes, you should be run out of town. Naked, covered is boiling hot tar with feathers for fun. If that hurts your feelings file a protest with the management.

But you really need to stop with this idea of the IPCC solution as cheap and easy; because that is fraud.

[Peter1469]

Massive deflection. I offered a solution that did not depend on your problem but would solve your problem 100% and which would return the US to a manufacturing superpower status. So who do you work for? Some global power that wants to destroy the US? Yes. On your posts here, I call you out as a fraudster. In the 1800s American west you would be covered with hot tar and then feathers and run out of town. People back then didn't take very kindly to fraudsters. Yes, you should be run out of town. Naked, covered is boiling hot tar with feathers for fun. If that hurts your feelings file a protest with the management.

But you really need to stop with this idea of the IPCC solution as cheap and easy; because that is fraud.

Stop posting. Being a fraud violates the good faith rules.

[Bob]

They can't be that important if you are willing to roll the dice on greenhouse gas and other forms of pollution.

No worries. No matter how fucked up we make this planet, I'm sure they'll be able to handle it. "Necessity is the Mother of Invention", right? They'll be fine.

You know, once I looked into this. I wondered if there really was global warming. They started this shit way too early.

I understood climate. I understood chemistry. I understood that to the globe. the tiny amount of CO2 was not even swatting at flies. It was more like sticking it to ants.

So, to claim because i am not bamboozled by words, given I love FACTS, and I see no FACTS is correct.

That and I studied the papers of Dr. Richard Lindzen. Along with that I have viewed plenty of scientific data.

My kids are fine as are my grand kids.

If you need to persuade someone, check out the Chinese and Indians. They keep building coal burning plants.

Why isn't Earth getting hotter given they add to the CO2 a hell of a lot per year?

[Spectre]

The global temperature graph from the end of the Mesozoic to the present is EXTREMELY interesting.

Average global temperature today is just over 14 degrees C. At the start of the Eocene it was 24 degrees C. It has--at first slowly--steadily fallen since then. Our time is a freezer by comparison to those sultry times of 40 to 65 million years ago.

[Bob]

The global temperature graph from the end of the Mesozoic to the present is EXTREMELY interesting.

Average global temperature today is just over 14 degrees C. At the start of the Eocene it was 24 degrees C. It has--at first slowly--steadily fallen since then. Our time is a freezer by comparison to those sultry times of 40 to 65 million years ago.

Yeah

[Contrails]

Massive deflection. I offered a solution that did not depend on your problem but would solve your problem 100% and which would return the US to a manufacturing superpower status.

100%. Really? Because your solution only addresses the 32% of human CO2 emissions from transportation (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html). And labeling any other alternative solution an economic disaster without even saying what they are is not a deflection?

[Contrails]

The global temperature graph from the end of the Mesozoic to the present is EXTREMELY interesting.

Average global temperature today is just over 14 degrees C. At the start of the Eocene it was 24 degrees C. It has--at first slowly--steadily fallen since then. Our time is a freezer by comparison to those sultry times of 40 to 65 million years ago.

Remind me again what the state of human civilization was back then.

[Peter1469]

100%. Really? Because your solution only addresses the 32% of human CO2 emissions from transportation (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html). And labeling any other alternative solution an economic disaster without even saying what they are is not a deflection?

It also addresses energy for infrastructure.

[Max Rockatansky]

That and I studied the papers of Dr. Richard Lindzen. Along with that I have viewed plenty of scientific data.

My kids are fine as are my grand kids.
Didn't I say that? Don't worry about it. If anything goes wrong, they'll figure it out. In the meantime, party on like it was 1999!!!!

As for Lindzen, did you also believe all those "scientists" who said smoking was good for you? The "scientists" who supported the Twinkie Defense?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
"If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something."

Isn't this what I've been telling you? Fuck it! You and I, plus Lindzen for that matter, will be dead in 50 years so why should we give a flying fuck about it?

[Liberal Doses]

Here, Climate Primates, Warming Woodheads, Climate Clingons.

Read and learn: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[Perianne]

The world has been hotter since Perianne has been alive.

[Max Rockatansky]

The world has been hotter since Perianne has been alive.

No doubt at all!