The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists

page: 9
69
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   

ElectricUniverse
What a load of crap... All you ever do, Al Gore Junior, is insult every real scientist who happens to have a job, and knows and understands this better than you.


No, it's not a load of crap.

It's pretty clear and obvious to anyone interested in facts rather than a-hattery. Referring to Geocraft.com, you said:


ElectricUniverse
It is often cited because it is the website of a well known scientist, and not a wannabe like yourself. The only one full of tripe and BS is you, and others like you.


And I said it was the website of an engineer from WV who works in the mining industry.


GEOCRAFT.COM WHOIS
Updated: 11 hours ago
Registration Service Provided By: Whois Privacy
Contact: @jumpline.com
Visit: jumpline.com...

Domain name: geocraft.com

Registrant Contact:
ChristianWebHost.com
Domain Registration ()

Fax:
1679GatwewayCircle
GroveCity, OH 43123
US

Administrative Contact:
Geocraft
Monte Hieb (@geocraft.com)

who.is...

And you can find the contacts for the West Virginia Miner's Health and Safety office here:

www.wvminesafety.org...

Where we find that Monte Hieb is a chief engineer for the Oakhill region of WV. And just to consolidate, you'll find Monte Hieb's name all over the geocraft website and his website has an obvious focus on West Virginian fossils.

Ergo, the website is the product of an engineer involved in the mining industry in west virginia not any form of scientist, well-known or otherwise.

You see, discussing with you is like shooting fish in a barrel. A tedious bore. Also, your perseveration appears to be worsening. I suggested you might want to get it checked out a while back. Not a good sign

[edit on 27-4-2010 by melatonin]




posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Energy In - Energy reflected = Energy Out + Energy Converted



Well...not quite. Although you're actually part right - just I don't know if you're going to like the result (but I'll elaborate on that after).

The main thing for now is to recognize this "energy converted" is not simply removed somewhere else forever. You pointed out yourself the plant-food-calorie connection. Energy of course cannot be destroyed - merely converted to other forms. So some of it first of all cycles up the food chain to help keep you and me operating around an optimal 37°C/99°F for example.

But since most plants are actually lucky enough to not get eaten, the majority of that energy is released through decomposition (which is mostly just a fancy way of saying getting eaten by bacteria).

Furthermore, plants don't simply only absorb energy through photosynthesis - they also release it through respiration. *Incidentally - if you look through that link, notice respiration (which releases CO2 as well as energy) goes up with temperature. This is one of the positive feedback arguments I could've used to counter your points on our saving grace, the biosphere


But the point here is - ignoring the minor contribution of the Earth's core - virtually the entire planet's energy budget comes from that big burning ball in space. And even though it might get bounced around and reconverted 5 zillion times before it finally makes it back - eventually that energy does still have to radiate its way out. I mean - if it just kept amassing infinitely - we'd have a MUCH bigger problem than global warming, because we'd be sitting on a ticking time bomb.

So hence nature ultimately has wired itself to be completely integrated into this overall equilibrium. It's just a bit of a middleman really - not so much storing the energy as it is "stalling" it, long enough for us to utilize whatever we need before we send it off again. This is basically the same function GHG's serve - they don't so much trap heat as they do slow down its release - long enough for the temperature to rise to a new equilibrium before it's forced out again (by the resulting extra "pressure", if you will).


But now - I did say you were part right - and I have to admit I've never really looked at the argument from this perspective, so it's kind of interesting.


But Redneck I don't know how you're going to feel about this - I think you just uncovered a whole new implicit way to prove man made global warming!!


Because some of that embodied plant and animal energy is indeed removed and stored. It's a very minimal effect over the short term - but bury it and add it up over a few hundred million years and you've got something.

I'm of course talking about fossil fuels.

Now look at it like so: The Earth has been slowly absorbing and storing this energy for a very long time. In doing so, I guess you could say it has "naturally" reduced the required energy out/equilibrium temperature in the process...

But now in the last 150 years - we've gone and dug it all up and released it virtually all at once. Suddenly the equation is actually more like:

Energy In - Energy reflected + Energy converted = Energy Out



Furthermore - removing that variable from the equation over hundreds of millions of years had a negligible effect on climate change. But how do you feel now about suddenly reintroducing it all in a geological eyeblink?

I mean you can even forget your skepticism of GHGs for a minute and just think about it in terms of pure energy - does it really still seem that insignificant to you?** Remember, you came up with this logic yourself!



**but before you go possibly using this analogy to "calculate" that there isn't enough embodied energy in fossil fuels to warm the atmosphere or something - remember it really isn't an accurate way to explain radiative forcings, feedbacks, etc for trapping current incoming solar radiation. Just an interesting way to look at things - and some food for thought.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared

But now - I did say you were part right - and I have to admit I've never really looked at the argument from this perspective, so it's kind of interesting.

Actually, neither had I. Isn't it amazing what an open discussion can lead to?


I rarely make a quote out of order, but I just had to start my response with the one above. Now back to the entire response...


The main thing for now is to recognize this "energy converted" is not simply removed somewhere else forever. You pointed out yourself the plant-food-calorie connection. Energy of course cannot be destroyed - merely converted to other forms. So some of it first of all cycles up the food chain to help keep you and me operating around an optimal 37°C/99°F for example.


That is generally true, but certain forms of chemical energy remain untapped by technology. The same thing can also be said for carbon itself: there is a finite amount of carbon in the Earth, and it does not get somehow 'used up', only converted to other compounds. Energy as well is converted to other forms. In the case of utilizing fossil fuels, that chemical energy stored in the C-H bonds is converted to heat as the C-H bonds are exchanged for lower-energy C-O bonds.

And yet, I cannot count how many times I have heard someone on these boards mention that perhaps the warming is coming from the combustion directly... only to be assured that such is a ridiculous proposal. Well, if we accept the possibility that the readings of the spectroscopic data are indicative of a chemical energy conversion, then why can we also not accept the fact that it is the release of that energy that is responsible for any warming trends? After all, as you correctly point out, we are releasing energy.

The truth is, there are far more energy conversions happening on this planet, and far more types of energy than what some would have us believe. Yes, CO2 absorbed by a plant can be released through decomposition, but not all of it. Some of that absorbed CO2 will go back into the soil as various compounds. Coral are continuously putting back carbon as they build coral reefs, comprised of CaCO3 (calcium carbonate, the major constituent of limestone). Even though we are converting C-H bonds in oil into CO2 at a rapid rate, the ecosystem is still busily putting it back into more mineral forms. And that rate increases as the CO2 level increases, as has previously been discussed.


Furthermore, plants don't simply only absorb energy through photosynthesis - they also release it through respiration.

I will not agree that the respiration process in flora is significant. The photosynthetic process is responsible for the oxygen level in the atmosphere, which we and all other animals are busily converting to CO2 through respiration. That oxygen comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is CO2 to O2 conversions via photosynthesis. If the respiration of plants were to become significant, the amount of O2 available to fauna life would diminish at an alarming rate.

As well, the carbohydrates that are produced in photosynthesis are used up in respiration, meaning that if the respiration effect were significant in plant life, it would translate into a lack of food for animal life. We know that plants are food; therefore the photosynthetic effect must be much more prevalent than any respiratory effect in plants.

The actual term is not so much respiration, which refers to the chemical process of converting carbon compounds to CO2 and releasing energy in the process (as in the main energy equation in fauna life), but rather transpiration, which simply means that the plants expel water from their pores as well as oxygen. This does increase dramatically as temperature increases, as long as there is sufficient water available. It brings up another effect of photosynthesis: as this transpired water evaporates, it absorbs energy from the surrounding area to make the conversion from water to water vapor. It is not dissimilar from what happens when we sweat.

So we see a cooling effect that operates in direct relationship to increasing local temperatures. As local temperature increases, transpiration increases, moving energy from the plant and the surrounding area into water vapor. This energy is released over time as the water vapor rises into cooler parts of the atmosphere and condenses back into rain. Please note that carbon dioxide is heavier than oxygen and nitrogen (the two main constituents of air) and thus exists primarily at lower levels of the atmosphere. Thus, any energy released in the form of radiation from this process happens in lower CO2 levels and is therefore more easily able to escape the dastardly trap we have placed for it through driving pickup trucks.


So again, we have a link that attempts to minimalize the effects of photosynthesis on the energy and chemical equations through obviously exaggerated and/or incomplete claims and analysis.

That is not to say that floral respiration does not occur, only that it is insignificant.


But the point here is - ignoring the minor contribution of the Earth's core - virtually the entire planet's energy budget comes from that big burning ball in space. And even though it might get bounced around and reconverted 5 zillion times before it finally makes it back - eventually that energy does still have to radiate its way out. I mean - if it just kept amassing infinitely - we'd have a MUCH bigger problem than global warming, because we'd be sitting on a ticking time bomb.

This argument can be applied to both sides as well. We know, according to presently accepted theory, that the Earth has managed to maintain habitable conditions for terrestrial life for at least a few hundred million years. During that time there have been volcanic upheavals, continental drift, solar flares, asteroid collisions, and who knows what other natural catastrophes. Yet, life has not only survived, but thrived. Thus, the argument that an increase of 0.01% atmospherically of one of the gases that actually helps to support life would appear to be low on the catastrophic list.

We could argue this back and forth all year, and in the end we would have succeeded only in rehashing an old argument that goes nowhere. This is again turning qualitative rather than quantitative; yes, CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas. But does it act in sufficient quantity to cause problems in the levels we are now experiencing? You say yes; I say no; someone is going to have to run some calcs to get an answer.


So hence nature ultimately has wired itself to be completely integrated into this overall equilibrium. It's just a bit of a middleman really - not so much storing the energy as it is "stalling" it, long enough for us to utilize whatever we need before we send it off again. This is basically the same function GHG's serve - they don't so much trap heat as they do slow down its release - long enough for the temperature to rise to a new equilibrium before it's forced out again (by the resulting extra "pressure", if you will).

I actually agree with this assessment, to a point. An increase on the CO2 level does not suddenly cause trees to double their mass overnight. There is a time delay factor. The difference between your position (CO2 will create uninhabitable conditions) and my position (CO2 will create a minor adjustment) is again quantitative.

As in any system there will be a point where the atmosphere will equalize to the new conditions. If this point is too hot or too cold, then, yes, life will be severely affected. If, however, this new equilibrium is minor, on the scale of a degree or so of average temperature increase, then it will have little to no observable effect on the planet as a whole.


Now look at it like so: The Earth has been slowly absorbing and storing this energy for a very long time. In doing so, I guess you could say it has "naturally" reduced the required energy out/equilibrium temperature in the process...

But now in the last 150 years - we've gone and dug it all up and released it virtually all at once.

Yes, we have. And your proposal makes much more sense than attributing Global Warming to carbon dioxide. But what you have done, in actuality, is to 'cut the cord' between observed average global temperature changes and carbon dioxide levels.

According to that assessment, instead of CO2 levels being responsible for any observed anomalies, it is instead the heat produced by the conversion of fossil fuels to lower level chemical compounds that is the culprit... so would it not make more sense to simply make fossil fuels, or for that case, any activity which produces 'unnatural' heat, illegal? Why bother with a gas that is invisible, difficult to measure, and obviously a part of the life cycle?

Of course,I have to slap myself down on that last paragraph... it is political rather than scientific. It does remain an interesting question for another time, nevertheless.


I mean you can even forget your skepticism of GHGs for a minute and just think about it in terms of pure energy - does it really still seem that insignificant to you?** Remember, you came up with this logic yourself!

Seeming significant is a different critter than being significant. Again, I would have to calculate the amount of energy released in a typical year from the combustion of fossil fuels and compare that to the energy that the planet can sink. Ironically, those are the exact calculations you seem to dismiss immediately in your next paragraph...


But, for the next few days I am going to be one very busy redneck and may not have time to do a lot of calculations, although I should have time to make some responses. Reality must come before the Internet, as I am sure you are aware. In the interim, I will continue to keep this conversation going by asking you a few questions you can research and muse upon, assuming you are serious about understanding exactly what is occurring in terms of incoming vs. outgoing energy (as I believe you may be):
  • How much energy would it take to raise the temperature of the planet by a single degree K?

  • How do conduction and convection figure into the equations, if at all? We have presently been discussing only radiative energy movements.

  • What is the total biospherical capacity as it stands now of photosynthetic effects? (In other words, how much photosynthesis is actually taking place?)

  • How much energy is being released today by the consumption of oil, natural gas, and coal?

I look forward to seeing your answers to these questions, and apologize for any delay in answering, in advance.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Ok so first off we definitely need to slow down a bit before we get to more questions Redneck.

Because you're dismissing some very important points with the brush of a hand.

Plant respiration is definitely a significant factor. If you have actual evidence to the contrary then please present it. But you can't just make assumptions out of thin air based on how much of it is or isn't used up by animal life. Obviously there is a net surplus of energy and byproducts from photsynthesis that get passed on down the line - but that hardly means plants give up all, or even most, of their hard work to someone else without taking care of themselves first. For instance - if you have a look at this paper available here:

The McCree-de Wit-Penning de Vries-Thornley Respiration Paradigms: 30 Years Later

There is a table that rounds up ratios of respiration to photosynthesis for various plants at the bottom. Notice the range of values fall anywhere between 0.3-0.88, but most of them are well above half.

Also, for your point about carbohydrates and (lack of) food in the system - again, don't "misunderestimate" (my fave Bush-ism) the power of plants. In case you're interested - here's a great textbook on plant respiration. But if you wanna save yourself the $219.00 - then here's the important part right in the abstract:


As such, respiration is an essential component of a plant’s carbon budget. Depending on species and environmental conditions, it consumes 25-75% of all the carbohydrates produced in photosynthesis – even more at extremely slow growth rates.


So again, not exactly chump change we're talking about.

But now - all of this actually is kind of insignificant in the scope of the overall energy budget we've been trying to build. Because as I pointed out in the last post - most plants release their energy through decomposition. Did you look at the link I put up? There's a graphic there showing you how 99% of all plant biomass skips the herbivores and heads straight to the decomposers. And then the following blurb sums up any lingering concerns over where that converted energy ultimately ends up:


The energy initially amassed through photosynthesis is used by decomposers to survive. Through their respiration, this energy is finally dissipated as heat.



So now I have to digress here for a minute and use all this to address something. First off - the importance of reading the fine print. This is the key to truly understanding the science in climate science. I posted that link before to the API memo about uncertainties and "the average citizen" for a number of reasons. One of which was to show you how much the denial industry flat out preys on the weaker, more superficial understanding of the general public.

I'll give you a very concurrent example - while you and I have been having a pretty meticulous in-depth conversation over how our biosphere even applies to the overall issue, someone started a new thread:

**Seeing is Believing** Watch this video about evil CO2

Where a youtube video showing a plant growing faster under more CO2 is apparently the only information you need to know that all of Global Warming is a crock because, you know - Seeing is Believing!!

This is what really pisses me off about this whole subject Redneck. All the amateur experts we suddenly have because "clearly" global warming is good for plants and that's all there is to it, or it's natural now because it's always been natural in the past, or it's all due to the Sun because the Sun is warm. ...And anyone who can't see these "obvious" conclusions themselves is clearly just brainwashed by Al Gore.

Now lemme say I agreed to partake in such a debate with you and not one of these nitwits for a couple of reasons: one is that you have shown the capacity to actually understand the science lol. And two is that you have also shown the humility and open-mindedness to acknowledge where you might not understand the science (instead off just immediately calling me "brainwashed" and then running away). So again - I appreciate it


But I gotta remind you now not to make any assumptions about anything, no matter how apparent it might seem on the surface. Because again - a true skeptic questions everything, even his own stance. So when you start falling back on these assumptions you're not entirely sure of, but you deem "obvious" anyway - that's when you start treading dangerously close to falling in the pool of ignorance the deniers are having their big splash party in.

Anyway don't take that as an attempt to insult or anything - I'm just trying to keep things on course because we're getting a bit too ahead of ourselves and derailing important stuff in the process. And I wanna stay on this energy budget thing for a minute because it's really important.

So with that in mind let me now completely contradict myself about paying attention to the details by switching instead to the bigger picture (debates are full of surprises - ha!). But there are some ways we can cheat the fineprint so long as we stick to hardcore science in the broader sense. Basically all this stuff about the planetary energy budget can come down to two things: the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

The 1st of course says you can't create or destroy energy. But the 2nd has a few different interpretations. The one I want to deal with pertains to the conversion of energy. We know from the 1st Law this conversion is 100% efficient, but we also know from the 2nd Law that with each conversion - entropy increases and therefore some of that energy is always lost (as heat) to our system. So the more conversions you have, the more energy you're actually sending right back out into the void.

Anyway - I'm gonna stop here (at the void!) for now because I've had kind of a long day and don't wanna be in front of this computer all night. But I'll try and get to your questions next time, cheers.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



I am an engineer too so what?... At least is better than being a "wannabe scientist"...

You ALWAYS have some excuse and you ALWAYS insult and claim every scientist who disagrees with you is an oil kook so the only one who is being a bore time and again is you...

You also claimed, unless you want to claim something new now, that the Medival Warm, and Roman Warm Periods were not global yet I have provided peer-reviewed research from ALL OVER THE GLOBE which showed them to be GLOBAL EVENTS, and still you claimed those are only regional Climate Changes when the research says something entirely different...

You also LOVE to post your information from "FakeClimate", I mean "Real Climate.org" where Phil Jones, and no other than Michael Mann are directors, and who happen to love Al Gore and say good things about him, although that is because they probably have been getting paid by Al Gore through his former long time director Arlie Schardt who formed Environmental Media Services which owns, or how the liars at "RealClimate.org" claim "their site is only hosted by Environmental Media Services....

Your idols have been shown to be nothing more than scammers, and liars, let it be... It is getting tedious to discuss this subject with you...


[edit on 29-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
...........
**Seeing is Believing** Watch this video about evil CO2

Where a youtube video showing a plant growing faster under more CO2 is apparently the only information you need to know that all of Global Warming is a crock because, you know - Seeing is Believing!!

This is what really pisses me off about this whole subject Redneck. All the amateur experts we suddenly have because "clearly" global warming is good for plants and that's all there is to it, or it's natural now because it's always been natural in the past, or it's all due to the Sun because the Sun is warm. ...And anyone who can't see these "obvious" conclusions themselves is clearly just brainwashed by Al Gore.
..............


There is actually research that shows plant growth is increased with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration...are you going to claim the contrary now?...

Even websites which claim, with no proof mind you, that CO2 affects the climate do point out these facts...


In addition to its effect on climate, increased atmospheric CO2 concentration has direct and relatively immediate effects on two important physiological processes in plants – it increases photosynthetic rate, but decreases stomatal opening and therefore the rate at which plant leaves lose water (Bowes 1993). In combination – increased photosynthesis and decreased water loss – plants have been shown to significantly increase water-use efficiency (WUE, the ratio of carbon gain per unit water lost).

Increased WUE at elevated CO2 is anticipated to be particularly important in water-limited environments because it will allow plants to maintain larger leaf canopies or to maintain photosynthesis and growth longer into dry seasons (Smith et al. 1997). This occurs primarily as a result of compounding leaf-level water savings through an individual plant and, within a plant community, improving water balance at a number of scales. Such changes would stimulate greater annual production and store more carbon in dryland soils. Additionally, this may result in the expansion of plants into currently non-vegetated areas.

Using this logic, several conceptual models have predicted that water-limited ecosystems such as deserts will respond more strongly to elevated CO2 than will other ecosystem types. For example, Melillo et al. (1993) predicted that deserts would increase in annual primary (plant) production by 50-70% in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, whereas most forests will exhibit less than a 20% increase in production. However, deserts are both water- and nutrient-limited systems (Smith et al. 1997), so it is not clear what effects increased growth at high CO2 will have on already limiting supplies of soil nutrients. Unfortunately, data on the responses of deserts to global change scenarios, with which the above predictions could be evaluated, are almost completely lacking.

ag.arizona.edu...


Other research say a different story about how much most plants, and trees will grow with an increase in atmospheric CO2...


Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

Plants under effective CO2 enrichment and management display thicker, lush green leaves, an abundance of fragrant fruit and flowers, and stronger, more vigorous roots. CO2 enriched plants grow rapidly and must also be supplied with the other five "essential elements" to ensure proper development and a plentiful harvest.
....

www.planetnatural.com...



Elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide increases carbon retention in soil
ARGONNE, Ill. (Dec. 20, 2005) — Researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory – with collaborators from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Kansas State University and Texas A&M University– have shown that soils in temperate ecosystems might play a larger role in helping to offset rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2 ) concentrations than earlier studies had suggested. Results of the new study are published in the current issue of Global Change Biology.

Higher CO2 concentrations often stimulate plant growth. A subsequent increase in the amount of decaying plant material might then lead to an accumulation of carbon in soil. Yet nearly all field experiments to date have failed to demonstrate changes in soil carbon against the large and variable background of existing soil organic matter.
....

www.anl.gov...




Climate change could boost cash crops
Carbon dioxide makes for bumper yields of soy.

Climate change could boost yields from one of America's most important crops, say plant biologists who have simulated the expected atmospheric conditions of 2050 in a US field.

Andrew Leakey of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has tended experimental soybean plots near the university since 2001, exposing the plants to the increased levels of ozone and carbon dioxide (CO2) predicted by climate-change models. Both gases are on the up, thanks to the burning of fossil fuels in cars or power plants. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms the planet, and ozone contributes to smog.
....

www.nature.com...

You claim people are not "questioning everything" when in fact it is clear that you are the one not questioning the so called "science" behind the AGW lies, and more so since the main AGW proponents have been shown to be nothing more than scammers, and liars...


So why don't you change your mind even after finding that the main AGW proponents were rigging the data, using false information, and hiding information just to keep AGW alive?... Obviously you haven't questioned your stance enough, but you insult everyone who happens to disagree with you...


[edit on 29-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


So continuing on...



Well, if we accept the possibility that the readings of the spectroscopic data are indicative of a chemical energy conversion, then why can we also not accept the fact that it is the release of that energy that is responsible for any warming trends? After all, as you correctly point out, we are releasing energy.


Mainly because this is completely misrepresenting how Global Warming and radiative forcings work. Although as I noted above it makes for a neat conceptual way of looking at it, it is also more or less completely wrong. This is why I mentioned not to waste time with any calculations - because you're right, it only "seems" significant. We do release a lot of energy, but it is still absolute bupkis compared to what we get every second from the Sun.

For example - the intercepted solar radiation flux (1370W/m2 x pi x Earth's radius squared) is about 11000 times the 2008 primary global power demand of 15 TW.

*Slightly off-topic for a sec - but this is also why the case for solar power is so important:

If we found a way to cover less than 1% of the world’s desert area (~80,000 km2) with 10% efficient modules, that would be all that was needed to generate the world's total electricity consumption in 2008 (17000 TWh).

This is another reason I can't fathom why so many people are blindly intent on tearing apart every single aspect of global warming just because they have a problem with the politics. If they have issues with that then great - I hate politicians too - but there's so much good that could actually come out of this supposed "fake problem" - even if it was a scam. But to make that happen the public needs to start talking about it in the right way instead of just derailing the issue altogether in some big left-wing-hippy-environmentalist witchhunt. I mean even if you don't think CO2 is bad, you realize coal and oil lead to a whole plethora of other environmental problems right? (If you don't believe me then I suggest taking a dip through the Gulf of Mexico right now).



But anyway back on topic - proving it is in fact not a fake problem:

I think I'm starting to see now where your "hang-ups" (aka from my perspective: misconceptions) lie with CO2 Redneck. But you're going to have to elaborate a bit more on what exactly you believe is going on - because I'm not entirely clear on what you mean about spectroscopy picking up "chemical conversions" for example.

Just to be clear on my end - I wasn't using the "time delay" analogy to make any points on how life will or will not react to these changes - I was just trying to paint you a picture of how Global Warming works at the most theoretical level, starting from that 255K blackbody equation. So think about it like two forces opposing each other: energy in versus energy out. They need to be in balance or else we have serious problems one way or the other.

But now - because some of the energy flow out is being "held up", there is only one solution available: the temperature must increase to push it out at the same rate again and restore the equilibrium. It's like an electric circuit and Ohm's Law: I = V/R. If our resistance has increased, then we must increase our voltage to maintain the same current. Hence the whole idea of "forcing".

So what any GHG does is upset this balance. More than actually "trapping" heat - it is simply obstructing the flow, upping the resistance, etc. But this is all about radiative equilibrium and has nothing to do with convection or conduction at this point. And this is also why CO2 is such an important GHG even though it seems to take up a miniscule amount of relative volume.

Because electromagnetic absorption and emission has everything to do with molecular dynamics - the way a molecule's geometry and it's bonds function as little dipoles and harmonic oscillators that absorb EM waves and re-emit them. This is why different GHG's are not created equal and it's the same reason why methane or CFC's are even more disproportionate in terms of their effectiveness versus their concentration. The final tally on radiative forcing is of course a compromise between the two - but nonetheless I'm just bringing this all up now because I get the sense you're getting way too hung up on CO2's ppm. It's like being up against 10 soldiers and a tank - you can't just ignore the tank because "there's only one".


Anyway, we can come back to that after though - for now your questions:

I'm gonna try and cut to the chase a bit here again because I'm assuming you're asking me all these to lead into a very specific talking point.

So let's put it this way:

If you want to add to anything, I'll leave the floor open for you now.

Otherwise let me know because I've got my calculator warmed up and I'm very much ready to show you "the numbers do indeed lie" - so "let's get this started"



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


LOL

I find it pretty funny that you've stayed completely out of this for the most part and then the second I make some spontaneous mention of the word "nitwit"...and...well...it's like a batman-signal went off or something.

Anyway, I see you brought your fantastic peer-reviewed research as well.


Too bad all you did was use it to prove my point about how much you guys love to throw your little denier parties splashing around a whole school of red herrings while all the relevant material goes right over your head.


Now go play with your little papers in the kiddie pool and let the adults keep talking.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared

Ok so first off we definitely need to slow down a bit before we get to more questions Redneck.

I have no problem with that. In all honestly, my last post was rushed by other activities, so perhaps some clarification/explanation is needed.


Plant respiration is definitely a significant factor.

Let us assume for a moment it is. Respiration is essentially the inverse of photosynthesis. In photosynthesis, carbon dioxide and water are combined using energy from solar radiation to produce carbohydrates and oxygen. In respiration, carbohydrates are reduced with oxygen to produce water and carbon dioxide, liberating energy. The only major difference is that in photosynthesis the energy source is radiant (solar), whereas in respiration the energy released is in the form of raw heat, which can take other forms besides radiant, or chemical.

Now, considering this, if we use the amount of biomass to measure the amount of energy used in photosynthesis, any amount of respiration is already included in the measurement, since respiration will result in a loss of biomass. If we use the amount of energy absorbed to measure the amount of photosynthesis, any respiratory counteractions will be included because they release heat. If we use the amount of CO2 intake to measure photosynthesis, then any respiratory effects would have released CO2 and thus are already included in the measurements made. No matter what method we use to measure the effects of photosynthesis/respiration, the result will include both processes by the very definition of the processes.

Imagine if you will a man in a motorboat going against a current. In this example, the measurement in question is how fast the man is moving relative to our position on the bank. Now, we could argue all day about how fast the boat is moving relative to the water, or how fast the water is moving relative to us, but in the end all that matters to our measurement is a direct observation of how fast the man is moving relative to us. That is the answer we are interested in, and the others are, for our purposes, not significant.

Thus, the argument about respiratory vs. photosynthetic actions is indeed insignificant. What we are interested in is the net amount of photosynthesis, not how much of that is being countered by floral respiratory action. That would be important if we were discussing agriculture or perhaps plant biology; as it relates to energy used, it only matters that both energy and carbon dioxide are used in the growth of biomass.

In retrospect, perhaps I should have used the term 'irrelevant' instead of 'insignificant'.

In any case. the result is that as plant biomass increases, carbon dioxide intake increases. As plant biomass increases, energy intake increases. This relationship is self-evident, as well as being admittedly reversible. Your point about decomposition and respiration is true, but both processes decrease the biomass of the flora and thus do not change the above equation.

In addition, we do not have evidence that all the carbon compounds that are stored in dying flora are decomposed into carbon dioxide, nor release all of their energy. There will be some which is actually incorporated into the earth itself. For proof of this, I will use an observation rather than a link: the oil we are busily pumping out of the ground, as well as the coal and natural gas, had to come from somewhere. It most certainly did not come from inorganic CO2 conversions.


"misunderestimate" (my fave Bush-ism)



I think my personal fave was "there is no French word for 'entrepreneur'". Extremely poor choice of words, but also partly true; 'entrepreneur' in French (as I understand it) simply means "contractor".

Still hilarious. If nothing else, George W. Bush will be remembered as the funniest President.



I posted that link before to the API memo about uncertainties and "the average citizen" for a number of reasons. One of which was to show you how much the denial industry flat out preys on the weaker, more superficial understanding of the general public.

That observation, while valid, can be applied equally to both sides. Certainly there have been plenty of oil-funded attempts to discredit Global Warming in the eyes of an easily-swayed public. But so have other interests made desperate attempts to do the same to discredit those who would simply question the science as presented. Do i really need to mention Al Gore Jr and his Nobel-prize-winning 'fake-umentary' An Inconvenient Truth? Mr.Gore has used his considerable political influence (and apparent video editing talents) to position himself to become a billionaire the moment global carbon credits become a reality.

But this argument is political rather than scientific. As such, it is impossible to uncover the complete truth. This is why I prefer to keep our discussion scientific; the truth is the truth and can be shown quantitatively.

As for me, I rarely become involved in such discussions as you have referenced. My involvement is typically more on the scientific level.


Now lemme say I agreed to partake in such a debate with you and not one of these nitwits for a couple of reasons: one is that you have shown the capacity to actually understand the science lol. And two is that you have also shown the humility and open-mindedness to acknowledge where you might not understand the science (instead off just immediately calling me "brainwashed" and then running away). So again - I appreciate it


But I gotta remind you now not to make any assumptions about anything, no matter how apparent it might seem on the surface. Because again - a true skeptic questions everything, even his own stance. So when you start falling back on these assumptions you're not entirely sure of, but you deem "obvious" anyway - that's when you start treading dangerously close to falling in the pool of ignorance the deniers are having their big splash party in.

Well, I hope I have not disappointed you in that. However, it is not humility that I have shown; it is scientific thought. If a fact does not fit all the observed data, it cannot be a fact. If a theory falls short in only one area, it is at best an incomplete theory.

I will say this: 'common sense' does have a place in science. Mathematics is a tool which must be used properly and without proper use cannot and will not give meaningful answers. As I like to say, "Math will always answer any question posed to it truthfully, but it will also answer the question posed, not the question intended." It is this 'common sense' that determines if we are asking a viable question.

And I would hope that there are those on this board who will be able to emulate my approach. Those 'nit-wits' as you call them may indeed be worthy of the title, but then again they may just as well simply be ignorant of the facts. ATS is all about denying such ignorance by replacing it with knowledge. And the easiest and most sincere way to teach others is by example.


The 1st of course says you can't create or destroy energy. But the 2nd has a few different interpretations. The one I want to deal with pertains to the conversion of energy. We know from the 1st Law this conversion is 100% efficient, but we also know from the 2nd Law that with each conversion - entropy increases and therefore some of that energy is always lost (as heat) to our system. So the more conversions you have, the more energy you're actually sending right back out into the void.

An apt interpretation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Of course, one must understand that these laws apply to a closed system. Since you have brought this discussion temporarily into a broader venue, I will mention that fact... it may come up later.

Until later comes, I will at this time await your next post.

TheRedneck

ETA: Whoops! You made another post... bear with me; I'll have an answer shortly.

[edit on 4/29/2010 by TheRedneck]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

I am an engineer too so what?

If I may be so bold to ask, which discipline? I have already stated mine is electronics, specializing in power production/control (and a pretty strong background in structural/architectural before that).

Just curious.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
...............
Too bad all you did was use it to prove my point about how much you guys love to throw your little denier parties splashing around a whole school of red herrings while all the relevant material goes right over your head.

Now go play with your little papers in the kiddie pool and let the adults keep talking.


Wow... it is obvious who is acting like a child. I wonder what is your "knowledge" on the subject of Climate Change, and yes if you insult most members that disagree with you just because we disagree and there is evidence against your lies and your rhetorical nonsense I will call you on it....

BTW, those are actual peer review research, but of course an AGW fanatic like yourself doesn't like it when people post facts...

BTW, this thread was started by me so if you are going to continue to act like a high school cheerleader then get the hell out of this thread and start your own...



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

I am an engineer too so what?

If I may be so bold to ask, which discipline? I have already stated mine is electronics, specializing in power production/control (and a pretty strong background in structural/architectural before that).

Just curious.

TheRedneck


In electronics, and computers. I worked as a field engineer taking measurements, and other data such as temperature from boreholes to measure, and map the conditions downhole which I monitored with surface equipment. Later on I worked as a customer engineer, explaining equipment to possible customers, which equipment was best for the job ect.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared

This is why I mentioned not to waste time with any calculations - because you're right, it only "seems" significant. We do release a lot of energy, but it is still absolute bupkis compared to what we get every second from the Sun.

For example - the intercepted solar radiation flux (1370W/m2 x pi x Earth's radius squared) is about 11000 times the 2008 primary global power demand of 15 TW.

And this brings us to the real problem with the calculations on which Global Warming is based. Referring back to this link you provided earlier, the problem is that the Earth is not showing as much blackbody radiation as would be expected if the temperature were stable. I liked this link because it gave me another starting point from which to calculate.

We know that our measurements of this blackbody radiation correspond to a temperature of 255K. we also know that current surface temperatures, averaged globally, are closer to 288K. Thus, reasons you, since more energy is coming in than going out, the planet must be warming. My contention up until this point has been that this equation is incomplete, and that there are other sinks to help account for this energy differential. Photosynthesis has been the major focus of that discussion.

But one could actually calculate an approximation of the amount of energy differential based on the information given, and I have (of course) done so:

Total incoming energy = 239.23 W/m²
T = (I/σ)^-4 = (239.23/5.67·10^-8)^-4
= 255K


Our observed surface temperature is 288K, so we rewrite the equation as:
I = σ · T^4 = 5.67·10^-8 · 288^4 = 390.08 W/m²

390.08 W/m² - 293.23 W/m² = 96.8 W/m²


We are apparently gaining energy at the rate of 96.8 W/m².

The surface area of the planet is approximately 5.176·10^21 m².
based on an average radius
5.176·10^21 m² · 96.8 W/m² = 5.01·10^23 W or 5.01·10^23 J/s[/align]
My first impressions at seeing this result are:
  • it definitely dwarfs mankind's energy budget, as you say above, and
  • Would this extreme amount of energy being trapped not be enough to cause marked changes, far greater than what we are seeing now?


Now I have to call you to task on something that this emphasizes:

Originally posted by mc_squared
Now look at it like so: The Earth has been slowly absorbing and storing this energy for a very long time. In doing so, I guess you could say it has "naturally" reduced the required energy out/equilibrium temperature in the process...

But now in the last 150 years - we've gone and dug it all up and released it virtually all at once. Suddenly the equation is actually more like:

Energy In - Energy reflected + Energy converted = Energy Out



Furthermore - removing that variable from the equation over hundreds of millions of years had a negligible effect on climate change. But how do you feel now about suddenly reintroducing it all in a geological eyeblink?


Originally posted by mc_squared
This is why I mentioned not to waste time with any calculations - because you're right, it only "seems" significant. We do release a lot of energy, but it is still absolute bupkis compared to what we get every second from the Sun.

Two seemingly conflicting statements. When fossil fuels are consumed, all of the chemical energy is released. At our present stage of technological development, this conversion is terribly inefficient, meaning that the vast majority of the chemical energy inherent in oil is released as heat. So either the oil consumption is producing enough heat to be significant, or it isn't. You can't (honestly) argue both sides.

In truth, I just showed that it is indeed insignificant as it compares to the energy differential that is the basis for Global Warming.


If we found a way to cover less than 1% of the world’s desert area (~80,000 km2) with 10% efficient modules, that would be all that was needed to generate the world's total electricity consumption in 2008 (17000 TWh).

17,000 TWh yearly is approximately 1.94 TW. Dividing that by the energy produced at 10% efficiency (136 W/m²) gives us 14,300,000,000 m² or 14,300 km². The Sahara Desert itself covers 9,000,000 km². In short, you are correct in your calculations; there is plenty of desert available to place enough solar cells. But those same calculations ignore many of the boring details.

Firstly, there is the equipment cost. We are talking about a global project that involves covering 14,300 km² with solar cells, which are pretty expensive to manufacture at this time. One of my surplus suppliers, All Electronics, has panels that cost upwards of $1000 per square meter at the efficiency rate you mention. $1000/m² is $1 billion per square kilometer, and $14.3 trillion to cover the 14,300 km² calculated to be needed.

Secondly, 14,300 km² is not sufficient. At best, an area will get a 50% solar duty cycle, so that figure has to be doubled to 28,600 km²... still enough room on the planet physically, but the price tag for the solar cells alone has jumped to $28.6 trillion. We are now well above the GDP of the planet.

Just in case you are about to complain about how all this is moot because the companies should be forced to make them cheaper, let me remind you of an economic reality: a huge chunk of the cost of these solar cells is for labor. That means people would have to go hungry (as in working for nothing, otherwise called slavery) to fulfill this goal. Another huge part, perhaps larger than direct labor is the equipment needed to manufacture them, equipment which must be manufactured by more workers. So if you want to somehow force a cut in the cost of the solar cells, bear in mind you are telling untold numbers of people trying to feed their families to 'suck it up', become slaves, and go hungry.

And I would not even be sure that this cost was really accurate. That price is surplus, which means that someone, somewhere either overbought or discontinued a product and was left with a boatload of these cells. They sell them at pennies on the dollar to places like All Electronics, who then resell them at cut-rate prices to individuals and companies. Surplus is great for building prototypes, or sometimes even for limited production runs, but when we are talking about a project of this size, surplus supply is simply not an option. So the actual price may well be higher, and certainly will not be lower.

Now we have to consider the problem of getting the power to where it is needed; there is not a lot of industry in the desert. So we have to consider transmission requirements. Electrical loss is directly related to current, so to minimize losses high voltage (upwards of 13.8kV) is typically used to transmit the same amount of power with less current and less losses. High voltages are notoriously difficult to handle safely and thus require that the voltage be brought back down to moderately safe handling levels at the point of consumption (anywhere from 240V dual-phase to 440V three-phase in the USA). To make this voltage transformation, transformers are needed. Transformers work only on AC power, not on DC. So the low-voltage DC power supplied by the solar cells must be transformed into high-voltage AC before it can even be used effectively.

Then there is the duty cycle problem. Energy is needed 24 hours a day, yet in any one location the sun is available to power cells for 12 hours on average at best. That means that half of the energy produced must be stored somewhere. So now we can add the cost of batteries to this equation. A typical lead-acid battery (which is probably the lowest cost per watt and the hardiest among the rechargeable types) costs at least $50 wholesale. It produces 12V nominal at a little under 100 Amp-hour (Ah). That is 1200 Wh of power storage, or 100 W over a 12-hour period. We need one-half of the rated daily output of our solar bank, or 12 hours capacity. That capacity per hour has already been calculated to be 1.94 TW, meaning we need enough batteries to store 1.94 · 12 = 23.28 TW of power. dividing this by the rated power storage of our batteries gives us 23,280,000,000,000 W / 100 W/battery = 238,000,000,000 or 238 billion batteries.

Can you even imagine the work force required to maintain this colossal bank of batteries? How many workers alone would be needed to change out batteries as they died, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year?

This is called 'initial assessment'. Any new idea must go through this initial assessment to ensure practicality. I could theoretically harness the power of lightning to power a city as well, but the requirements of such a device make it tremendously impractical to do so.

At this time, solar cells, due to their energy output, physical size, and cost, combined with the solar duty cycle, are simply not practical for large-scale production of electricity. They are wonderful for small scale applications, and even better for isolated areas with small-scale energy requirements. It is even slightly practical to power a high-efficiency home from them in some cases. But industry? A city? A nation? A world? Sorry, no. Not practical. Not every technology is scalable.


I mean even if you don't think CO2 is bad, you realize coal and oil lead to a whole plethora of other environmental problems right? (If you don't believe me then I suggest taking a dip through the Gulf of Mexico right now).

I doubt you can search through ATS and find one single post I have ever made that states that fossil fuel consumption is a good thing for either the environment or for the economy. What I have said is that at present fossil fuels are the only viable energy source we have at our disposal. There is a huge difference between the two positions.

Present me with a scalable, efficient, carbon-free energy source and I will quit worrying about Cap & Trade and its implications as compared to the case for CO2-based Global Warming. There will be no need to worry about it then, because oil will quickly disappear from the political scene. Until then, in light of the seriousness of the political actions now being proposed under the guise of Global Warming, I have to question the science. Because it would be a true disaster to turn the entire gamut of potential energy reserves in the world over to a handful of governments, depriving people of their ability to partake of all society has to offer, especially when there was no actual emergency to begin with.

In other words, leave the politics out of it until the science is well understood, and you will not encounter the fiery rhetoric and in-depth examination of every aspect. Extraordinary proposals, as extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof.


But you're going to have to elaborate a bit more on what exactly you believe is going on - because I'm not entirely clear on what you mean about spectroscopy picking up "chemical conversions" for example.

Certainly.

Spectroscopy is the study of light as it is emitted or absorbed by different molecules. For instance, if we see light coming from a star, we can examine that light to determine how much of which element is present in the star. If an abundance of hydrogen exists, there will be certain frequencies of light which are muted, corresponding to the frequencies which we know hydrogen to absorb.

This works well in stars, primarily since there are only a few differing elements which make up the majority of star matter. Hydrogen, helium, and carbon are among those.

But if we try to measure the light coming from Earth as blackbody radiation, then we are seeing absorption bands from several different compounds. Nitrogen, water vapor, oxygen, ozone, and carbon dioxide are only a few of the more common compounds. In many cases, the spectroscopy bands of these different compounds overlap, meaning that we see an indication of one of several compounds rather than only one.

Also, in a star there is sufficient energy to keep molecules and atoms in excited states, meaning that they are absorbing energy. Energy cannot be absorbed if it does not exist, and even if it exists at low levels some might just make it out without being absorbed. Irrelevant if there is an abundance of energy, but when the energy output is less than abundant, or when the concentrations are less than appreciable, the readings become difficult to decipher.

What I am calling into question here is the way CO2 levels are measured. I am sure you can set me straight on how this is accomplished accurately.


But now - because some of the energy flow out is being "held up", there is only one solution available: the temperature must increase to push it out at the same rate again and restore the equilibrium. It's like an electric circuit and Ohm's Law: I = V/R. If our resistance has increased, then we must increase our voltage to maintain the same current. Hence the whole idea of "forcing".

Awwww, you used an electronic analogy... how kind of you!


Any energy received and not re-transmitted back into space would be absorbed by the planet. Any such energy absorbed as heat will raise the temperature. As the temperature rises, the temperature difference increases and thus causes an increase in the energy flow, which results in more heat being released. Is that about correct?

It can't be:

So what any GHG does is upset this balance. More than actually "trapping" heat - it is simply obstructing the flow, upping the resistance, etc. But this is all about radiative equilibrium and has nothing to do with convection or conduction at this point.

Thermal conductivity is not radiative; it is conductive. The premise above, where an increase in temperature would cause more energy to be expended, is based on conductive heat transfer.

Radiative heat transfer encompasses two phenomena that differ form conductive heat flow. One is that not only the intensity of the radiation, but the frequencies of the emitted radiation change with temperature. This changes the dynamic since every compound has different absorption spectra. A large enough difference in the proper atmosphere could lead to either a rapid self-correction or to a sudden increase in temperature as the radiation emitted moves through the spectrum.

The other phenomena is that of saturation of the greenhouse gases, but I have spent two days trying to complete this reply, and things just keep needing to be done. So for now I will end it here and await your response.


TheRedneck



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


OK so I'll admit I may have been a bit sneaky playing both sides of the fossil fuel fence before
- but I did tell you I'd never looked at the issue that way, so it was a spur of the moment chance to meddle with the logic there as we went along.

But note I also decorated the whole discussion with words like "conceptual", "implicit", "food for thought", "neat way of looking at"; because ultimately that's all it was. And again - that's why I included the disclaimer about not doing any actual number crunching. Because the numbers don't represent what's really happening and evidently don't amount to jack anyway. So...based on your own calculations I take it we're in agreement about that now, yeah?


Next item - Clean up in aisle 6:


As the temperature rises, the temperature difference increases and thus causes an increase in the energy flow, which results in more heat being released. Is that about correct?


Nope.


I figured you'd like the electrical analogy, but don't take the voltage part or any implications of conductivity too literally. There's no "temperature potential difference" that drives some thermal current or anything like that.

The resistance analogy is just a broad, (over)simplified way to re-state the importance of equilibrium in the bigger picture. But I'm speaking strictly radiative - so the current in this case is the outward "flow" of radiation. And it only tells us the end result. It says nothing meaningful about the mechanisms that actually enforce this balance. So all we know is that temperatures must rise - not how they in fact do it.

To understand that part - that's when we have to come back to the idea of trapping. Because essentially the resistance is also the "voltage" here. GHG's of course not only obstruct heat flow out, they do so partly by firing some right back in our direction. So now we're not only absorbing solar radiation, but also some of our own emitted IR. Thus the temp goes up, and the beat goes on. Conductive and convective processes do factor into more meticulous equilibrium calculations, but only in the way they redistribute heat around the planet and the atmosphere. They obviously have zero to do with the relationship between the Earth and Sun thanks to that 90 million mile gap of nothing in between.

Ultimately there are many levels and layers within layers that all this stuff breaks down to - and I don't really want to get too bogged down in them right now. The only real point of all this was to try and reinforce how much of global warming science is actually inherent in the fundamental physics and math. I mean you've seen that for yourself with some of the calculations you've done, so I don't really need to tell you at this point anyway.

I just bring it up because there really are people out there who think all of this was just concocted out of the imaginations of Al Gore and James Hansen. Looking at it from the perspective of heat trapping alone makes that myth even easier to perpetuate because it sounds like some sort of unproven/controversial idea that has no real consequences if it's wrong (other than more manbearpig jokes).

The reality is everything we know from 150 years of radiative physics and black bodies and such tells us there must be a solution here. Now all this pertains to the greenhouse effect in general so far, and it's not like you were doubting that to begin with. But I want you to keep this line of thinking in mind because it's going to come up again, specifically in regards to CO2.

...
So having dropped that little tidbit of foreshadowing, I think maybe we should look back now and take some inventory before moving on.

So are you reasonably satisfied with the avenues we've covered so far? e.g. CO2 accumulation, energy budget and balance. I just want to make sure everything else is reasonably tidy before diving into the next pile of dirty laundry (which I'm assuming is the saturation issue).

PS did you have a look at my post on your numbers do not lie thread? I believe it has been debunked
Although nobody seems to care...

PPS -


Present me with a scalable, efficient, carbon-free energy source and I will quit worrying about Cap & Trade and its implications as compared to the case for CO2-based Global Warming.


You're completely talking my language here


I would looooove to get into this. However, I think it'd be getting too convoluted and off-topic at the moment - so let's save it for after we're done with the case for CO2. I will say this though - the first step is simply what you just did in the last post - discourse, awareness, addressing the potential problems, etc. There are solutions to some of the issues you raised - but it's essential to get people talking and thinking about them NOW - rather than waiting around for the TPTB to just hijack and exploit everything first - and then all collectively moping about how much they control our lives...



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this possibility is that they cannot think of what might have caused it.


Actually, a lack of governmental, NGO, and foundation/think-tank funding are the principle reasons for the silence.

If you have nothing to gain, you get drowned -out by those who do.

As a hypothetical, eliminate all outside funding for "climate advocacy" groups, and see what they really stand for -- self-preservation.

jw



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Wow, can I just say to Redneck and MCSquared that the ensuing dialogue between you both is rivetting and illuminating in the extreme.

So thank you both and i look forward to following along as you continue in the hope to learn more about the overlooked actual nitty gritty nuts and bolts of climatology!

I started out as an avid save the planet type person when I first watched inconvenient truth, since then I have researched many topics, not teh least of whcih is history and if theres one thing history teaches its, do NOT blindly trust authorities!

So then after a fair amount of research I have been swayed to conclude that we are not going through the changes that are being touted day in and out on the Discovery channels, Ive seen lies, deception, bad science and do I need to mention hockey sticks, in regards to the pro-AGW camp, which lead me to the conclusion that whether AGW was true or not, there was certainly an agenda associated with it, a political agenda, an agenda of control, as they generally are, and I have still not been convinced we are truly driving temperatures up in any significant way through co2 emissions.

However Im reading if not fully comprehending everything you guys are saying with an open mind and am currently re-assesing what I though I knew, as we al should from time to time.

So thanks again and I may weigh in again and pick your brains as the conversation resumes!


Good day!



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 


Hey - thanks for the compliments and taking the time to read


Unfortunately this thread completely fizzled out a couple of months ago (and just as I was about to drop the hammer on how CO2 is directly related to warming too!) but I appreciate your keen interest and would still be happy to answer any questions you want to ask.

Also - although I agree with you there definitely is some element of a political agenda over AGW even "if it is true", please be wary of the fact there is also an unmistakable corporate agenda on the other side of the fence. Much like the tobacco industry funded all sorts of biased scientific studies for decades claiming smoking was harmless to our health, the big fossil fuel industries and other anti-environmental-legislation lobby groups have engaged in a massive disinformation campaign against AGW.

I bring this up because I can virtually guarantee you some of the information you've heard about the "lies, deception, and bad science" coming from the pro-AGW camp is simply nothing more than lies, deception and bad science coming from the anti-AGW camp. It's a big convoluted mess unfortunately - but I can show you plenty of examples that help clear up the picture if you're interested.

Anyway, thanks for keeping an open mind about it regardless. Cheers!



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Convinced they are that carbon heat is the fault of human kind
The greens those cons take their money, hoping the people stay blind
To probe the skies for other reasons, they deem of little worth
Then nature throws a wicked curve, and delivers snowball earth





top topics
 
69
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join