BC, Ice cap cover in the North Pole has definitely diminished in the last 20 years and so has the ice cover in Greenland (this is not the situation everywhere to be fair)
Whether environmental policy can effect that, that’s another matter but rising sea levels seems likely.
Last time I was debating here, I took a serious look into “climate change” or “global warming”. Unfortunately the debate is still so full of crap it’s almost unbelievable.
First I have to comment on the wonderful historical knowledge of the American Indians being so great to the environment. What a load of crap. How many people know the reason the “plains” in the Midwest were so plain? Because the American Indians burned all the trees to the ground to make hunting easier.
We shouldn’t demonize them, nor should we praise or worship them. They are people, with all the benefits and foibles that is included.
Now as far as climate change, well we have had an impact in the world temperature, and yes it is because of CO2.
And I am not worried one bit. Why? Because practically everything you have heard is total BS. Science politicized is not science.
Ice caps melting? Even the more radical climate scientist admits this will take thousands of years.
One fact that needs to be understood is that CO2 has a diminishing effect on the temperature. We will need to increase the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere 18 times what it is right now just to double the increase that has occurred over the last 150 years.
How strong is CO2 as a “greenhouse gas”? An increase in the humidity by 2%-4% has the same effect as doubling the CO2.
Oh by the way, the whole idea of greenhouse gas is preposterous. Temperature is actually maintained by convection, and the gas isn’t actually reflecting the heat back, it is absorbing it. The reason CO2 has a diminishing effect is that it absorbs a specific spectrum, and the more it absorbs, the less there is left to absorb.
Oh wait, what about those ice core samples? The ones Al Gore showed that proved a connection between CO2, and global temperature? They actually are true, but he “conveniently” switched cause and effect. CO2 trails the increase, or decrease in temperature by about 500 years.
So if we are to assume that CO2 was the cause of the temperature increases, then we will have to rewrite the laws of physics. Not only that, the CO2 we are releasing today would have caused the temperature increases 500 years ago.
Not only that, but we are going to have to blame our descendants from 500 years from to four causing our increase in temp.
Next is the whole idea that a warmer Earth is bad. I know we keep hearing about this, but that is just assumptions and guesswork. When we look back at the Medieval Warming period, that was actually one of Human’s most successful times. The Little Ice Age came along, and turned that all on it’s head.
The Little Ice Age was devastating. Greenland was a lot greener then it is today. In fact this is why it was called Greenland. They had a thriving community of Vikings who eventually had to pretty much abandon it. (This is well documented.) Greenland still hasn’t recovered.
Now here is a fun fact. Most of the warming in the 20th Century occurred before the big rise in CO2 levels. The big jump in CO2 level coincided with a temperature drop that continued into the 70’s. (This was when they thought we were headed for another Ice Age.) Now it did increase until 1999, when it once again changed course.
The fact is that the current trend will actually continue for another 10 to 20 years. How do I know this? Because these trends are part of something called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. (PDO)
People are well familiar with the roughly 3 month cycles of the seasons. Most have even heard about the longer term El-Nino and La-Nina weather events. But there are many more. PDO covers roughly 30 year time spans. But there are cycles that are centuries long (Little Ice Age) and Thousands of years long. (Real Ice Age to Ice Age.) And I haven’t listed them all. (Not even sure we have discovered them all.)
Oh and since oil has been brought up, we sure are not running out. The amount of hydrocarbons in the Earth is staggering. Beyond staggering. People too often throw out terms like “finite resource”, without actually understanding what it means. (Wait, I have posted this here before. Oh well, a blast from the past.) The Sun also has a finite source of energy. Another 4 billion years, and that thing goes out.
(By the way, some experts are predicting America is again going to become a net exporter of oil.)
Now here is the big problem with all this environmental crap. The focus has been so intense on the crap side that it detracts from real issues.
Maybe we should prevent mercury from getting into our oceans, and fish? How about allowing New-Q-Ler reactors produce more energy? You know how little waste these thing produce? Not to mention that waste is about 95% recyclable, (reprocessed,) leaving even less waste.
The newest ones are so, so, so much safer then the ones in use right now. The fact that we haven’t been building new ones means the old ones stay running when they could have been replaced. (But to be honest they aren’t all that dangerous, regardless of all the crap you have heard.)
Okay, I have to stop, I can literally go on for pages here. These are the facts, and the reality. Argue if you want, it is still the truth.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Last time I was debating here, I took a serious look into “climate change” or “global warming”. Unfortunately the debate is still so full of crap it’s almost unbelievable.
First I have to comment on the wonderful historical knowledge of the American Indians being so great to the environment. What a load of crap. How many people know the reason the “plains” in the Midwest were so plain? Because the American Indians burned all the trees to the ground to make hunting easier.
We shouldn’t demonize them, nor should we praise or worship them. They are people, with all the benefits and foibles that is included.
Now as far as climate change, well we have had an impact in the world temperature, and yes it is because of CO2.
And I am not worried one bit. Why? Because practically everything you have heard is total BS. Science politicized is not science.
Ice caps melting? Even the more radical climate scientist admits this will take thousands of years.
One fact that needs to be understood is that CO2 has a diminishing effect on the temperature. We will need to increase the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere 18 times what it is right now just to double the increase that has occurred over the last 150 years.
How strong is CO2 as a “greenhouse gas”? An increase in the humidity by 2%-4% has the same effect as doubling the CO2.
Oh by the way, the whole idea of greenhouse gas is preposterous. Temperature is actually maintained by convection, and the gas isn’t actually reflecting the heat back, it is absorbing it. The reason CO2 has a diminishing effect is that it absorbs a specific spectrum, and the more it absorbs, the less there is left to absorb.
Oh wait, what about those ice core samples? The ones Al Gore showed that proved a connection between CO2, and global temperature? They actually are true, but he “conveniently” switched cause and effect. CO2 trails the increase, or decrease in temperature by about 500 years.
So if we are to assume that CO2 was the cause of the temperature increases, then we will have to rewrite the laws of physics. Not only that, the CO2 we are releasing today would have caused the temperature increases 500 years ago.
Not only that, but we are going to have to blame our descendants from 500 years from to four causing our increase in temp.
Next is the whole idea that a warmer Earth is bad. I know we keep hearing about this, but that is just assumptions and guesswork. When we look back at the Medieval Warming period, that was actually one of Human’s most successful times. The Little Ice Age came along, and turned that all on it’s head.
The Little Ice Age was devastating. Greenland was a lot greener then it is today. In fact this is why it was called Greenland. They had a thriving community of Vikings who eventually had to pretty much abandon it. (This is well documented.) Greenland still hasn’t recovered.
Now here is a fun fact. Most of the warming in the 20th Century occurred before the big rise in CO2 levels. The big jump in CO2 level coincided with a temperature drop that continued into the 70’s. (This was when they thought we were headed for another Ice Age.) Now it did increase until 1999, when it once again changed course.
The fact is that the current trend will actually continue for another 10 to 20 years. How do I know this? Because these trends are part of something called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. (PDO)
People are well familiar with the roughly 3 month cycles of the seasons. Most have even heard about the longer term El-Nino and La-Nina weather events. But there are many more. PDO covers roughly 30 year time spans. But there are cycles that are centuries long (Little Ice Age) and Thousands of years long. (Real Ice Age to Ice Age.) And I haven’t listed them all. (Not even sure we have discovered them all.)
Oh and since oil has been brought up, we sure are not running out. The amount of hydrocarbons in the Earth is staggering. Beyond staggering. People too often throw out terms like “finite resource”, without actually understanding what it means. (Wait, I have posted this here before. Oh well, a blast from the past.) The Sun also has a finite source of energy. Another 4 billion years, and that thing goes out.
(By the way, some experts are predicting America is again going to become a net exporter of oil.)
Now here is the big problem with all this environmental crap. The focus has been so intense on the crap side that it detracts from real issues.
Maybe we should prevent mercury from getting into our oceans, and fish? How about allowing New-Q-Ler reactors produce more energy? You know how little waste these thing produce? Not to mention that waste is about 95% recyclable, (reprocessed,) leaving even less waste.
The newest ones are so, so, so much safer then the ones in use right now. The fact that we haven’t been building new ones means the old ones stay running when they could have been replaced. (But to be honest they aren’t all that dangerous, regardless of all the crap you have heard.)
Okay, I have to stop, I can literally go on for pages here. These are the facts, and the reality. Argue if you want, it is still the truth.[/quote]
Exceptional Post!
x2
What we are running out of, however, is intelligence and scientific understanding, not to mention a timely awareness of Marxist idiocy and propaganda regarding almost anything, especially “climate change”.
Good
Fuck this Place.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Last time I was debating here, I took a serious look into “climate change” or “global warming”. Unfortunately the debate is still so full of crap it’s almost unbelievable.
First I have to comment on the wonderful historical knowledge of the American Indians being so great to the environment. What a load of crap. How many people know the reason the “plains” in the Midwest were so plain? Because the American Indians burned all the trees to the ground to make hunting easier.
We shouldn’t demonize them, nor should we praise or worship them. They are people, with all the benefits and foibles that is included.
Now as far as climate change, well we have had an impact in the world temperature, and yes it is because of CO2.
And I am not worried one bit. Why? Because practically everything you have heard is total BS. Science politicized is not science.
Ice caps melting? Even the more radical climate scientist admits this will take thousands of years.
One fact that needs to be understood is that CO2 has a diminishing effect on the temperature. We will need to increase the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere 18 times what it is right now just to double the increase that has occurred over the last 150 years.
How strong is CO2 as a “greenhouse gas”? An increase in the humidity by 2%-4% has the same effect as doubling the CO2.
Oh by the way, the whole idea of greenhouse gas is preposterous. Temperature is actually maintained by convection, and the gas isn’t actually reflecting the heat back, it is absorbing it. The reason CO2 has a diminishing effect is that it absorbs a specific spectrum, and the more it absorbs, the less there is left to absorb.
Oh wait, what about those ice core samples? The ones Al Gore showed that proved a connection between CO2, and global temperature? They actually are true, but he “conveniently” switched cause and effect. CO2 trails the increase, or decrease in temperature by about 500 years.
So if we are to assume that CO2 was the cause of the temperature increases, then we will have to rewrite the laws of physics. Not only that, the CO2 we are releasing today would have caused the temperature increases 500 years ago.
Not only that, but we are going to have to blame our descendants from 500 years from to four causing our increase in temp.
Next is the whole idea that a warmer Earth is bad. I know we keep hearing about this, but that is just assumptions and guesswork. When we look back at the Medieval Warming period, that was actually one of Human’s most successful times. The Little Ice Age came along, and turned that all on it’s head.
The Little Ice Age was devastating. Greenland was a lot greener then it is today. In fact this is why it was called Greenland. They had a thriving community of Vikings who eventually had to pretty much abandon it. (This is well documented.) Greenland still hasn’t recovered.
Now here is a fun fact. Most of the warming in the 20th Century occurred before the big rise in CO2 levels. The big jump in CO2 level coincided with a temperature drop that continued into the 70’s. (This was when they thought we were headed for another Ice Age.) Now it did increase until 1999, when it once again changed course.
The fact is that the current trend will actually continue for another 10 to 20 years. How do I know this? Because these trends are part of something called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. (PDO)
People are well familiar with the roughly 3 month cycles of the seasons. Most have even heard about the longer term El-Nino and La-Nina weather events. But there are many more. PDO covers roughly 30 year time spans. But there are cycles that are centuries long (Little Ice Age) and Thousands of years long. (Real Ice Age to Ice Age.) And I haven’t listed them all. (Not even sure we have discovered them all.)
Oh and since oil has been brought up, we sure are not running out. The amount of hydrocarbons in the Earth is staggering. Beyond staggering. People too often throw out terms like “finite resource”, without actually understanding what it means. (Wait, I have posted this here before. Oh well, a blast from the past.) The Sun also has a finite source of energy. Another 4 billion years, and that thing goes out.
(By the way, some experts are predicting America is again going to become a net exporter of oil.)
Now here is the big problem with all this environmental crap. The focus has been so intense on the crap side that it detracts from real issues.
Maybe we should prevent mercury from getting into our oceans, and fish? How about allowing New-Q-Ler reactors produce more energy? You know how little waste these thing produce? Not to mention that waste is about 95% recyclable, (reprocessed,) leaving even less waste.
The newest ones are so, so, so much safer then the ones in use right now. The fact that we haven’t been building new ones means the old ones stay running when they could have been replaced. (But to be honest they aren’t all that dangerous, regardless of all the crap you have heard.)
Okay, I have to stop, I can literally go on for pages here. These are the facts, and the reality. Argue if you want, it is still the truth.[/quote]
Well your dead wrong about no evidence for GW and its not full of crap! There is evidence.
YOu can go on and on i suppose but why deny the evidence, I mean what’s your stake in this? I myself want to believe that there is no such thing but my paranoia can only make me crazier, I have no stake here other than to see what the 95% of climate scientist are actually saying.
about oil even the big oil companies admit that cheap oil is becoming harder and harder to find. you are simply wrong to say there is plenty of oil and there is no problem of producing less of it while the world is demanding more.
If we keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere at the dramatic levels we are, we could create a “tipping point” that scientist talk about where a dramatic level of change occurs.
You say I can argue all i want but you," have the truth and the reality and the facts". From that statement i know you’re too emotionally involved. The matter is one of science and science isn’t about the Truth; its in part about producing evidence for claims made about our natural world so that reliable knowledge can help us to live lives that have less pain and cruelty in them.
[quote]'nuffsaid wrote:
What we are running out of, however, is intelligence and scientific understanding, not to mention a timely awareness of Marxist idiocy and propaganda regarding almost anything, especially “climate change”.
[/quote]
Huh? Marxist idiocy??? “propaganda”" ?? Why would the scientific community lie about climate change? But you obviously have delusions about all this if you think its a propaganda ploy by Marists. Gees us stop being so paranoid, Marxism is not relevant here and hasn’t been since May of 1968, in France.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Oh and since oil has been brought up, we sure are not running out. The amount of hydrocarbons in the Earth is staggering. Beyond staggering. People too often throw out terms like “finite resource”, without actually understanding what it means. (Wait, I have posted this here before. Oh well, a blast from the past.) The Sun also has a finite source of energy. Another 4 billion years, and that thing goes out.
(By the way, some experts are predicting America is again going to become a net exporter of oil.)
.[/quote]
True because the USA has a higher refining capacity than many nations. It consumes atm roughly 18 million barrels of oil a day and produces 4.5 million iirc (not much higher). It still heavily relies on Canadian and Mexican oil, as well as others. America can not support its domestic market with its own fuel resources.
And there are tons of hydrocarbons around, just they are getting harder to extract (tar sands, sand oil, deepwater, shale oil etc) If you have evidence to the contrary I’d be happy to see it.
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]'nuffsaid wrote:
What we are running out of, however, is intelligence and scientific understanding, not to mention a timely awareness of Marxist idiocy and propaganda regarding almost anything, especially “climate change”.
[/quote]
Huh? Marxist idiocy??? “propaganda”" ?? Why would the scientific community lie about climate change? But you obviously have delusions about all this if you think its a propaganda ploy by Marists. Gees us stop being so paranoid, Marxism is not relevant here and hasn’t been since May of 1968, in France.
[/quote]
As a homework assignement read the report for the IPCC.
Then the summary of the IPCC.
Then the newspapers reporting on that summary.
Then the politicians offering soundbites on the news that they have read/ watched/ absorbed any other way.
On the other hand, its fun doing it the other way too.
[quote]silee wrote:
Well your dead wrong about no evidence for GW and its not full of crap! There is evidence.
YOu can go on and on i suppose but why deny the evidence, I mean what’s your stake in this?[/quote]
Wait a second, when did I say there was no global warming? I even stated that we have in fact increased the temperature of the Earth through our increase in CO2 levels.
What’s my stake? Are you implying I have some sort of financial connection to some company? (The Captain Planet argument.) None there, but I do have a stake in the economy. Lets take Kyoto for an example. America pulled out, yet America was the only country that was actually made the numbers. (Last I knew.) Countries were clamoring to get out of the deal. If followed exactly, it would have cost Billions, and for what? A benefit of a thousandth of a degree.[quote]
I myself want to believe that there is no such thing but my paranoia can only make me crazier, I have no stake here other than to see what the 95% of climate scientist are actually saying.[/quote]
There is an old quote that science advances one death at a time. This is the unfortunate politics associated with science. You have to be careful not to ruffle feathers, and many scientists know this.
But there is also another issue that the researchers are fully aware of. If there isn’t a problem, or alarm bells sounded, the research funding will dry up. Call it a problem, and money just flows in, but if they were saying there wasn’t a problem, then the funding would dry up. The urge to do research just wouldn’t be there.[quote]
about oil even the big oil companies admit that cheap oil is becoming harder and harder to find. you are simply wrong to say there is plenty of oil and there is no problem of producing less of it while the world is demanding more. [/quote]
Yes it is harder to find, but we are still finding it. Environmentalism has blocked of large portions of the easy to get oil, but so what? Why do people only talk about the “cheap oil”? Just because the other stuff isn’t as cheap and easy to get doesn’t mean it is not a viable source. And technology is making it cheaper and cheaper to get and refine.
But one problem is that the numbers the alarmists use to say we have run out, or are running out are not actual numbers. They are business numbers, used only for business reasons. A few years back there was a jump in one of the oil fields here in America. Not because they found more, they knew it was there. Technology improved, and they knew for a fact, beyond a shadow of a doubt it was there.[quote]
If we keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere at the dramatic levels we are, we could create a “tipping point” that scientist talk about where a dramatic level of change occurs. [/quote]
Could? Could? When, how much, and at what point? This tipping point is just meant to create fear. But lets say for a second it does exist. How do we prevent it? (And why should we?) There is no way to suddenly drop our production of CO2 production without destroying the economies of the Earth. In fact we could cause a massive destruction to it, and still not stop the production.
If you want to have any effect on this, the only way is to start massively producing New-Q-Ler plants. And the environmentalists are firmly entrenched against that. (Interestingly China, the worlds biggest polluter, is actually doing this.)
The technology of anything else just isn’t there. Renewable resources are projected to grow to only 20% a few decades from now. That still leaves 80% to deal with.[quote]
You say I can argue all i want but you," have the truth and the reality and the facts". From that statement i know you’re too emotionally involved. The matter is one of science and science isn’t about the Truth; its in part about producing evidence for claims made about our natural world so that reliable knowledge can help us to live lives that have less pain and cruelty in them.
[/quote]
I did not say I have the truth, I said this was the truth. I am only regurgitating facts here. The real facts. And it comes from real climate, and other science.
You are simply listening to the propaganda, and politics involved. Listen to some of the “solutions” proposed. Like the idea of carbon emissions trading. The countries that produce CO2 give money to the ones who don’t. Problem solved. Yeah right.
One of the founding members of Greenpeace complains that when the Berlin Wall fell that the socialists simply moved into the Green movement because it was (at that time) unpopular to be a socialist. Interestingly he doesn’t disagree with socialism, (after all Earth day was chosen to be on Lennon’s birthday, although Moore may not have had anything to do with that,) he just wants people to be honest about what they are doing.
Oh and as far as being emotionally involved, much different then you think. I have too much fun with these debates. My annoyances are only with the spreading lies, myths, and propaganda. I don’t want the BS out there, I want the truth, regardless of what it is. (I am actually a little OCD about finding and absorbing knowledge.) But when people get pissed off, that means they think they are losing the debate. My philosophy is not to win or lose a debate, but to get to the truth.
I actually read the opposing arguments, and force myself to ask the question “is this true or accurate, and by how much.” Your first statement here that I supposedly said “there was no evidence” showed you may not be fully reading my posts. This gives me the impression that you want to get to the argument, and not think things through. (Though this might garner your attention.)
In my last post I mentioned that we would have to increase the CO2 levels by 18 times (sorry, that should have actually been 22 times, I used an incorrect number in my math,) before we have the same warming caused by CO2 as the last increase of about 150 years. But here is another fact. If we increase it by 15 times, we can’t breath. Maybe this is a bigger problem. Then again if the current trend continues, it will be well over 500 years before this is an issue.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
Well your dead wrong about no evidence for GW and its not full of crap! There is evidence.
YOu can go on and on i suppose but why deny the evidence, I mean what’s your stake in this?[/quote]
Wait a second, when did I say there was no global warming? I even stated that we have in fact increased the temperature of the Earth through our increase in CO2 levels.
What’s my stake? Are you implying I have some sort of financial connection to some company? (The Captain Planet argument.) None there, but I do have a stake in the economy. Lets take Kyoto for an example. America pulled out, yet America was the only country that was actually made the numbers. (Last I knew.) Countries were clamoring to get out of the deal. If followed exactly, it would have cost Billions, and for what? A benefit of a thousandth of a degree.[quote]
I myself want to believe that there is no such thing but my paranoia can only make me crazier, I have no stake here other than to see what the 95% of climate scientist are actually saying.[/quote]
There is an old quote that science advances one death at a time. This is the unfortunate politics associated with science. You have to be careful not to ruffle feathers, and many scientists know this.
But there is also another issue that the researchers are fully aware of. If there isn’t a problem, or alarm bells sounded, the research funding will dry up. Call it a problem, and money just flows in, but if they were saying there wasn’t a problem, then the funding would dry up. The urge to do research just wouldn’t be there.[quote]
about oil even the big oil companies admit that cheap oil is becoming harder and harder to find. you are simply wrong to say there is plenty of oil and there is no problem of producing less of it while the world is demanding more. [/quote]
Yes it is harder to find, but we are still finding it. Environmentalism has blocked of large portions of the easy to get oil, but so what? Why do people only talk about the “cheap oil”? Just because the other stuff isn’t as cheap and easy to get doesn’t mean it is not a viable source. And technology is making it cheaper and cheaper to get and refine.
But one problem is that the numbers the alarmists use to say we have run out, or are running out are not actual numbers. They are business numbers, used only for business reasons. A few years back there was a jump in one of the oil fields here in America. Not because they found more, they knew it was there. Technology improved, and they knew for a fact, beyond a shadow of a doubt it was there.[quote]
If we keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere at the dramatic levels we are, we could create a “tipping point” that scientist talk about where a dramatic level of change occurs. [/quote]
Could? Could? When, how much, and at what point? This tipping point is just meant to create fear. But lets say for a second it does exist. How do we prevent it? (And why should we?) There is no way to suddenly drop our production of CO2 production without destroying the economies of the Earth. In fact we could cause a massive destruction to it, and still not stop the production.
If you want to have any effect on this, the only way is to start massively producing New-Q-Ler plants. And the environmentalists are firmly entrenched against that. (Interestingly China, the worlds biggest polluter, is actually doing this.)
The technology of anything else just isn’t there. Renewable resources are projected to grow to only 20% a few decades from now. That still leaves 80% to deal with.[quote]
You say I can argue all i want but you," have the truth and the reality and the facts". From that statement i know you’re too emotionally involved. The matter is one of science and science isn’t about the Truth; its in part about producing evidence for claims made about our natural world so that reliable knowledge can help us to live lives that have less pain and cruelty in them.
[/quote]
I did not say I have the truth, I said this was the truth. I am only regurgitating facts here. The real facts. And it comes from real climate, and other science.
You are simply listening to the propaganda, and politics involved. Listen to some of the “solutions” proposed. Like the idea of carbon emissions trading. The countries that produce CO2 give money to the ones who don’t. Problem solved. Yeah right.
One of the founding members of Greenpeace complains that when the Berlin Wall fell that the socialists simply moved into the Green movement because it was (at that time) unpopular to be a socialist. Interestingly he doesn’t disagree with socialism, (after all Earth day was chosen to be on Lennon’s birthday, although Moore may not have had anything to do with that,) he just wants people to be honest about what they are doing.
Oh and as far as being emotionally involved, much different then you think. I have too much fun with these debates. My annoyances are only with the spreading lies, myths, and propaganda. I don’t want the BS out there, I want the truth, regardless of what it is. (I am actually a little OCD about finding and absorbing knowledge.) But when people get pissed off, that means they think they are losing the debate. My philosophy is not to win or lose a debate, but to get to the truth.
I actually read the opposing arguments, and force myself to ask the question “is this true or accurate, and by how much.” Your first statement here that I supposedly said “there was no evidence” showed you may not be fully reading my posts. This gives me the impression that you want to get to the argument, and not think things through. (Though this might garner your attention.)
In my last post I mentioned that we would have to increase the CO2 levels by 18 times (sorry, that should have actually been 22 times, I used an incorrect number in my math,) before we have the same warming caused by CO2 as the last increase of about 150 years. But here is another fact. If we increase it by 15 times, we can’t breath. Maybe this is a bigger problem. Then again if the current trend continues, it will be well over 500 years before this is an issue.
[/quote]
The only thing above that I can vouch for fer sher is that an CO 2 induced coma will start at around 5000ppm with widespread unconsciousness setting in at around 4000 ppm.
Depending on how you look at it and where you actually are that is indeed between 10 to 15 times what is considered to be normal now.
I went straight for the 6,000 PPM that induced death, and rounded the numbers up from the 394.45 ppm from the measurements from Muna Loa.
I also used an estimated 0.5% yearly increase, which is close to what we saw in the last decade. I know it is bad math to assume a steady regular upward trend, especially since humans are only responsible for about 1.5% net, or 3% gross of all CO2 production, but I am attempting to simplify things here. There are so many variables, including events from hundreds of years ago that are still influencing things that we cannot made any real predictions, other then the link between temperatures, and the increase that has occurred since the bottom of the Little Ice Age.
[quote]Bambi wrote:
As I said in the other thread, (and I should have been clearer here) it’s getting harder to extract these fuels, though I’m sure they are in plentiful quantities. As for oil in central asia, to my knowledge it’s mainly in Kazakhstan.
[/quote]
Yes, mainly. The Caspian Sea and Central Asia are oil/gas rich. Kazakhstan “has the largest oil reserves with an estimated 85bb, but only 10-16bb proven reserves. Azerbaijan has possible oil reserves of 27bb and only 4-11bb proven reserves while Turkmenistan has 32bb possible oil reserves, but only 1.5bb proven reserves. Uzbekistan’s possible oil reserves are estimated at 1bb. Proven gas reserves in the Caspian region are estimated at 236-337 trillion cubic feet(tcf), compared to reserves of 300tcf in the USA. Turkemistan has the 11th largest gas reserves in the world with 159 tcf of possible gas reserves, Uzbekistan 110tcf, Kazakhstan 88tcf, while Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan have 35tcf each.”
Figures a few years old now.
Yes, the Chinese are investing heavily in Africa.
Reminds me of Golda Meir’s question - ‘Why did Moses lead us to the one place in the Middle East without oil?’
Well, the answer is - he didn’t.
[quote]
What I think is that, regardless whether you think climate change is real or not, a move away from being so dependent on fossil fuels would be a good idea. That doesn’t mean get rid of them as they are an easy way to burn energy. But using them in less a proportion that what we are now.
In The UK, we are running out of North sea oil and gas. While there are still substantial reserves, it does not make sense to me to import and be reliant on places such as Algeria, Russia and Qatar. More sense perhaps, to have energy homegrown so fracking for shale gas, wind, solar, coal, nucelar, biofuels. All of it
EDIT: For simplicity’s sake, let’s take this onto the other thread.[/quote]
The other thread(this one) sucks.
I pretty much agree but any “alternative energy” sources should be entirely market driven - no government cheese. But mostly I advocate “drill! drill! drill!” Fracking and other technologies are making it more accessible but the watermelons and bureaucrats oppose that and everything else every step of the way. Even the Hollywood goofballs are on board:
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Last time I was debating here, I took a serious look into “climate change” or “global warming”. Unfortunately the debate is still so full of crap it’s almost unbelievable.
First I have to comment on the wonderful historical knowledge of the American Indians being so great to the environment. What a load of crap. How many people know the reason the “plains” in the Midwest were so plain? Because the American Indians burned all the trees to the ground to make hunting easier.
We shouldn’t demonize them, nor should we praise or worship them. They are people, with all the benefits and foibles that is included.
Now as far as climate change, well we have had an impact in the world temperature, and yes it is because of CO2.
And I am not worried one bit. Why? Because practically everything you have heard is total BS. Science politicized is not science.
Ice caps melting? Even the more radical climate scientist admits this will take thousands of years.
One fact that needs to be understood is that CO2 has a diminishing effect on the temperature. We will need to increase the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere 18 times what it is right now just to double the increase that has occurred over the last 150 years.
How strong is CO2 as a “greenhouse gas”? An increase in the humidity by 2%-4% has the same effect as doubling the CO2.
Oh by the way, the whole idea of greenhouse gas is preposterous. Temperature is actually maintained by convection, and the gas isn’t actually reflecting the heat back, it is absorbing it. The reason CO2 has a diminishing effect is that it absorbs a specific spectrum, and the more it absorbs, the less there is left to absorb.
Oh wait, what about those ice core samples? The ones Al Gore showed that proved a connection between CO2, and global temperature? They actually are true, but he “conveniently” switched cause and effect. CO2 trails the increase, or decrease in temperature by about 500 years.
So if we are to assume that CO2 was the cause of the temperature increases, then we will have to rewrite the laws of physics. Not only that, the CO2 we are releasing today would have caused the temperature increases 500 years ago.
Not only that, but we are going to have to blame our descendants from 500 years from to four causing our increase in temp.
Next is the whole idea that a warmer Earth is bad. I know we keep hearing about this, but that is just assumptions and guesswork. When we look back at the Medieval Warming period, that was actually one of Human’s most successful times. The Little Ice Age came along, and turned that all on it’s head.
The Little Ice Age was devastating. Greenland was a lot greener then it is today. In fact this is why it was called Greenland. They had a thriving community of Vikings who eventually had to pretty much abandon it. (This is well documented.) Greenland still hasn’t recovered.
Now here is a fun fact. Most of the warming in the 20th Century occurred before the big rise in CO2 levels. The big jump in CO2 level coincided with a temperature drop that continued into the 70’s. (This was when they thought we were headed for another Ice Age.) Now it did increase until 1999, when it once again changed course.
The fact is that the current trend will actually continue for another 10 to 20 years. How do I know this? Because these trends are part of something called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. (PDO)
People are well familiar with the roughly 3 month cycles of the seasons. Most have even heard about the longer term El-Nino and La-Nina weather events. But there are many more. PDO covers roughly 30 year time spans. But there are cycles that are centuries long (Little Ice Age) and Thousands of years long. (Real Ice Age to Ice Age.) And I haven’t listed them all. (Not even sure we have discovered them all.)
Oh and since oil has been brought up, we sure are not running out. The amount of hydrocarbons in the Earth is staggering. Beyond staggering. People too often throw out terms like “finite resource”, without actually understanding what it means. (Wait, I have posted this here before. Oh well, a blast from the past.) The Sun also has a finite source of energy. Another 4 billion years, and that thing goes out.
(By the way, some experts are predicting America is again going to become a net exporter of oil.)
Now here is the big problem with all this environmental crap. The focus has been so intense on the crap side that it detracts from real issues.
Maybe we should prevent mercury from getting into our oceans, and fish? How about allowing New-Q-Ler reactors produce more energy? You know how little waste these thing produce? Not to mention that waste is about 95% recyclable, (reprocessed,) leaving even less waste.
The newest ones are so, so, so much safer then the ones in use right now. The fact that we haven’t been building new ones means the old ones stay running when they could have been replaced. (But to be honest they aren’t all that dangerous, regardless of all the crap you have heard.)
Okay, I have to stop, I can literally go on for pages here. These are the facts, and the reality. Argue if you want, it is still the truth.[/quote]
Good post…a lot of your stuff sounds familiar to me, and then I realized that many of these points are also made in “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton…excellent book by the way.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Good post…a lot of your stuff sounds familiar to me, and then I realized that many of these points are also made in “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton…excellent book by the way.
Unfortunately people see things like the cartoon of polar bears on a floating piece of ice, scared of the water, (Happy Feet II) and all the people think that is the truth, without ever realizing that polar bears swim, and very well. (Otherwise they wouldn’t be able to eat all those “happy penguin feet”. Yum!)
One of the best sources on the subject is:
http://junkscience.com
You can catch his political bent in the web page, but at the same time his science is good. The arguments I keep hearing about him are about where he gets his funding. But that is a convenient way to avoid talking about the subject, often because the person can’t actually argue against the science.
Kind of like when earlier I was asked about what my “stake in this” was. The attempt was to imply, without coming out and saying it, that I must have some sort of “dubious” connection. (Interestingly this mean everyone debating here on every subject must have some sort of “stake in it”.)
But this is always an attempt to debate people, and not the subject at hand. This is called gossip.
And once again, I am getting long winded. (Sorry, I tend to do that.) My original intent was to post one sentence, then I started editing that sentence, and ended up with this.
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]'nuffsaid wrote:
What we are running out of, however, is intelligence and scientific understanding, not to mention a timely awareness of Marxist idiocy and propaganda regarding almost anything, especially “climate change”.
[/quote]
Huh? Marxist idiocy??? “propaganda”" ?? Why would the scientific community lie about climate change? But you obviously have delusions about all this if you think its a propaganda ploy by Marists. Gees us stop being so paranoid, Marxism is not relevant here and hasn’t been since May of 1968, in France.
[/quote]
No, you’re just not aware of its history as deception that’s why you decide to insult me.
You’re in no position to judge as you seem ignorant of anything except some weird misinformation you might have picked up.
Look, silee, you’ve popped up with this topic here and you’ve obviously just discovered it.
No, a LOT of scientists dispute this and prove that it’s wrong. It does however take a lot of reading on your part to do so.
Summary - most people pushing this stuff have done so based on inaccurate and poor;ly-executed modelling not reflecting the real world. Most of them are railroad engineers (Pachauri, from the IPCC, NOT a scientific organisation), economists, politicians and various corrupt types wanting to make a profit from enforced monetary penalties on democratic countries. That’s the very short version.
“Climate cvhange” however, and the propaganda surrounding it, has been around for YEARS with a whole bunch of people trying to push this fraud onto the rest of the world.
Cliamtegate, in 2009, revealed much of the fraud behind it by revealing the emails exchanged between the “scientists” at East Angli University.
You might want to google Climategate, Joanne Nova, Ian Plimer, and galileomovement before you make a bigger fool of yourself than you already have.
Oops, should be East Anglia University.