Global Warming Debate

[jrd22]

Wind- Yep, they bedded down with the warmists and won't willingly admit that they didn't do their homework and got this one wrong. And they wonder why their viewership is down and Fox's is up.

[ssneade]

Originally Posted by irwin325cc

Any tonic Al?

dang, where do y'all get this stuff?.......

yer killin' me...........

[Architeuthis]

Climategate is the final nail in the coffin of those claiming science supported Human Caused Global warming.

But most of the people supporting it couldn't care less about the science.

Besides now that the trillion dollar global warming machine is up and running it will be hard to keep it out of your pocket.

I guess the only thing to do is contact your government and tell them to stop giving away the farm on the Global Warming Hoax and to start doing the investigations.

For example how did The US National Research Council and the United States National Academy of Sciences issue reports on MBH98 and miss Mikes Trick. They also failed to report that the data was being messed with. Every country, not just Britian and New Zealand need to do proper investigations and lay charges where required.

It will only happen if we demand it otherwise there is a big machine out there that is after your money.

Geesh Y2K now this.

[NICHOLSON58]

you all don't get it. Its a mad scramble to justify taxing th crap out of us. Like so many irrational things, Just follow the money. The "warmist scientists" are on the take (government financed) and in the end, the governments will rake in enough to cover the mess they dug themselves into in the last two years.

I am all for conservation and using scarce resources for the best possible net gain/end use (not burning) because we need this stuff for the goods that make life possible. We should not bemaking decisions based on bad or false science. - but we will because we need to pay for a bucket of social programs unrelated to any of this.

[erps]

I was reading an article quoting NASA's Jim Hansen yesterday where he said:

Improved forestry and agricultural practices could then bring atmospheric carbon dioxide back to 350 ppm (parts per million) or less, as required for a stable climate.

Copenhagen summit: Is there any real chance of averting the climate crisis? | Comment is free | The Observer

I thought it interesting that he came up with a magic number like that so I started googling co2 information over several hundred thousand years. The record reflects a cyclic rising and fall of co2 concentrations over several hundred thousand years with corresponding ice ages and warming periods. The co2 levels were pretty consistent with a low of 190 ppm and a high of 290 ppm. See here:


CO2 vs Temperature: Last 400,000 years

Holy cow! Look at that spike at the far left of the graph showing our recent surge to 380 ppm. My gut tells me we humans introduced an influence that is going to cause a temporary imbalance. I would expect that we will see a reflex of some sort to start absorbing and locking away all this recent co2 released, whether it's more frequent algae blooms or something else, but I would anticpate some sort consequence. I don't know whether the consequence with be good or bad, but I expect we'll know in the next few generations.

[JohnRPollard]

This may have been mentioned previously:

NorthEast Passage Opens For Business

[NICHOLSON58]

Here is a fun link. Global Warming Facts: What's New

[Yamsailor]

Actually this is quite interesting. The CO2 concentrations 400,000 years ago mark the Devonian period. I have included a description from wikipedia here: Devonian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The next period is the Carbonacious period (a time when all our fossil fuels were starting to be created) ; I have included a description here: Carboniferous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then the Permian, which is described here: Permian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is interesting to note is the climate became more hospitable for humans as the CO2 levels decreased over the past 400,000 years.

Further I would point out the description prior to 400,000 years ago which is the Silurian. I have included a description here:Silurian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. the Silurian marked an increase in sea-level rise and melting glaciers. Which appears to coincide with increased CO2 levels as noted in the graph.

I think the most critical issue to point out and discuss is the latest CO2 data identified on the chart. Clearly CO2 levels have been just as high in the history of the earth---of that I don't think one can dispute (I certainly won't dispute it.) However, and this is significant, THE RATE OF CHANGE IN THE CO2 CONCENTRATION IS, IMHO, THE CRITICAL FACTOR TO BE EXAMINED.

In my mind, the question is: Is the rate of change due to significant anthropogenic influences. If the answer is yes, then it is incumbent upon us to do something, if the answer is no, then who cares--there is nothing we can do about it anyway.

In either event, the one sure way to put this issue to bed is to spend a lot of R&D on alternative energy for two very simple reasons: 1) Our purchase of oil is financing terror; and 2) Our purchase of oil is economically killing us.

Here is a case in point.

Recently, two big oil refineries were permanently shut down in the Philadelphia metro area. There are three reasons as to why they shut-down (according to the WSJ, Bloomberg, and the American Petroleum Institute.)
The three reasons are:

1) Refining capacity in the mid-west has substantially increased the supply of refined products and this supply is out-weighing demand;

2) These two particular refineries were designed to process heavy/sour crudes. For a long time heavy/sour crude was 1/3rd the cost of light sweet crude which is currently $80/barrel. Now the cost of heavy/sour crude is only slightly less than light/sweet crude;

3) The US is importing gasoline and other refined products at a cost less than what it costs to refine and distribute products in the US (mostly due to labor/transportation costs.) It costs less money to transport stocks by ship than is does by truck or rail.

Regardless of where one stands on the Climate Change battle, I think it behooves us here in the USA to find alternative sources of energy. This will positively address our economic, security, energy and environmental issues.

[JohnRPollard]

Facing Scandal, Head of Climate Research Lab to Temporarily Step Down

[jrd22]

Originally Posted by Yamsailor

I think the most critical issue to point out and discuss is the latest CO2 data identified on the chart. Clearly CO2 levels have been just as high in the history of the earth---of that I don't think one can dispute (I certainly won't dispute it.) However, and this is significant, THE RATE OF CHANGE IN THE CO2 CONCENTRATION IS, IMHO, THE CRITICAL FACTOR TO BE EXAMINED.

In my mind, the question is: Is the rate of change due to significant anthropogenic influences. If the answer is yes, then it is incumbent upon us to do something, if the answer is no, then who cares--there is nothing we can do about it anyway.

.

Yam- Historically the CO2 levels have been much, much higher than they are today, without any man made influences, as shown in the graphs you provided (15X). It is my understanding that CO2 levels follow temperature changes (lag), but I am no expert. I agree with you that if CO2 contributes to temperature increase, and if the rate of change is attributable to man, then we should do all that is possible to control it. The problem is that the "ifs" have not been proven and so it would seem to be premature to spend trillions of dollars on Cap and Trade until we know what is going on ( apart from the fact that carbon offsets do nothing to reduce worldwide emissions). I totally agree that we need to pursue alternative energy sources (including increased drilling and development of untapped known domestic oil resources).