Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Wow a week without a post.
That's save a few ton of greenhouse gases.
=========================
Anyway, seasons greetings and a Happy
New Year to all our readers ...

0 Replies

FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE

Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

1 Reply

Each year Government press releases declare the previous year to be the "hottest year on record." The UN's executive summary on climate change, issued in January 2001, insists that the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium. The news media distribute these stories and people generally believed them to be true. However, as most climatologists know, these reports generally are founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading. The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period (which are generally not cited by the press) have year after year showed little or no warming.

Dr. Patrick Michaels has demonstrated this effect is a common problem with ground- based recording stations, many of which originally were located in predominantly rural areas, but over time have suffered background bias due to urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt ( the "urban heat island effect"). The result has been an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time(2). Satellite measurements are not limited in this way, and are accurate to within 0.1° C. They are widely recognized by scientists as the most accurate data available. Significantly, global temperature readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data (1).
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

2 Replies

@Deckland,

Sorry, but I question the conclusion of your article/post.

I'm no climatologist, but we've been getting warmer summers and falls, and the glaciers in both the north pole and antarctica are melting.

What I believe is that this planet goes through cycles of freezing and heating, and whether that can be measured by the atmospheric changes in temperature by satellite may be moot based on 18 years of measurements.

0 Replies

@Deckland,

Excellent and informative post, Deckland. I often go to the following website, which has an organization that has documented the conditions at many of the ground based weather stations, especially in the United States, and they clearly have shown many to be giving us skewed or fraudulant information.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

As a person that studied science and practiced a scientific profession, I firmly believe that to do any credible scientific work, one must first be able to demonstrate an ability to collect credible data to begin with. The climate community has even failed to take that first step, thus all of their other work and conclusions are open to question. How can they trust any conclusion based upon faulty data in the first place? They have yet to clearly identify how much warming has actually taken place.

2 Replies

@Deckland,

I guess when you use a site that is relying on data from the 1980's we can expect odd results. Perhaps you should find something or someone that bothers to look at the most recent data.

0 Replies

In days gone by, scientist gathered information and tried to
come to a conclusion based on that information or least it appeared
to be that way. The media reported it and everyone believed it.
Today it seems, some scientists come to a conclusion and then try
to get the evidence to fit. The media report it as fact but
thank goodness, lots people are questioning the conclusions.
It's good to see people not being railroaded by academics, many who have
a vested interest in pushing a particular wheelbarrow.
The phrase "Climate Change" is skilful bit of trickery, as climate is always
changing and always will,but the bit that irks me is that when "climate change"
is mentioned, it is automatically assumed to be man made.
Keep repeating this in the media time and time again, and eventually people will believe it.
Put fear into the population and they will happily pay more for fuel and electricity.
Trading of carbon credits then becomes a new source trade and money making.
We know who will make the money, and we know who will PAY.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, That's really funny coming from you! YOu wrote:

Quote:

As a person that studied science and practiced a scientific profession, I firmly believe that to do any credible scientific work, one must first be able to demonstrate an ability to collect credible data to begin with.

Why is it that most of us who question you on almost every subject, you fall short of your own belief

Quote:

"to demostrate an ability to collect credible data..."

You are a farse.

From the Free Dictionary:

Quote:

farce (färs)
n.
1.
a. A light dramatic work in which highly improbable plot situations, exaggerated characters, and often slapstick elements are used for humorous effect.
b. The branch of literature constituting such works.
c. The broad or spirited humor characteristic of such works.
2. A ludicrous, empty show; a mockery: The fixed election was a farce.
3. A seasoned stuffing, as for roasted turkey.

0 Replies

@Deckland,

There is a problem with denial Deckland. Denying it is happening ignores a preponderance of evidence. It isn't just temperature readings that show the globe is warming. It is also observed through biological evidence and observed climate evidence.

Animals migrate later in the fall and earlier in the spring.
Warm weather animals have expanded farther north. This is multiple species that includes insects, birds, and mammals.
Recorded dates for ice out on lakes have moved by 2 weeks on average
Glaciers are getting smaller
Arctic ice is being reduced.

Once we can all agree on the evidence of warming, then it is only a question of why and how.

No one has claimed it is all man made. That is a strawman argument that is easy for you to debunk but it isn't science on your part and isn't debunking science.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados, I have never denied the climate is changing. It is dynamic and always changing. Even precession guarantees seasons will change. This sudden fixation with greenhouse gases is a smokescreen. (pardon the pun) There is a TV ad on here at the moment that states, that if mankind completely stops producing CO2 in all its forms, it will take 50 years for the earth to stop warming. How these people are allowed to make such alarming unfounded statements is beyond me.
Anyway, with all the present data, I am far from convinced man is responsible for climate change.
Oh, and parados, sincerely, happy new year to you and yours.

1 Reply

@Deckland,

Quote:

How these people are allowed to make such alarming unfounded statements is beyond me.

OK.. let's see if you can prove your claim.

1. Do you agree that CO2 absorbs IR? (This has been known for almost 200 years)
2. If CO2 absorbs IR then do you agree more CO2 would absorb more IR? (Also known for almost 200 years)
3. Do you agree that objects that absorb IR increase in temperature?
4. Do you agree that more CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the atmosphere to absorb more IR?

If you disagree with any of the above, please post any science you might have to show it to be true.

That leaves us with..
1. Do you agree that the CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing?
2. Do you agree that CO2 was relatively stable for several thousand years before the industrial revolution?
3. Do you agree that man is producing CO2?
4. Do you agree that natural sinks are absorbing most of the man made produce CO2?

If you have any science to refute the above, present it.

1 Reply

@parados,

You didn't read my previous posts did you ?

Quote:

At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

As for any substance that is a good absorber of heat, it is an equally good radiator of heat, a fact which people choose to ignore.

2 Replies

@Deckland,

Quote:

As for any substance that is a good absorber of heat, it is an equally good radiator of heat, a fact which people choose to ignore.

So, you are saying that CO2 radiates heat in the IR range? Can you tell us which range that is and what energy is used to cause the radiation?

0 Replies

@Deckland,

Deckland wrote:

You didn't read my previous posts did you ?

Quote:
At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

I read it and ignored it because it is a nothing argument. It is merely a red herring to try to change the subject.

But -
1. Humans didn't exist then so we would not be affected by the temperature.
2. It fails to take into account the difference in the Sun's radiation over it's lifetime. A dimmer sun would not give off as much energy.
3. CO2 in large quantities like existed in certain geological eras would be deadly to humans.
4. The CO2 from those times was captured leading to our present climate that allows humans to survive.

0 Replies

@okie,

As a scientific person, okie, you do perhaps know - I suppose, that there's a tiny chance - that the world doesn't consist only of the United States of America? And that climate change is a global phenomena ... with data from more than those "weather stations" you quote so often?

Seriously, as a scientic person you should be able to differ between weather stations which collect data privately, for fun, for any other reason .... and those, which are official.

Copied from a paper by the WMO (Cahpter 2 HTL, updated December 21, 2010)

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

No one has claimed it is all man made. That is a strawman argument that is easy for you to debunk but it isn't science on your part and isn't debunking science.

True enough, however the GW cult is nearly unanimous in asserting that a solution can and must promptly be found by diminishing only the man-made constituent. This alone flies in the face of reason, given its relatively small share of the total. It also implies a number of usually unstated or unacknowledged assumptions on the part of the cultists ... i.e. that such a change is possible without inflicting far more harm on the earth's six + billion people; and that no greater natural phenomina are at work that might swamp whatever we might do at great cost.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

I presume that you mean by "harm" George some further restrictions upon your already straightened circumstances and possible unnecessary reductions in the Dow Jones Industrial Index resulting in the waiters at the Yacht Club being less agile.

I hardly think that the earth's six billion people come into consideration except as a phrase to conjure with.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Actually it is none of these - though I do worry about each.

It has more to do with the economic effects of replacing proven, economical sources of electrical power with wind turbines that deliver a product that costs three times as much - both in terms of the initial capital outlay and continued operating costs. That, plus the astoundingly sappy notion that, after a century of progress in the design of propellers and rotors for aircraft, we may be on the verge of a major breakthrough in their design for wind turbines, requires the full force of the government propaganda machine to confound the common sense of the population.

However, history shows that you Europeans have been more susceptible to fashionable, emerging theories about the perfection of mankind and the world we live in, than have we. The ghastly history of the 18th to 20th centruries illustrates the point well..

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Solar power has much potential, but it seems China is taking over the production of solar panels by their cheap labor and available world marketplace for them.

How about the use of hydrogen to create fuels? Any future there?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Hydrogen is a potentially wonderful fuel in that the combustion byproduct is largely water and nitrous oxides and which could be efficiently used in fuel cells or internal combustion engines. Unfortunately it is a highly reactive element that is simply not found in nature free of chemical bonds that require more energy to break than is released in the combustion of free hydrogen. Free hydrogen can be stripped from coal or many organic molecules, but that merely involves the reprocessing of an existing fuel - no net gain or replacement.

I believe hydrogen is best thought of as an interesting way to store energy produced by other means.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know