Climategate II? Scientific community accused of muzzling dissent on global warming

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: beezzer

Actually, nuclear winter is based on the idea that nuclear bombs would start 100's of firestorms, and it's the firestorms that would create the soot and smoke which gets lifted to the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere and blocks the Sun.

So, we could also just manually start a bunch of firestorms. Just start a bunch of brush and forest fires and burn all our CO2 scrubbing bushes and trees in the process...

Why does it have to be passive?

My argument goes towards passive vs active human involvement towards climate change.

My assertion is that we are not causing climate change through our passive activities on the planet.

In order to truly change/alter the climate, we'd have to be very active and purposeful towards doing such.

a reply to: beezzer

In order to truly change/alter the climate, we'd have to be very active and purposeful towards doing such.

Quite active indeed.
co2now.org...

Purposeful, not so much.

a reply to: beezzer

You're essentially saying that 26 Gigatonnes of CO2 emitted by human activity, which is outside of the natural carbon cycle (meaning there's no 100% offset for the CO2 we are emitting) is passive?



CO2 molecules are not passive they don't just float around doing nothing, they perform functions that cannot be turned off. We know that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere from about 280 ppm pre-industrial to 400 ppm today (we just recently crossed into 400 ppm).

One of the functions of CO2 molecules is to absorb radiant heat, they don't care if the radiant heat is coming directly from the sun, or being reflected off Earth anymore than the atmosphere cares if more CO2 is coming from China or the US. Once the CO2 molecules absorb the radiant heat they then release it in multiple directions. So some of the radiant heat goes out to space but some gets radiated back down to Earth. Now without ANY CO2 and other greenhouse gases we'd be equally bonked because the planet would freeze, too much of the radiant heat from the sun would reflect off of us and go back into space. But more CO2 has the opposite effect, the more CO2 molecules in the atmosphere the more radiant heat gets directed back at Earth, especially since the CO2 buildup is in the lower atmosphere and not the upper.

Different events can cause the increase or decrease of GHG's in the atmosphere, and the atmosphere reacts accordingly, Earth heats up or cools down, the atmosphere doesn't care what causes the change... it can't decide oh it's volcanoes and heat up or say oh it's humans burning fossil fuels and not heat up, it can only react. The thing is though, the only source of increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases, is burning fossil fuels and land use change.

This is us actively changing the atmosphere. There's nothing passive about it.

originally posted by: Kali74
You're essentially saying that 26 Gigatonnes of CO2 emitted by human activity, which is outside of the natural carbon cycle (meaning there's no 100% offset for the CO2 we are emitting) is passive?

CO2 molecules are not passive they don't just float around doing nothing, they perform functions that cannot be turned off. We know that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere from about 280 ppm pre-industrial to 400 ppm today (we just recently crossed into 400 ppm).

I wonder if it's also having other impacts that we don't know about. Carbon has mass, and shifting that mass from fuel deposits to elsewhere is bound to have some impact. Some 3000 gigatonnes of CO2 were in the atmosphere circa 2007, while there were only an estimated 2173 gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1750. Artificial lakes can definitely cause earthquakes.

a reply to: beezzer

What would we have to do to permanently alter the climate on the planet?

How about taking a bunch of stuff out of the ground, then pumping a continuous load of crap burned from that stuff into our atmosphere, steadily and increasingly - for years and years, or decades and decades...?

I hope that wasn't too technical - or science-y

Edit to add: I see Phage already answered this question (that'll teach me to read first). I think his is probably the better answer :-)

But, seriously Beezer...how is all this not obvious?

Scientist are human just like anyone else. They can be bought out, misled, put under stress from peer pressure, and whatever else you can think of.

Just like with everything else, you need to take it with a grain of salt. Although, I'm not stating my stance on global warming, I'd always be cautious of anything being put forward by a mob of people.

I hope that makes sense.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

So it is yours (and others) contention that CO2 is being deliberately pumped into the environment in order to affect climate change?

a reply to: beezzer

I don't believe anyone is saying that people or corporations are purposely adding co2 to the atmosphere for the purpose of effecting the climate.

Actions do have consequences though and the action of burning millions of years of stored carbon in the form of oil and coal carries the consequence of releasing massive amounts of co2 back into the environment that previously had a natural balance.

a reply to: Metallicus

Come on guys... No such thing as true science anymore, it is all about the dollar. Science for the sake of it or the true betterment of society does not happen anymore. None of the scientists you mentioned are free from that ball and chain of grants, investment endowments, money to do their respective research.

One group gets money from one side and the other gets money from the other side all wanting studies and reports that back up their respective positions. Some get money from both sides lol.

You all know this to be true. Science and the pursuit there of is very expensive. Fact is most science is quite simply bought and paid for today. I think anyone with a brain that still works will tell you just based on their own observations that the climate Is changing. It does not take a scientist to see that the glaciers in glaciers park are gone. You can see the ice that has and is melting in Greenland and the Antarctica. It is dramatic to see the rate of melt, the lakes, hundreds that have formed and his helping speed up the melting.

The lay person can see and understand the massive effect this will have. We also see China and India pumping the atmosphere with more carbon than the rest of us combined. So much so that most of the country does not see the sun at all through the haze of pollution.

No we don't need a scientist to tell us about how bad the weather and storms are getting. We don't need scientists to tell us food will not only be scarce but very expensive this year because of what Climate Change and drought. We get 40% of our fruits and vegetables from California that is suffering a climate induced drought of hell is proportions.

No we don't need no sticker scientist to tell us what we already know.

We have one chance, hundreds of small groups are working all over the world to make zero point energy or free energy a reality. Several groups appear to had breakthroughs and have created working prototypes.

Free energy would change everything and change the world forever.

The bot

Uh... I want to expand on something I mentioned previously.

I quoted this article stating that there were nearly 3,000 gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2007. A gigatonne is a billion (10^9) tonnes, and a tonne is a thousand (10^3) kilograms. The 2,996 gigatones of CO2 mesh with the calculations there.

That was in 2007, with a high CO2 concentration of 383 ppm. Seven years later, this April, we hit a high of 400 ppm. To get a total atmospheric CO2 mass from ppm, the calculation is: total atmospheric mass * CO2 concentration by mass. Using that quoted source, the total mass of the atmosphere is: 5.1480×10^18 kg (or 5,148,000 gigatonnes). The formula for CO2 concentration by mass is: CO2 concentration by volume (ppm is parts per million, so it's ppm / 1,000,000) * molar mass of CO2 (44.0095 g/mole) / mean molar mass of the atmosphere (28.97 g/mole). This means the total atmospheric CO2 mass is: CO2 concentration by volume * 7,820,536 gigatonnes.

Here's the concern - using the new high of 400ppm (0.0004), that's 3,128 gigatonnes of CO2. Notice the problem?

That's a difference of 132 gigatonnes in the space of 7 years, or an average of 18.857 gigatonnes per year. The natural carbon sink is estimated at about -15 gigatonnes (as Kali74 mentioned). Assuming we make up the difference, that's an average of 33.857 gigatonnes of emissions annually. If we held emissions to that 7 year average with no increase, we'd see a 607 ppm CO2 concentration by 2100. If we cut emissions in half today and kept them there, there would still be an increase... up to 420 ppm by 2100.

If we stay on track (a modest 2.5% growth / yr as per 2006-2012), there would be a huge increase... to the tune of another 8,163.099 gigatonnes... equivalent to a 1,443 ppm CO2 concentration by 2100. The absolute worst case IPCC scenario puts us under 1,000 ppm CO2 concentration by 2100, as I recall... along with an estimated 4.0 degrees Celsius temperature rise.

Please tell me my math is screwed up this late at night... someone? ...anyone?

a reply to: Greven
Your math seems OK but I think that if you go by annual means rather than peaks the numbers won't be so scary. Maybe. I don't know.

keelingcurve.ucsd.edu...

a reply to: Metallicus

Of course they want to muzzle any dissenting opinions. The party line is that it's real, that "virtually all" scientists believe it, and anyone that disagrees is labeled as stupid, or as someone that doesn't care about the environment. Real science would dictate allowing ALL proper investigations into any matter to be heard, but mainstream science isn't like that, and especially in this area.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You can say that twice....

Dissent is dangerous and disagreement is just about seditious to hear some talk about it.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000
Now she doesn't have to.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You can say that twice....

Dissent is dangerous and disagreement is just about seditious to hear some talk about it.

More than "just about" these days! These days, you might turn bright red and drop dead on a sidewalk if you threaten to reveal too much. For certain, you are labeled a "potential terrorist" in DHS materials. That old document that came out; I'd fit a lot of the items on the list! Being a night owl alone, and shopping as I do, is enough for some.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Except that isn't what happened here. I guess it's more fun to play the persecution game though. The guy submitted a crap paper to a science journal, reviewers commented that paper wasn't publish worthy because it wasn't innovative enough (science talk for your paper is crap) and the guy went running to Murdoch media claiming persecution. The journal has already disproved the guys claim, but you'd have to actually read beyond the OP to know that.

Who needs to discuss science when there's a brand new controversy to toss around?

I have always been a climate change skeptic but for a different reason than most. Looking at our local weather here I can see something is a lot different that when I was a kid. But politicians and TPTB are trying to blame us so we have to pay them a carbon tax. They just want more money out of us. What is obvious to me is that TPTB have messed up and are trying to divert the blame away from themselves. Governments have stuffed up the weather somehow and are trying to cover it up by blaming carbon dioxide for climate change. We need to find out the real reason for climate change because politicians are never going to tell us.

a reply to: beezzer

So it is yours (and others) contention that CO2 is being deliberately pumped into the environment in order to affect climate change?

c'mon Beez - is that even a real question?

:-)

I'll give you more credit than you apparently give yourself

All we've accomplished is called progress - we are very clever beasties after all

Some of the results of our cleverness are causing us harm. We can come up with solutions to our problems if we face them head on. If - we quit playing games and give up the politics and greed...this is a real problem - not a work of fiction

Why does everything have to be part of some devious, nefarious plan?

(I mean of course - outside of ATS)

:-)

Oh ! Oh ! I know !

Because I'm fed up of debating with people who choose to ignore the facts/do any research/approach the subject with any measure of objectivity, here is an idea.

As things stand, energy groups are far too powerfull for anyone in their right minds, even militants like me, to truly believe that we still have any kind of chance in reversing the course of what our energy consumption is doing to the climate. They've got their hands around our politicians squishy bits, and in the media too, as the lone persecuted pseudo-scientist vs the rest of the scientific community story goes to show. On top of that, a good portion of the population either doesn't care, or no longer trusts the scientific community (the same one that gave them an 80 year life expectancy, and decent survival rates for their kids).

So here is my offer. Deniers, stand by your guns. Get your views out on paper, and sign them. Seal the documents, and pass them on to your kids. Us "alarmists" (is that what we are called now ?) will do the same. One century from now, when life has become a constant hardship for our descendants because of present day pollution (and more importantly, because so many morons preferred to turn a blind eye), they can open up the documents and build a monument. On this monument, the names of all the people who denied the obvious. It will be called "The wall of the a$$holes who screwed up the planet because they wouldn't take the time to review a few scientific studies, or even try to understand what "peer reviewed" actually means.

Or, alternatively, in fictional lala land where the air will still be pure in 100 years, and the planet will not be overheating due to us releasing hundreds of trillions of tons worth of CO2 into the atmosphere over the short space of two centuries, there will be a monument called "The wall of cretins who actually believed science worked based on proof and research". Not.

One final word question. What's worse ? Being right about the fact that there is no manmade climate change, and paying carbon tax ? Or being wrong about the fact that climate change isn't man made, and bequeathing a world substantially harder to survive on to, not only to our children, but to all the generations to come ?

Maybe, just maybe, not turning half the world into an inhospitable wasteland is an agenda which we should be getting behind.

a reply to: Greven

your math is what scares the crap out of me. i'm not sure it's dead on correct but.... yes, we are screwed. there isn't anything we can do at this point. we are on a dangerous path and i'd say the # is going to really be hitting the fan in about 10 years.