Climate summary fuels worry

reply to post by traderonwallst


jesus christ man,hundreds of thousands of scientists have done their own research into ice cores,do you think its just a few people?.
they have to drill very deep into the ice core,taking yearsthe deeper you go,it takes time
like i said i have seen many fully scientifically validated reports into ice core readings.

i have only had the internet for two weeks,and i dont have a photographic memory.

so im not gonna waste my time spoon feeding you the information you should be looking for yourself.

reply to post by Beachcoma


OK, for starters, I am not against a cleaner environment. I separate my cans and plastics and glas and newspapers. I teach both my kids to tdo the same.

Carbon taxes are completely differrent from carbon credits. Carbon credits is the main reason why Clinton did not sign the Kyoto agreemenst in the first place. Very negative against American Companies, and very positive for some of the nations we currently compete against, CHINA, INDIA, KOREA as they were considered third world countries.

I am not some miser sitting up on a thrwon or anything, and I agree wwe do have "some" influence over what is considered global warming. But can anyone prove how much is some? Is it 1%? Is it 90%? Again....its what people want to believe. Your right we can not discount all the other sources of CO2 and other gases, but these poeple screaming and yelling everyday in the media would have you believe its your fault. My daughters 4th grade class had a field trip to a museum recently and the topic of global warming came up. She came home and told me she was killing the planet... HUH? How do you tell that to a 9 year old?

I do like your new camp idea, and sign me up. As long as I am not paying any carbon taxes, or I am going to be told I can't drive to work anymore.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Just admit it..........its still all just a theory. We can all say it together. T-H-E-O-R-Y!!!!!

Trader, scientific theories aren't the same as regular-Joe hypothesis masquerading as theory. I'd type out a long explanation of what it means in scientific circles but instead I'll just post a link to thelibra's explanation to what constitutes a theory. Granted that post was in response to 9/11 "theories" but the points are applicable to any scientific theory.

Edit: confusing punctuations

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Beachcoma]

Originally posted by welivefortheson
i want people to remember something,

C02 when emitted takes 27 years to cycle into the atmosphere and attain a state able to add to the green house affect.

so we are experiencing the affects of 1980 at the moment.

Please provide credible evidence of this alleged 27 year cycle. I have heard many outrageous claims when it comes to climate change and this is new one to this old man. More disinformation from that Realclimate environmental activist site?


[edit on 11/15/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by welivefortheson
reply to post by traderonwallst

 

you must differentiate between the actions of the authorities,eg green taxes,and the actual problem of green house climate change.

you may not like what they are purposing(as i dont, as i believe green taxes will only have an effect upon the poor,the wealthier who are the biggest emitters will just pay the taxes and keep emitting),but dont let that emotion cloud the possibility of our climates degradation.

i have studied environmental science on two levels of education,for a total of 3 years.on both occasions i did a study into GW.
first time round,i wasnt a believer,second time round i was.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by welivefortheson]

What leads you to belive that the wealthy are the biggest emitters of gw gasses? Most of the wealthier people have modern updated homes, with modern updated heating systems. I have a summer place in Pennsylvania and most of the people there burn either oil or coal, and most of the people in that area are not wealthy....by no means. Most people who are wealthy might drive big SUV's, but they are new and have modern, environmentally friendly emmission systems, while most poorer people drive cars for the 70's and 80's. What ever gets you to and from work! Those cars do not have environmentally freindly emmission systems. So please, don't start a rich vs. poor thread here, its not going to work.

What were those levels of education that you talk about? I too, took basic courses in meteorolgy, geology and global studies in college as electives, but would never make any claims to have some expert opinion. Do you know that there are almost no geologists that believe global warming exists. They are some of the biggest cycle believers, the earth does not lie only the scientists that INTERPRET thir findings.

What was it that convinced you to change your mind? Hope it was not ALGORE'S movie.

Originally posted by welivefortheson
reply to post by traderonwallst

 

jesus christ man,hundreds of thousands of scientists have done their own research into ice cores,do you think its just a few people?.
they have to drill very deep into the ice core,taking yearsthe deeper you go,it takes time
like i said i have seen many fully scientifically validated reports into ice core readings.

i have only had the internet for two weeks,and i dont have a photographic memory.

so im not gonna waste my time spoon feeding you the information you should be looking for yourself.

hundreds of thousands??? WOW thats alot of scientists. Did not even know there were that many climatologist/meteorologist/geologists out there.

OK, answer me this. Whats the starting point? What is the point in history taht says we have a perfect temperature and thats what we should attain to achieving? Who is to say that we are currently too cold and the earth is supposed to be more temperate globally, more condusive to farming in Greenland? Remember...they named Greenland "GREEN" for a reason.

Listen this thread is not going anywehre, its stay on file. So take your time....Find me all that information to spoon feed me. Make me change my mind.

reply to post by Beachcoma


Already read it....thought it was excellent. I knew, if anyone, you would bring it up....


haha

Originally posted by traderonwallst
I agree wwe do have "some" influence over what is considered global warming. But can anyone prove how much is some? Is it 1%? Is it 90%? Again....its what people want to believe.

I'm sure the truth is out there somewhere, but unfortunately it has been muddied up by the agendas of both extreme camps I mentioned. The real question is, if given the right figure, will people believe it?

By the way, can you explain the difference between carbon tax and carbon credits? I've been confused by the agendas.

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Please provide credible evidence of this alleged 27 year cycle. I have heard many outrageous claims when it comes to climate change and this is new one to this old man. More disinformation from that Realclimate environmental activist site?
[edit on 11/15/2007 by TheAvenger]

heh, nice edit. Had to get the dig in, eh?

As far as I know it takes about 6 months for CO2 emissions to become well-mixed. So this 27 years could be related to half-life in the atmosphere, as that's on the order of a few decades. Not sure.

But good to see the old man is still on form

listen,i know your kind

you argue from the ego,you just argue cos you dont want to be wrong.
you will contest any single thing that is displayed before you.

if you want officialdom,i suggest you research the following website

www.ipcc.ch...

it includes our beloved usa,who continually apply pressure to water down its reports on climate change.

it doesnt get any more official.

Originally posted by welivefortheson
listen,i know your kind

you argue from the ego,you just argue cos you dont want to be wrong.
you will contest any single thing that is displayed before you.

if you want officialdom,i suggest you research the following website

www.ipcc.ch...

it includes our beloved usa,who continually apply pressure to water down its reports on climate change.

it doesnt get any more official.

I have been telling you that their data is based on the eventual goal. I showed you where in their Appendix A it says "This means that the scientific data may be altered to conform with what has already been published."

And you tell me I can find all my information there? Sounds like a circular arguement to me. Hey...another cycle, we are back to the beginning.

reply to post by welivefortheson


You never did tell me, what was that 3 years of education about??? Hope it was not earth science in highschool.

ok then,you wont believe anything i say
you wont believe anything on the internet.

who data on earth will it take to convince you that graphs based upon ice core reading of c02 levels are accurate.
have tried reading all the text and not the graphs perhaps?.

who will you believe?

anyone other than your self?.

reply to post by Beachcoma


Carbon taxes are what the governments would like to start issuing on individuals. California has already started trying to find a way of doing this. A carbon tax for instance would be an added tax to gasoline, or to the power you consume at home, which is supposed to be used to find new ways to combat global warming. Fat chance the money will go there.

Carbon credits have to be purchased or acquired through a trade off of some sort. Very few people are capable of accessing the carbon credit market, not sure how Algore does it. Its not even a common thing here in the states, unless your a multi-national corp doing business in other countries. This was the brain child of Kyoto. Believe it or not, besides Algore, who represented the US at the Kyoto meetings? Ken Lay of Enron. He often boasted that it was Enron that promoted the US energy strategy, not the US. He wanted to control the carbon trading market, like they were controlling the energy trading markets at the time. Both were still in their infancy, but Mr. Lay felt waht was good for Enron was good for the Country (a personal motto he championed at many dinners)

Companies actually value these credit and they appear on balances sheets, where required by law. Its a scam. Nothing ever get protected, but people profit from the trading. Offsetting your carbon footprint is like cleaning up after a bank robbery. You still did the crime, who cares if someone around the world plants a tree in your name.

SCAM SCAM SCAM.

reply to post by welivefortheson


impartial data, with impartial graphs and impartial charts. Explained by impartial scientists. Now if all scientists are being paid, eith from OIL or from government grants......don;t you think they are going to say what the people laying them want them to say????

What was that education you talked about????

[edit on 15-11-2007 by traderonwallst]

I know I hate links but......First of all, greenhouse effect is not a bad thing. Without it, our planet would not support life as we know it, as the average temperature would be too cold to support liquid water.

Water vapor is the single most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, trapping more heat than carbon dioxide and methane put together. Estimates of the impact of water vapor on global warming vary widely from a minimum of 60% of all greenhouse effect to 98% of all greenhouse effect, but even at the minimum of 60%, that leaves 40% of greenhouse effect to be shared by all other chemicals combined, including carbon dioxide and methane (which has ten times the greenhouse capacity pound for pound as carbon dioxide).



Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

So, if humans ceased all technological activity, we would still see 99.883% of the carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere, assuming all other factors remain stable (which is, of course, silly.)

Over the last few years, there have been very careful studies in Antarctica which clearly show global temperatures rising together with atmospheric carbon dioxide. Global warmers have sent me several of these research papers with the usual "Ah HA!" type comment, but on reading the papers it is clear that the global warmers stopped at the abstract, because what these recent studies show is that Carbon Dioxide levels increased AFTER the rise in global temperature. Let me re-state that. Studies of Antarctic ice show that the Earth would get warmer, and THEN Carbon Dioxide levels would increase. And there is nothing at all mysterious about this. Carbon dioxide is a very unique chemical in that it is more effectively dissolved in liquids in lower temperatures. Normally, air will hold more water when warm, sugar will dissolve in water more quickly when warm, but carbon dioxide will escape from solution as the temperature rises, which is why your beer will soak your shirt if it is too warm when you open it.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Originally posted by welivefortheson
ok then,you wont believe anything i say
you wont believe anything on the internet.

who data on earth will it take to convince you that graphs based upon ice core reading of c02 levels are accurate.
have tried reading all the text and not the graphs perhaps?.

who will you believe?

anyone other than your self?.

ipcc does not equal the internet.
The internet does also not equal Appendix A that the ipcc has.

So this statement is completely irrelevant, and seems to me like a weak stab attempt.

Another interesting thread on ATS today!!!!


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Could there be a conspiracy to debunk global warming?>?????


Dare I dream!

Originally posted by traderonwallst
these recent studies show is that Carbon Dioxide levels increased AFTER the rise in global temperature. Let me re-state that. Studies of Antarctic ice show that the Earth would get warmer, and THEN Carbon Dioxide levels would increase.

You might be interested in this thread as well:

Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age

Seems to fit together with the statement quoted.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Could there be a conspiracy to debunk global warming?>?????

My guess is that it's a backlash from carbon-tax proposals. People don't like it when they're money is taken away for dubious purposes and proposals that may not result in anything.