Global Warming tit-for-tat

Greets all,
I ran across a comparison of the major talking points pro and con for GW and thought it interesting.

Have a look

A lot of it is eloquent and seems fairly balanced. It presents a fairly strong argument for GW.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
Greets all,
I ran across a comparison of the major talking points pro and con for GW and thought it interesting.

Have a look

A lot of it is eloquent and seems fairly balanced. It presents a fairly strong argument for GW.

How about the biggest CON (and yeah.. CON is the perfect term)

Cap & Trade:

It is a scam, everyone knows it its a scam and nobody wants to concentrate on that issue since that the "Dream" solution that has been waiting for a problem to implement is almost here.

Jessie Ventura did a great job of exposing the Global Warming Hoax on his new Conspiracy Theory show.

Anyway....It seems that Humans prosper during warming times in our short history on Earth. Trying to fight warming even if we are creating it, seems to defeat the purpose. What if we fight the warming and end up starting an Ice Age? Since the global temperature has fallen constantly for the last 10 years shouldn't we be actively pushing anything that could warm us back up?

Global Warming is awesome and shouldn't be messed with by us meddling humans.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Carseller4]

Originally posted by infolurker

Originally posted by lordtyp0
Greets all,
I ran across a comparison of the major talking points pro and con for GW and thought it interesting.

Have a look

A lot of it is eloquent and seems fairly balanced. It presents a fairly strong argument for GW.

How about the biggest CON (and yeah.. CON is the perfect term)

Cap & Trade:

It is a scam, everyone knows it its a scam and nobody wants to concentrate on that issue since that the "Dream" solution that has been waiting for a problem to implement is almost here.

So let me get this straight infolurker, this is your logical and reason filled response to someone posting information about a link that presents both sides of an argument? Really now, "everybody knows" is your reasoning? I would be far more interested in hearing your actual responses the presentation in the link by the OP.

The more I look at the evidence, yes including the leaked emails, the more untenable the position of the global warming deniers seems to be and the more the anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis seems to provide an explanation for the wide range of data that we have -- and I don't mean just meteorological but also botanical zoological and the all the rest. In order for me to take you position seriously or even consider it seriously I need more than "everyone knows"

I think that we should address the environment as a whole regardless of it is in danger or not as a global force BUT I think this needs to be carefully executed because ALL of Earth needs to give to ALL of its people equally, so economics must be based around the real population.

Taken in points

First off, there is no scientific consensus.
600,000 years of temperature graphs show CO2 follows warming trends, it does not lead them, re is not the cause of the warming.
The scientists have edited the evidence, I have examined the code and it's modified all to hell, plus they deliberately didn't include all the date, this has come out in the press recently as well.
There is no difference between the CO2 we exhale and CO2 from fossil fuels. As more CO2 is produced, more CO2 is scrubbed and absorbed, plants and plankton grow faster. I designed an industrial agriculture robotics chamber and by putting in more CO2 we grew lettuce from seedlings to 18" harvestable in 14 days.
The hacked emails show well defined collusion and a conspiracy to suppress disenting viewpoints.
There is no "consensus" conclusion otherwise 31000 scientists would not be wanting to sue FatAlbert or have him charged with fraud now would they?

The most probable driving force for weather at this point (including climate change) seems to be what it has always been, the sun and its effect on its surrounding area of influence. It's called seasons ya know, that means the climate changes.

In other areas, look at the amount of snow and the bitter cold temperatures in the northern hemisphere, people are dying off again. I might be able to accept global warming if there were lots of snow and the temperatures were milder, say around -2 to 5 C (southern Ontario), but what we are seeing is -10 to -17 C and winter starting earlier.

My conclusion, we are going into an small or large ice age driven by cosmic radiation and a lull in solar activity. So if you can, buy some land +/- 10 degrees of the equator.

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 12/24.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

reply to post by lordtyp0

I would go out on a limb and say that the chart would have been put forward by a pro GW supporter.

everyone knows, its only big oil who funds the negative argument, for some reason however, big oil have very little money to throw around to save their industry

reply to post by infolurker


So - no global warming? Are they lying? Death of polar bears (sob - they are so gorgeous) - melting of ice caps?

Is it a huge lie?

Originally posted by TaraLou
reply to post by infolurker

 

So - no global warming? Are they lying? Death of polar bears (sob - they are so gorgeous) - melting of ice caps?

Is it a huge lie?

ever think of how many different animals have become extinct over the history of the earth?
A mammoth may have been cute and cuddly, but I am not taking responsibility for them going extinct.

From memory, Polar bears probably existed during the medievil warming period, could you explain why?

reply to post by munkey66


No I cannot explain. Mammoths were huge elephants so I don't think they would be cuddly.

reply to post by TaraLou


What I was pointing out is that many animals have either survived many warming and cooling periods, Crocodiles for example.

Other animals have become extinct through their own misfortune of becoming too specialized.

As cute as polar bears are, you will find that they will adapt much better to a warmer planet having the ability to also eat plants as well as marine life,

Wow.. logged on today to some hostility I see.

Well, Global Warming yes or no.... I don't know.

What I do know about is the Carbon Credit Scam and that it is NOT a solution for anything other than lining the pockets of special interest.

So, weighing the Pro's and Con's I simply stated we were missing a "Con" and it is the biggest CON (as in theft) in history and it infuriates me that they have GW activist buying into this CON. Right now, the Cap & Trade Con is what is being pushed, not carbon reduction. They could care less about carbon reduction as long as they implement CAP & CON because THAT is the true goal.
links.org.au...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Check out the information and feel free to comment.






[edit on 24-12-2009 by infolurker]

reply to post by metamagic

So let me get this straight infolurker, this is your logical and reason filled response to someone posting information about a link that presents both sides of an argument?

This pic is hardly a fair one. It is just a series of simpleton rebuttals to claims made by climate change skeptics.

As for Climate Change being a huge lie... true or not, I tend to move the burden of proof to the side that has the most to gain, which in this case would be the government, the UN, and the proponents of massive economic reform to curb climate change.

Climate Change proponents must prove all these:

1. Is warming happening? To some degree, it has been proven to have happened.

2. Is the warming unnatural?

3. Is CO2 the cause of the warming? A correlation has been found.

4. Is man-made CO2 the primary factor in the warming?

5. Are the methods put forward to curb CC effective?*

6. Are they the best methods?*

7. Is the cost of the proposed methods a good price for what is gained?*



*The asterisks are where I find my biggest concerns.
(5) The methods put forward are not terribly effective. Kyoto would only delay warming a few years, and what about the damage already done?
(6) Innovation of energy technology would be the preferred method of curbing climate change. Imagine a world where the sum of mankind's activities have little to no negative effect on the climate.
(7) The cost of proposed legislation would be tremendous. Energy costs would hike up and likely need government subsidies for poor and middle class people to even afford heating their homes. Standard of living will drop, with this, life expectancy. The government in the USA is already digging itself into a deeper hole of debt and inflation. Add unto government the energy needs of its people(film, 'Brazil'), and it will not be sustainable.
Capital will dry up as the parasite government sucks the host dry and innovation is set aside for mere survival. The government will ultimately collapse and new and improved forms of tyranny will be the way out of the depression.

The pro CC scientific community is being used to extract more freedom from people, and inevitably, cause its own demise. The theory of anthropomorphic climate change is a valid theory which one should be concerned, the insane 'solutions' are the scam.

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
Taken in points
...600,000 years of temperature graphs show CO2 follows warming trends, it does not lead them, re is not the cause of the warming...

Exactly...

Are increases in CO2 the ultimate cause of climate change or is it an effect of climate change?

I'm not saying that humans are not definitely to blame for global warming -- I really don't know. However, that's my point: WE really don't know.

People point to the increase in CO2 and say, "see -- humans pump out CO2, and CO2 causes warming". However, natural CO2 output in the oceans increases because of warmer ocean temperatures -- i.e. warmer temperatures cause atmospheric levels of CO2 to rise naturally....


... So the real question is "what came first"?:

Did the human CO2 output cause the oceans to warm, thus causing even more CO2?

OR

Did the oceans warm for some other natural reason (such as solar output), thus causing a natural rise in atmospheric CO2?



[edit on 12/25/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

I had been intentionally lurking for a bit to watch for replies. So far it's mostly predictable.
What the pic I posted says is that Human linked GW is an exacerbation on natural cycles.
An analogy to this is: On a boat that natural sways in the ocean-back and forth. You are fine for the most part, however stacking all the weight on one side of the boat will more than likely cause it to tip over on the next wave.

The pic alludes to the CO2 being not the cause, but a boost to the effects. Tampering-intentional or not-with the natural cycle we have unleashed far more CO2 than would naturally be there, thus it will amplify the next warming cycle to unsafe levels.

I find it odd that most arguments stem from the proposed solutions to this. On the one hand they seem to say GW is not happening and yet "Cap and trade is the wrong way to go.".

I am uncertain how this leap actually forms, but it seems myopic to me. If your house is on fire-do you stand and argue about whether a firehose or fireextinguisher is the correct method?

How about some more ideas on how to fix it, or influence it instead of just "This method is wrong" "That is wrong" "You are wrong"? Surely there are some proposals out there on how to resolve it.

reply to post by lordtyp0

I am uncertain how this leap actually forms, but it seems myopic to me. If your house is on fire-do you stand and argue about whether a firehose or fireextinguisher is the correct method?

What if the proposed idea to put out the fire was a dollar store squirt gun that costs way too much, not even mentioning its almost null effect.

How about some more ideas on how to fix it, or influence it instead of just "This method is wrong" "That is wrong" "You are wrong"? Surely there are some proposals out there on how to resolve it.

R&D is the best solution to climate change. It is the best solution to all future energy needs, climate change or not.

The reason "this method is wrong"... etc is because they will greatly reduce the energy markets ability to innovate and eventually make a cleaner, cheaper, more efficient fuel source than fossil fuels.

Simply, if you take capital from private energy groups and give it to the state to put to 'good use', the state will historically find a way to mess it all up. The best thing a state could do is to ease off the market and allow innovation to take place.

What is the missing link that causes the temperature to decrease while CO2 levels are still rising, as shown in the vostok ice core records? While the fact that CO2 follows temperature isn't disputed, it is the relationship between the two that is responsible for what seems to be a "narrowing" of the scientific community's vision.
The vested interests strewn throughout the AGW community could easily be responsible imo.
If temperatures begin to plummet while co2 levels rise that means there is a trigger not being addressed.

reply to post by lordtyp0

What the pic I posted says is that Human linked GW is an exacerbation on natural cycles.

No, it actually does not.

What the pic shows, is that Warming conditions cause more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere.

The picture you posted fails to show any correlation between increased CO2 levels, and increased Warming.

Water vapor accounts for FAR more heat retention than does CO2, even by comparable weight.

Now, as you can see by this picture:

www.barrettbellamyclimate.com...

The Atmospheric gasses that cause the MOST heat retention are (By order of effect)

1. Water Vapor
2. Oxygen and Ozone
3. Rayleigh Scattering (Not actually a GAS, per se, but its effects are more than CO2)
4. Carbon Dioxide
5. Methane
6. Nitrous Oxide

An analogy to this is: On a boat that natural sways in the ocean-back and forth. You are fine for the most part, however stacking all the weight on one side of the boat will more than likely cause it to tip over on the next wave.

Yes, it is a very interesting analogy... but the earth is not a boat floating on the ocean.

Your attempt to compare the balance of a boat, to the thermodynamic equilibrium that is controlled by almost countless factors is puerile.

In an increased CO2 environment, Plant growth is accelerated...

Since plants take in CO2, and turn them into sugars, then any accelerated plant growth would also mean an accelerated carbon retention OF CO2 by plants.

Your analogy is quite poor.

The pic alludes to the CO2 being not the cause, but a boost to the effects.

Yes, you are right... the pic DOES "Allude" to that. But there is no attempt made to PROVE that an increased CO2 concentrations would also increase temperature.

Burning Fossil Fuels releases CO2, this is true... but it ALSO absorbs O2 to MAKE the CO2...

And if you remember my graph from earlier, O2 has MORE heat retention than CO2... So the entire premise is as wrong as it is incomplete.

I find it odd that most arguments stem from the proposed solutions to this. On the one hand they seem to say GW is not happening and yet "Cap and trade is the wrong way to go.".

I am uncertain how this leap actually forms, but it seems myopic to me. If your house is on fire-do you stand and argue about whether a firehose or fireextinguisher is the correct method?

We are not arguing about what method would be the best to put out the fire... we are debating about whether the house is ACTUALLY on fire, or not.

Your comparison, once again, is puerile.

You presume that Anthropogenic Climate change is this REALLY HUGE PROBLEM, and then attempt to chastise us for debating you, by making your belief into some form of "Axiomatic" truism.

The house is not on fire.

As for CO2, Cap and trade has nothing to do with fixing the actual problems that would be associated with CO2, *IF* that was the driving factor of increased global warming.

Cap and trade is not an attempt to solve a problem, it is an attempt to tax the entire globe.


Period.

How about some more ideas on how to fix it, or influence it instead of just "This method is wrong" "That is wrong" "You are wrong"? Surely there are some proposals out there on how to resolve it.

Of course there are.

Solar power would reduce the amount of coal, and prevent the release of Chemical heat energy, AND CO2...

But they don't WANT to stop using coal, they just want to make more money off of it.

Using vegetable based oils to manufacture plastics could work WONDERS for the ecosystems, as they are biodegradable, and Carbon negative. (Since the plants Absorb carbon, as opposed to the petroleum plastics RELEASING carbon)

But they will not do that, because you cant have a monopoly on Plant oil production like you can on Petroleum production.

They could begin building houses out of Plant based concrete, that acts as a carbon SINK, and also reduces energy usage because it is a EXCELLENT insulator.

They don't want to do that, because the best plant to make that type of concrete out of, is illegal by UN, and US mandate.

There are COUNTLESS solutions to this "Problem", but they will not even give them a single glance, because they can not get Filthy Rich off of them.

-Edrick

reply to post by Edrick


Hrm, I think you should go back and re-read the pic.

"We don't claim that greenhouse gases are the major cause of the ice ages and warming cycles. What drives climate change has long been believed to be the variations in the earth's orbit around the sun over thousands of years.
In a normal warming cycle, the sun hears the earth, the earth gets hotter. The oceans warm up, releasing huge amounts of CO2. This creates a greenhouse effect that makes warming much more intense.

That's why humanity's release of CO2 is so perilous. We're out of step with the natural cycle. And we haven't even got to the stage where the oceans warm up."

I do find it interesting that none of what you said addressed the pic. It was a response to common statements of skepticism. At the bottom it cites sources-so yeah, it kind of does show proof.

reply to post by lordtyp0


IS this really the road that you want to go down?



Well then... Allow me to Retort.

The earths climate is maintained by a delicate balance of MANY forces that affect the overall thermodynamic equilibrium of the planet earth.

Firstly, the earth is a ball of rock, sitting in the middle of the near absolute vacuum of space, So... their is only one way for heat energy to enter the relatively "Closed" system of Earth.

The Sun.

Solar radiation across the spectrum crosses the gulf of space that separates the One astronomical unit (1AU = 98 million miles) of space from Sun, to Earth.

Residual heat energy in the earths core is another source of heat for the surface of the earth, and is typically caused by Gravitational Tidal forces (Gravity interactions between the Earth, moon, sun, and planets) Kneading the mantle and core of the earth, producing friction... AND the slow decay of radioactive elements in the core (To a lesser degree)

But since the Gravitational heating effects are relativity mild on earth (as compare to the Io / Jupiter system) then the MAIN source of heat on earth is SOLAR radiation.

Solar Spectrum (X=intensity, Y=Wavelength in meters)
www.soultek.com...

You can clearly see the High point of solar flux comes from the Visible spectrum, with slightly less energy coming from the near infrared spectrum.

The sunlight that reaches earth is absorbed by many different things, and the question of "What absorbs What?" is answered by Electromagnetic thermodynamics.

en.wikipedia.org...(electromagnetic_radiation)

Certain substances absorb certain frequencies of light, and reflect others.

This is why Plants are "Green" because they absorb light from the "Blue" and "Red" end of the spectrum, and they reflect "Green" light.

www.uic.edu...

This same effect happens for every object on the surface of the planet, absorbing some frequencies of light, and reflecting others.

This also happens for the Gasses that compose our atmosphere, where in the visible spectrum, the usually absorb "Blue" light the least, and allow it to pass through, so the sky looks Blue during the day.

Certain gasses in the atmosphere are "Opaque" (the light cannot pas throug) to non visible radiation (Such as infrared)

upload.wikimedia.org...

Measurements of wavelength are in Micrometers (1 Micrometer = 1 millionth of a meter)
Visible spectrum = 0.380 to 0.750 Micrometers.

From the Graph above, you can see that the Main atmospheric absorption of light comes from water vapor, that comprises 2%-4% of the total atmosphere.

With Oxygen, Ozone (Oxygen-3), and Carbon Dioxide comprising significantly less absorption, and Rayleigh Scattering (Atmospheric Radiation scattering) in third, with other gasses contributing very little to overall absorption.

Adding to this, is an effect known as "Albedo".
en.wikipedia.org...

This it the amount (And in what spectrum) sunlight is reflected from surface objects.

Now, once light is reflected from surface objects, it has a chance again to be absorbed by the atmosphere.

You also have problems of Heat absorption from solar radiation (Black Asphalt that gets hot in the sun.)

As the darker the object is, the more heat it absorbs from sunlight, and the lighter the object is, the less heat it absorbs.

Conversely, due to the laws of Thermodynamics, A Darker object RELEASES heat faster than a Lighter Object.

So, your Asphalt gets hotter quicker, but it cools down quicker also.


Now, all things on earth absorb this energy, and release it, according to their atomic, and molecular composition.

Like, for example... the Oceans:

www.physics.umd.edu...

Now, you can see that Water's absorption of radiation peaks at the Far ultraviolet, and is the lowest at around "Violet", increasing absorption through Red, and into Radio frequencies.


Still with me?


Good...


This is where it gets complicated. (Don't get scared.. you want to voice your opinion on climate change, Right? Well then, you better know what the hell you are talking about.)


There are many different factors that dictate how much radiation is absorbed by the Earth "System" including (The aforementioned) Atmospheric absorption spectrum (In which Carbon Dioxide plays a VERY minor role), but also (Also aforementioned) albedo of the surface of the earth.

Included in this, is the Radiation Reflectivity and absorption of the Clouds

"Absorption of Solar Radiation in Clouds."
www.arm.gov...

You see... the clouds are Light, so that means they reflect Visible radiation, but they are composed of high concentrations of water, and that means they absorb ultraviolet, and infrared radiation.

Since the overall Solar radiance Intensity PEAKS in the Visible spectrum, it is sort of a trade off.

But ALSO, since the Clouds are comprised of Water, they EMIT heat energy in the Infrared spectrum.

Which makes them a sort of Heat Sink. (After a fashion)


Another variable in the Solar Absorption "Cycle" is Angle:

en.wikipedia.org...

Sunlight coming into the atmosphere at noon (When the sun is directly overhead) only has to traverse a few hundred kilometers of gasses, making the chances of its absorption less than if it were striking at an angle, in which it would have to pass through MUCH MORE atmosphere.

www.windows.ucar.edu...


Another effect to consider, is one of the three methods of heat transfer.

Up until now, we have only talked about Radiative heat transfer... But now, we will talk about Conduction, and Convection.


Conduction and convection are closely linked; as Conduction is the movement of heat from one end of an object to another.

Convection is the movement of heat through a fluid medium (Water, Gas, etc...)


Now, The principles of Thermodynamics teach us that Heat energy will only move from an area of Warm, to an area of cool.

So, when the sun heats the surface of the earth, the heat moves downwards into the ground, where it is cooler.

And once the sun goes down, the surface of the earth cools, and the warmth that was stored there moves up to the surface.

Heat on the surface of the earth transfers its hear to the atmosphere, and this causes atmospheric movement known as "Convection", where heat rises.

The Cold part of the earth, is the Exosphere, which is a portion of the earths atmosphere that exists around 400 kilometers straight up.

All heat will try to move into this area, albeit slowly.

This is what causes convection cells.

www.aviationweather.ws...

When the warm air rises, and releases its heat, it cools, and descends... this sets up a cycle of air flow, that acts to move heat away from the earth, and into space, where it is dispersed into the interstellar medium.

Continued...

[edit on 26-12-2009 by Edrick]