Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

From your own paper:

That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor, Willson cautioned.

firm conclusions about whether the present changes involve a long-term trend or a relatively brief aberration should come with continued monitoring into the next solar minimum, expected around 2006.

As the poster above me (mc_squared) wrote, recent observtions proved Willsons hypothesis wrong. science.nasa.gov...

reply to post by 46ACE

 

admittedly I'm a paranoid skeptic: We exhale C02; I find it exceedingly dangerous to handover any absolute power to a world body to regulate what is essentially a Human exhalation. ridiculous right??

There is a fundamental difference between respiration, which is carbon-neutral (CO2 release from breathing organisms and CO2 absorbtion in plants are balanced), and carbon from fossil fuels, which is not balanced by any sink. Thats why green biomass fuels are carbon-neutral, even if they produce CO2 by burning. So relax, noone would be regulating respiration, it would be pointless to do so.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

Reduce fossil fuel usage, promote alternatives. I prefer direct fossil fuel tax, and raised money used for alternative energy producers and users subvention over Cap and trade, that is really a scam, designed to make the elite even richer.

Now taken at face value that actually makes some sense....

reply to post by 46ACE

why aren't we building wind???

Simple market economy. Its not profitable now. Why? Lack of carbon taxes and subventions. First there must be taxes, then there would be windfarms. Not the other way around.

If we showed some positive results with things we can accomplish there'd be no need to scare the poulace into needing "world environmental control"!)

Scare the population? Motivate the investors ,restore market balance is the word., Put profitability of fossil fuel use on par with future damages it may cause.

Originally posted by 46ACE
1)What can we do?

2)What would you like us to do?


Buehler? Buehler?

Dude, relax.

1) we need to reduce emissions of CO2 and other GHGs. Simples. We have a problem and we know how to solve it at a fundamental level. We also need to adapt as well as mitigate, as warming is already in the pipeline now, and more will be banked before we get to a decent position.

2) This is the problem. How to actually do it. We have advanced industrial societies and somehow we need to reduce emissions fairly rapidly and deeply. How?
(a) Be more efficient with the dirty energy we use
(b) convert some dirty sources to be less dirty
(c) Reduce our use of such fuels and move to other sources of energy - they do exist, and for example, the UK is growing it's proportion of wind-sourced energy. But it's slow and not cheap. Even Nuclear (which I have not a jot of an issue with) would help, but it expensive.
(d) research novel forms of renewable energy and gradually move to sustainability.
(e) help/guide developing nations along the renewable path

While renewables are not inherently cheap, and burning dead organic material is easier and cheaper we need to find a different way to start the move. They generally involve raising the base costs of carbon-fuels to make other sources workable. One I prepared earlier...

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Gmoneycricket

 

Carbon credits are probably one of the biggest scams to come out of the climate change paradigm.

Perhaps, but they are the product of free-marketeers rather than the scientists.

The idea for any carbon 'credit' approach is cap and trade - a cap is put on emissions, but companies are free to trade for $$£££ their credits. Thus companies who can make big cuts in their emissions can benefit. It essentially creates financial incentive to find ways to reduce emissions. Those who decide not to find ways to reduce emissions will be required to pay these companies to enable their carbon spewing ways.

The main point as far as the actual issue of climate change goes is the cap. If set correctly, it forces a reduction in GHG emissions. Companies would also be looking for methods to reduce emissions, which would stimulate efforts in renewable energy and (potentially) more expensive forms of power, like Nuclear.

It might sound BS, but blame capitalism for it. People would sell sand to the arabs if they could, no? It worked for sulphate emissions, it might well work for CO2 emissions if introduced effectively. Ideally, any income would be directed to energy rersearch (and reducting impact to consumers)

The other approach is to simply tax carbon. Here it simply relies on viewing human behaviour as the archetypal 'Homo Economicus'. If using carbon-based energy becomes more expensive, people/companies look for cheaper forms of energy - if done effectively, it can also make renewables and the likes of nuclear better options. Ideally, any extra income would be directed to energy research (and reducing impact to consumers).

Both require making carbon pricier and other forms of energy more financially viable. While it is cheaper to dig crusty organic material which has been locked out of the carbon cycle for millions of years out the ground and burn it, that's what we will do (price of everything, value of nothing). Same reason that companies simply move business overseas (cheap labour) devastating some communities.

The problem is that any action really requires focused action across nations - but humans as a species are probably too dumb, selfish, and myopic to act with the required haste. We'll bother acting when the poop hits the fan. Oh well...

edit on 20-10-2010 by melatonin because: hey nonny nonny!

Originally posted by melatonin
Lemme guess, Electric Universe/Muaddib? The perseverative regurgitation of the Willson solar data gives it away - told you the ignore button was useful!

Krivova and Solanki (along with many others) have shown that Willson's finding is due to the 'sewing' of the ACRIM-gap. Numerous lines of evidence show that there was no increase of minima, and Solanki & Krivova's analysis finds that all three TSI satellite datasets (ACRIM, PMOD, and IRMB) show a minor decrease (of around .1-.7Wm-2).

Krivova, Solanki, and Wenzler (2009)

haha good guess...

It had crossed my mind that the Wilson data had shades of ACRIM vs PMOD controversy in it but I didn't even bother looking it up because well...it was an EU post and...you know, what's the point lol

But that's good to know and of course not the least bit surprising that it has been officially debunked. I will mentally bookmark that for the next 7500 times he brings it up.

Originally posted by The_Liberator

Originally posted by smurfy
You are telling me what I already know about the east siberian shelf, (the report is already out early this year btw) Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov would not have found anything in the east siberian shelf in the 1990's because they only started studying the shelf, which is a [shallow sea], (submerged land) in 2003-2008. Before that any studies ended at the coastline! Now in the last three years the seasonal melt, (measured in volume of water) has declined, with the melt sharply tailing off in September, in other words it is refreezing much faster than it had been previous and therefore the frozen period is becoming longer again, so that is a little good news, and I am just the messenger. The main point of my "thrust" therefore, is that no-one knows how long methane has been escaping from the east siberian shelf prior to 2003, and that the original fractures could well have been due to a major earthquake in that region and that all the methane that has escaped from there could have been converted to CO2 and added to the atmosphere in an immeasurable way, immeasurable, since no-one knew about it. Escaping methane is not a rare event either, and is theorised as means of sinking ships. Also there are other theories as to exactly how methane does escape even in deep water, geothermal heat is a "hot" one. So I'm afraid it is the science that is not cut and dried by a long chalk. It is a known phenomenon that CO2 concentration rises AFTER a ground temperature rise, it always lags behind, so a sudden increase of methane, caused by natural events like earthquakes or geothermal heat, is much more likely the culprit than AGW. Much more info needed, you probably know that yourself.

edit on 5-11-2010 by smurfy because: grammar

Hi again,

Sorry for the delay. I generally post at night (not to mention I work 60+ hours/week!).


I'm interested to get your thoughts on the following:

Shakhova notes that Earth’s geological record indicates that atmospheric methane concentrations have varied between about .3 to .4 parts per million during cold periods to .6 to .7 parts per million during warm periods. Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic average about 1.85 parts per million, the highest in 400,000 years, she said. Concentrations above the East Siberian Arctic Shelf are even higher.

www.physorg.com...

edit on 6-11-2010 by The_Liberator because: (no reason given)

Shakova et al is making the comparisons with the info available to date. With her own find in real time, and since her particular area was an unknown previously, it behoves them to create a geological record for that area for the same previous periods, they would have to drill for core samples into the shelf bed to see if or how they compare to the rest of the geological record. It was only a decade ago that people were researching as to where anomalous atmospheric methane was coming from, like the Amazon for instance,

www.msnbc.msn.com...

That study is dealing with a 10,000yr rise in methane?? at the time it was thought that the Amazon exported methane up to near Arctic regions via the gulf stream, that may still be so, but Shakova and others have found their own hotspots already there.

Then in 2006 there was a scramble when German scientists discovered plants emit methane, that debate is probably still going on, with the repercussions that find entails. I note that many of the papers I looked at,
the strength of methane compared to CO2 as a greenhouse gas all have varying comparisons strength, starting at 20 times then 21, 23, 25 and 30 in one emotive case The fact that there is a scramble over any new findings shows that the scientific hold on AGW is tentative, and more like a fall-back option until the "real cause" is known.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

From your own paper:

That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor, Willson cautioned.

firm conclusions about whether the present changes involve a long-term trend or a relatively brief aberration should come with continued monitoring into the next solar minimum, expected around 2006.

As the poster above me (mc_squared) wrote, recent observtions proved Willsons hypothesis wrong. science.nasa.gov...

He doesn't care. Half the time the data in his own paper is contradicting what he's saying and he'll just tune that part out and blame Michael Mann and Phil Jones for it somehow and then inform you how brainwashed you are because Phil Jones even contemplated suicide after his life was thrown into total disarray by false accusations, cut-throat politics, public smear campaigns, and death threats from overzealous sociopathic internet trolls just like him.

Again with the taxes...
" why your electrical rates will necessarily skyrocket under my administration.."

I understand your mechanism here:

I just don't agree with the gubermint diddling with every aspect of life: it didn't work under the soviets 5 year plan and it doesn''t work here:

I.e.
Not enough funds in the contractors union pension fund? why we;'ll lower the mortgage rates and spur new building.
whaat? what? The timber industry wants cut an old growth forest???Mortgages are going "tango uniform" from hereto panama???
Those greedy businesses!!!!

I think your car is too big for what you need? Tax them and fuel out of every bodies reach..
What:?
whats' that Rahm? They are closing s.u.v plantsand steel plants all across the rust belt? Why they can't do that those greedy sombeeotch republican CEO's!!!!!

It never quite works out for the best. Legislation is dangerous!

Originally posted by 46ACE
Again with the taxes...
" why your electrical rates will necessarily skyrocket under my administration.."

I understand your mechanism here:

I just don't agree with the gubermint diddling with every aspect of life: it didn't work under the soviets 5 year plan and it doesn''t work here:

Fine, lets not bother then. Not acting has a cost as well, but like has happened over the last 50 years it will just be passed on to the next generations. I'm sure they'll appreciate it, and that some will also respond in the same way until it's well-past the point of no return.

Humans make me feel warm and fuzzy inside sometimes. Could be the dose of freshers flu I have, though...

reply to post by 46ACE


Well if you don't like that idea - you can support my idea of taking up arms against the world's banksters and dirty energy companies, stormin' their gates and confiscating all their profits for immediate use towards a worldwide clean energy economy overhaul.


I'm only half joking too. If a couple million other people seriously were down I would totally do it. Viva la green revolucion!

If, or rather when we start seriously investing in energy alternatives I have reservations about how effective wind is. Demark heavily invested in wind energy and built up a capacity of around 20% of their total grid but found they were only capable of producing about 5% with destabilising the grid. I just don't think wind, or even for that matter solar is economically viable, especially when you factor in the burgeoning population growth. Nuclear power, especially Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR), I think is the best way forward, providing the AGW alarmists come up with some good evidence that CO2 is an immanent threat. A Nuclear reactor which burns thorium cannot melt down, you cannot have a runaway reaction, can produce electricity cheaper than coal, produce less then 1% of the radioactive waste, can burn waste from existing nuclear plants all without producing CO2. We have enough thorium for thousands of years. LFTRs can be built quickly with a lot less materials than wind or solar. A person's lifetime share of the waste would be about 5 ounces. If we built LFTRs we would appease the doomsayers while at the same time ending our dependence on fossil fuels. Essentially, they're the perfect solution to this non-existent problem. Only problem is, if we did that, there would be no need for carbon taxes, green credits, or carbon trading, and no opportunity for TPTB to extract money from the gullible public.

the Big Oil spinmasters must smile in delight when reading many of these anti-GW posts...
their work has been successful, their disinfomation has been gobbled up by countless number
of gullible posters who now are spewing Big Oil propaganda as if it were gospel.

unfortunately, like all propaganda, it has no merit and time will reveal the anti-GW pundits to be full of it.
the typical Big Oil b.s. seems to be:
1. GW is natural and cyclic in nature
2. there's no alternative to hydrocarbons anyway
3. anyone who believes GW is problematic is part of a small know nothing fringe group
4. nothing is certain now, much research is needed to find an answer

notice that Big Oil wants nothing more than disinformation and distraction from what's
going on right now.
Hell, if you were part of a $2 trillion a year industry, you'd be hell bent on preserving your livelyhood.

Just like the tabacco industry execs that swore up and down for years that tabacco was harmless
and not addictive, so are the Big Oil execs covering up their "problems".
from the looks of it, they've succeeded beyond their wildest imagination.

Big Oil has convinced countless numbers of otherwise rational people that jeaporadizing
their future is "OK". that risking turning the planet into a tropical hothouse is acceptable...
the stakes here are mind blowing, yet any number of Big Oil mouthpieces gladly
risk THE PLANET so they can continue their unsustainable lifestyle.

be assured that even now, Big Oil execs are sitting in their lavish boardrooms
brainstorming on which academics they can pay off, which politicians they can put
in their pocket, and how many gullible ordinary people they can pursuade to plead their case
that GW is nonsense.

everytime someone posts some inane anti-GW message, the Big Oil spinmasters
chuckle and are encouraged to keep up the charade...
this is psychology 101 going on here, people.
if you can be so easily pursuaded to act counter to your own best interests,
you will always be manipulated by those who may or may not be your friend.

Originally posted by arufon
the Big Oil spinmasters must smile in delight when reading many of these anti-GW posts...
their work has been successful, their disinfomation has been gobbled up by countless number
of gullible posters who now are spewing Big Oil propaganda as if it were gospel.

unfortunately, like all propaganda, it has no merit and time will reveal the anti-GW pundits to be full of it.
the typical Big Oil b.s. seems to be:
1. GW is natural and cyclic in nature
2. there's no alternative to hydrocarbons anyway
3. anyone who believes GW is problematic is part of a small know nothing fringe group
4. nothing is certain now, much research is needed to find an answer

notice that Big Oil wants nothing more than disinformation and distraction from what's
going on right now.
Hell, if you were part of a $2 trillion a year industry, you'd be hell bent on preserving your livelyhood.

Just like the tabacco industry execs that swore up and down for years that tabacco was harmless
and not addictive, so are the Big Oil execs covering up their "problems".
from the looks of it, they've succeeded beyond their wildest imagination.

Big Oil has convinced countless numbers of otherwise rational people that jeaporadizing
their future is "OK". that risking turning the planet into a tropical hothouse is acceptable...
the stakes here are mind blowing, yet any number of Big Oil mouthpieces gladly
risk THE PLANET so they can continue their unsustainable lifestyle.

be assured that even now, Big Oil execs are sitting in their lavish boardrooms
brainstorming on which academics they can pay off, which politicians they can put
in their pocket, and how many gullible ordinary people they can pursuade to plead their case
that GW is nonsense.

everytime someone posts some inane anti-GW message, the Big Oil spinmasters
chuckle and are encouraged to keep up the charade...
this is psychology 101 going on here, people.
if you can be so easily pursuaded to act counter to your own best interests,
you will always be manipulated by those who may or may not be your friend.

What is the reason for this diatribe? maybe you could say something about why you think AGW is real, that would help. I would agree with your second last paragraph in its context, but it also contradicts everything you said beforehand. Why would they still be brainstorming, when they have already been "so successful" I'll give you
(1) and (4) as being correct though.

Well those sneaky covert big oil propaganda meisters have families too...you'd think after rubbing there hands together menacingly they'd look over and ponder if "little chad the IV" will have anything to eat in 30 years?
You guys do seem to have alot of time invested in all these studies: Sorry O.P. to be a "thread killer"; you can just go back to discussing "Wembly's data" between yourselves...You're also assuming these studies are accurate and being interpreted correctly at face value.

In the end I'm still a"Carlin guy": Save the planet??? the arrogance:The planet will befine ; we may be in the shietz! but the planet will be fine."

Like "plastic"; how do we know the earth didn't want "Plastic"? So it created us to make it??? There was "the earth". Now we have "the earth plus plastic".....The landmasses change people move ,things are tough people have fewer kids..

Its a self correcting system.the amazon dries out and burns; the naked sand reflects more sun.

Yeah back about16 pages the "ufo thing" didn't win you any credibility.
cheers.

already there's so many replies,
when i first looked at this thread there was only about 2 pages i think,
i did watch the video, and i did go to the links and it was all very interesting.
so all of the facts are on the table. a lot more deceptions are also out there floating around in the internet and tv.
is it really so hard for most people to believe that co2 hold warmth? is it even harder to believe that methane is twice as effective? given facts like these(not opinions or beliefs) is it safe to assume that a lot of both will warm up the overall temperature of the planet?
is it safe to assume that our cars, coal plants and cows alone put a lot of these gasses into the atmosphere?
do we keep cutting down forests when we could use hemp instead?
there are many natural factors that contribute to the warming and cooling of our planet, but is it so hard to believe that humans can have much of an impact?
even the truth can be used to deceive even the most clever,
but keep in mind that cleverness is not wisdom.
trickery only serves the trickster, wisdom is for the good of all.
we may be heading toward catastrophe regardless of what we do or do not do.
but is that an excuse to not do what we can?
the debate surrounding most controversial subjects are in fact not about the facts. they are about conflicting egos and ideologues.
would it be so bad to use other sources of energy and food?
is it better to take precautionary measures for something that might happen,
or is it better to do nothing about it.
if it's naturally going to happen anyway, we could possibly survive.
but if we keep on the way we are then we erase any possible survival.
is the survival for the species not the ultimate goal for that species?
somebody please tell me why it would be such a horrible thing to change our ways.
what are we living for when we are not living for each other? we can stay in our little bubbles, we don't have to listen to anybody who does not agree.
the greed and corruption of the few are only given power by the ignorant masses.
no doubt all the rich people who speak out against any positive action because it would mean they wouldn't be the capstone on the pyramid of capitalism anymore. their shady monopoly wouldn't be able to work if we started buying other products.
who can honestly tell me that these greedy people have good intentions?
who has the answer to our problems? are we willing to accept facts, or just opinions?
we as a whole are on one raft, and the leaders are the aggressive, reactionary, intimidating fear-mongers who take us into the most violent of rapids for a sense of personal glory, but they will be the first to start pointing fingers and panicking when they hear the sound of the waterfall just around the bend.

reply to post by The_Liberator


"Global warming" is based upon carbon not upon data from the whole universe. Look at the following link to see what is happening re an incoming neutron star:
www.watchmanscry.com...
OK, the intro is hokey, but the message is from two astrophysicists hired by the Navy to investigate why their satellites were being fried. The result was: our sun is not a stable star, but rather, a binary variable star that is on an equal orbit as our sun but on a different plane. The nexus of the two stars, i.e., our sun and its "brother," is 2012. All the earth changes can be attributed, NOT to global warming, but rather, to the absorption of excessive radiation through our poles, which are not protected by our magnetosphere. The radiation being absorbed is the culprit. That's why the ozone layer is being degraded in the poles. That's why the pyro-geo-techtonic release mechanisms have come alive, especially in the past 6 months. That's why Antarctica might/will probably come apart.





Global warming through carbon?? Man's contribution to such is less than 1% of the natural occurring amount in the atmosphere. The powers that be (TPTB) just want to use carbon to tax us. Look to the REAL culprit! We have a radiation emitting GIANT on course with us whose nexus is 2012

Incoming Neutron Star

!!

reply to post by mc_squared


Hi MC! Yeah, well I started reading that thread (got through 2 pages) but had to stop because my head almost exploded.

For the record, I have been following your debate in this thread. I haven't chimed in because you certainly didn't seem to need any help!

I really think a large percentage of the deniers have some serious psychological issues, and I'm not just being facetious. It is both sad and infuriating at the same time.

Originally posted by 46ACE

admittedly I'm a paranoid skeptic: We exhale C02; I find it exceedingly dangerous to handover any absolute power to a world body to regulate what is essentially a Human exhalation.
ridiculous right??

We drink water, but too much water and we drown.

I suppose we might as well welcome rising sea level because, hey, we are all made of 99% water so it must be good!

reply to post by arufon


Well said. I completely agree.

The world operates on a rational principle; nothing engineered by the wicked could ever disrupt the rational plan of the world.

-Consolation of Philosophy

reply to post by smurfy


Smurfy, I can see that we will agree to disagree. I read the link on methane from the Amazon (although to be honest, it was so dry I was practically falling asleep halfway through, lol), but I fail to see the connection to what we are talking about here.

Here is the bottom line. Either you are correct and Shakhova/Semilitov recorded a temporary anomoly, or I am right and they recorded levels of methane not seen for 400,000 years (their words).

I would like to show you something, however, that seems to indicate that I am right.

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

If you have never used that site before, click the Ny-Alsund Svalbard dot, then view advanced display options, then advanced options, then CH4, then follow directions

If that doesn't make you sh#t your pants then, frankly I don't know what will.