What Do We Think About Climate Change

I must have missed the part where they gave the evidence of the link between climate change and anthropogenic CO2

 

Ehh, well I'll try to enlighten your dark mind.....:

We take some stuff; HC kinda thing, ignite it, we get CO, CO2, H2O, NOX, most is CO2 and H2O...

Both these have the ability to insulate, when strolling about in the atmosphere as a gas (Molecules of more that two atoms thend to have that ability, and CO2, as a still layer would insulate approx 10x that of glass, thanks to the weather/ wind, we'll get mechanical transfer of temperatures also).

Of the liquid HC's (named "oil") we burn off approx 4,5 km3 ea year.

One barrel (160 litres) will give us approx 320 kgs of CO2... A lot of these barrels inside that 4,5 km3...

Now human emissions of CO2 is only about 3% that of the natural releases from nature/ earth, so doesn't seem much.

But different from putting money in the bank at 3 % intrest, outside the bank we have inflation, devaluation... Money is a theoretical thing, with unlimited expansion possibilities... (?, ehh well, let's assume that, at least?).

Now the 3'rd rock from the sun, has a limited surface, and a limited volume of atmosphere above that one again...

If we to that limited volume add a 3% of one of the most insulating gases (ea year in 25 years will double the added quantity, if not taken care of by plants/ sea), sooner or later something will change. Its a pretty safe bet, that; increasing the quantity of one of the most insulating normal gas in a gas mixture, will result in a new gas mixture with increased insulation properties.

However, some tend to say that since the previous calculations are wrong, then the whole idea of the thing that something we do may at all be able to affect the climate. (Small scale experiment; try to block the chimney.... (?)).

Now, we also have coal, brown coal, gas..... not included in the 4,5 km3.... that we burn off ea year.

My opinion;
Wether we like it or not; we're heading towards a speed bump, we may as well choose to reduce the speed before that impact. Just bacause we have the possibility and means to do something, it doesnt mean we have the (moral, ( some could maybe look that word up...)) right to do it.

We are perfectly able to pollute the seas in a pretty serious way.
We're also prefectly able to contaminate some land areas far beyond the level where it is habitable.
Why is it a totally difficult idea to grasp, that we may be able to affect the atmosphere in a similar way?

 

Because -talking CO2- we are not, as it's been thoroughly proved.
Why is this idea so difficult to grasp to you?
Cheers.

 

Gentlemen,

At last, the AGWarmist propaganda department, otherwise known as the BBC, is beginning to see the light.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

The story is rushing around the globe.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/11/quote-of-the-week-21-the-beebs-big-bombshell/

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2009/10/bbc-questions-global-warming-dogma.html

http://www.climatedepot.com/

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4162

http://iceagenow.com/BBC_asks_What_happened_to_global_warming.htm

Hell's teeth, it's going be bloody embarrassing for those AGWarmists who have been posting here, since I started this thread on 19th February 2008.

The shame, the horror of realising how wrong they have been. However, I am magnanimous in victory. An apology will suffice. Grovelling in the dust, besmirched with ashes and clad with old and smelly sackcloth will not be necessary on this occasion.

Respectfully,

Perry

 

What if all the crabs come out of the ocean at the same time?

Thanks for the folksy answer Knut. Now if it had any facts in it that would support AGW it would be folksy and accurate. Lets be clear on what you are saying though. The 3% human contribution to the CO2 volume of the atmosphere which is .025-.35 of the total atmosphere will bring us to environmental apocolypse. Do you realize how miniscule that amount is and how silly you sound. That's even giving you that the assumptions of atmospheric CO2 lifetime is correct, which it isn't, and that CO2 is the bogeyman in warming, for which there is no evidence. So I guess the quest for reducing CO2 to control warming makes about as much sense as writing an action plan for the results of all the crabs coming out of the ocean at the same time. Doable, but silly!

 

All the crabs can't come out of the ocean at the same time, because they are too busy being steamed in the US Congress.

 

I post this just for those that still believe -put FAITH in- the idea that the sum of the climate feedbacks WRT CO2 and water vapor is positive, even STRONGLY positive.


Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?

As I tried to reason with our most rabid believer many months ago, if the sum of the feedbacks were strongly positive, then the tropics would all look like deserts as there would be very little rainfall. I further reasoned that such a set of conditions would fly in the face of daily weather observations; the tropics for example are rather famously rather wet. The above article and a plethora of other observed phenomena indicate that the sum of feedbacks is in fact strongly negative, absolutely foreclosing the possibility of a catastrophic 'tipping point' for the earth's climate in response to GHG concentration.

Water vapor does not beget more water vapor in a vicious cycle; water vapor begets rain.

Jimbo

 

When I stop laughing, may I use this?; "Water vapor does not beget more water vapor in a vicious cycle; water vapor begets rain."
If we actually had empathy for the troubled peoples of Africa (and bought the AGW Shamwow) we would be puking CO2 into the atmosphere as fast as we could - DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO HEART?!

 

Ah but you guys keep forgetting the real agenda here. It's not about pollution, it's not about climate change, it's not about the morality of using up all the fossil fuels, it's about the control that the regulations sprouting from a worldwide AGW administrative agency would have and its ability to control the global economy. If the UN through its IPCC can wrest control of energy production through abominations like Kyoto they can control economic growth worldwide and create the socialist nirvana they dream of each night. Equal shortages and misery for all, yup, that's the ticket, step right up and get yours!

Except of course for the special folks in government and the glitteratti. They get all the stuff they want, courtesy of the common folks.

 

Permission granted. My royalty fees are quite reasonable

 

I BURN all my scrap wood in an effort to stave off an ice age.

CO2 is good for you
It makes your crops grow fine
So don't lock up my CO2
'Cause its not yours, ITS MINE!

 

Oh, forgotten, until recently...

http://www.epa.gov/foia/docs/2007_Draft_Proposed_Endangerment_Finding.pdf

 

Burning hydrocarbon fuel produces water vapor as an emissions as well as CO2. A first principles analysis shows that these water vapor emissions are greater than that which accrues due to the supposed positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor. Furthermore as we all know, water vapor is MUCH more effective as a GHG than CO2. The whole AGW argument is in the end really about water vapor, after all.

So why then, is there no movement to regulate water vapor emissions as a greenhouse gas :?:

If the reasoning is that water vapor has a short atmospheric residence time/is self regulating, the question then arises as to why that reasoning only applies when the water vapor is emitted directly, and NOT when accrued from the supposed positive feedback with CO2? How does the water vapor 'know' how it got into the atmosphere, so that it can 'behave itself' in an orderly, self-regulating kind of way when the result of direct emissions, but 'mis-behave' when the result of positive feedback mechanisms?

Does anyone else see the glaring logical fallacy in this?

Could it be that if such a movement took hold, then the average person just might be able to see the 'Alice in Wonderland' absurdity of the whole AGW case, just as happens whenever there is a push to regulate methane?

Jimbo

 

I'm going to burn more wood this weekend, just because I can. Arrest me.

 

Can't wait for Boston to post a whole bunch of irrelevent minutae, proclaim 97%, the debate is over, everybody knows, I'm smart your not, and if you don't believe you are an oil industry hack.