Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[Cobalt_Kid]

Who's still debating this??

As Niflimir points out it's been well established that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, such as is re-emitted from the earths' surface as it is heated by solar radiation. It's like adding layers of blankets to a bed.

Human activity produces many times the amount of CO2 that geological activity does on an average year and the oceans only have a limited capacity to remove that EXCESS CO2 and that capacity decreases as the oceans warm. Some atmospheric CO2 is neccessary for the temperatures required for our type of environment on Earth. Too much and the average temperature rises, glaciers and ice sheets melt, extreme weather events increase as we've been experiencing worldwide and sea levels rise. Food production decreases and drought and water scarcity start to become chronic. Those are a few of the consequences we know about.

I know there are implications to profits in the oil, coal, and other industries, but any short term gains made in those areas are going to be rapidly wiped out by large scale changes in the biosphere we ALL depend on for our surivial. Changes that are already occuring and will only increase as we continue and even increase our emmission of CO2.

 

[Ron in Regina]

_______________________

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Good one...

Wind power may not be the answer either, there's evidence it can result in soil desication and the vibrations caused by the huge spinning blades may be harmful to people living close to wind farms.

Solar is really the only sustainable way to go long term to meet energy demand.

 

[Tonington]

Good one...

Wind power may not be the answer either, there's evidence it can result in soil desication and the vibrations caused by the huge spinning blades may be harmful to people living close to wind farms.

Solar is really the only sustainable way to go long term to meet energy demand.

I think if you add it all up, solar is one wedge out of many that are needed. There is no such thing as a benign power generation technique.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Solar power generation is already being done at a distance of 93 million miles, the only challenge remaining is collection and storage of that energy. Some techniques such as passive lighting and heating of homes and buildings have been around for thousands of years.

It's a much better long-term investment than any other technology.

 

[#juan]

Good one...

Wind power may not be the answer either, there's evidence it can result in soil desication and the vibrations caused by the huge spinning blades may be harmful to people living close to wind farms.

Solar is really the only sustainable way to go long term to meet energy demand.

Do you think they build the wind turbines and then bring on the wind? Any desication would be caused by the wind whether the turbines were there or not. The vibration or noise can likely be reduced.

As Tonington said, "There is no such thing as a totally benign generation system." If the wind power is there we should harness it.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

With wind farms you're changing the wind patterns at ground level where they're going to have the greatest effect on soil.

For me it's all about trying to maitain a energy model that is still focused on monopolies for economic benefits. With effective solar you don't need widespread transmission systems and all the infrastructure that goes with our current energy supply and demand.

It makes much more sense to design our needs around the conditions that already exist and stop trying to modify the environment to conform to our terms of what's "normal". Wind power is a step in the right direction(it's much better than coal, natural gas and oil), the goal is getting to the point where we use much less power and what is most readily available, and that's solar in most places.

 

[GreenFish66]

It will take a balanced energy plan using all available green/clean technologies to sustain a safe /happy /healthy /prosperous future....

Green/technology is the only future...

Enjoy a fun Easter weekend...

Peace

 

[captain morgan]

Who's still debating this??

As Niflimir points out it's been well established that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, such as is re-emitted from the earths' surface as it is heated by solar radiation. It's like adding layers of blankets to a bed.

First, it's about anthropomorphic sources.

Human activity produces many times the amount of CO2 that geological activity does on an average year

This point is very much the heart of the debate.

Some atmospheric CO2 is neccessary for the temperatures required for our type of environment on Earth. Too much and the average temperature rises, glaciers and ice sheets melt, extreme weather events increase as we've been experiencing worldwide and sea levels rise. Food production decreases and drought and water scarcity start to become chronic. Those are a few of the consequences we know about.

The many historical incidences of massive glaciation prior to man were caused by?........

I know there are implications to profits in the oil, coal, and other industries, but any short term gains made in those areas are going to be rapidly wiped out by large scale changes in the biosphere we ALL depend on for our surivial. Changes that are already occuring and will only increase as we continue and even increase our emmission of CO2.

This has nothing to do with corporate greed. Regrettably, that is a last ditch argument that has been sorely over-employed in the absence of any ability to rebut or explain the historical climate swings.

 

[Walter]

Human activity produces many times the amount of CO2 that geological activity does on an average year and the oceans only have a limited capacity to remove that EXCESS CO2 and that capacity decreases as the oceans warm.

Carbon Dioxide

Pupils' Information Sheet
What are the sources of carbon dioxide?
Carbon Dioxide (or CO2) is created naturally by animals' breathing (respiration) and by the decay of plant and animal matter. These processes are natural sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and account for about 38% of all CO2 emissions (Figure 1). Another large natural source of CO2 includes the oceans.
Carbon dioxide is also released by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) for power and electricity, and the production of cement. These are anthropogenic or man-made sources of carbon dioxide. Although man-made emissions of CO2 are significant, they are much smaller than natural emissions.
Another important man-made source of carbon dioxide is deforestation. Trees and plants take in carbon dioxide through the process of photosynthesis, and store it as carbon in their tissues and wood fibre. In many regions of the world, forests are being destroyed to clear land for development. This allows the large amount of carbon in the wood to be released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
Figure 1: Sources of carbon dioxide

Atmosphere, Climate & Environment Information Programme

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

The oceans are a net carbon sink not emmiter. And plant and animal emmissions are part of the natural carbon cycle and don't result in a net increase of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels does.

It takes plant and animal matter accumulated over millions of years and releases the carbon content in the space of hundreds of years.

The Permian extinction, one of the largest ever, was probably caused by volcanic activity in the Siberian Traps which also coincided with large coal beds and resulted in a huge CO2 pulse.

 

[captain morgan]

The oceans are a net carbon sink not emmiter. And plant and animal emmissions are part of the natural carbon cycle and don't result in a net increase of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels does.

Water vapour is the single largest ghg present in the system...

In the end, the advent of organic matter that is buried and transfoms into a hydrocarbon 100's of thousands later would also represent an artificial reduction in the net concentrations... Why not reference this as well?

 

[Tonington]

In the end, the advent of organic matter that is buried and transfoms into a hydrocarbon 100's of thousands later would also represent an artificial reduction in the net concentrations... Why not reference this as well?

How is that an artificial reduction in net concentrations? Care to elaborate on that?

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Water vapour is the single largest ghg present in the system...

In the end, the advent of organic matter that is buried and transfoms into a hydrocarbon 100's of thousands later would also represent an artificial reduction in the net concentrations... Why not reference this as well?

Yes, water vapour is the largest component in the greenhouse effect, so that increasing smaller contributors like CO2 can create a feedback loop which greatly increases the effect.

More CO2 equals slightly higher temperatures which equals more evaporation which equals even higher temperatures and more evaporation. There are some very good reasons why we shouldn't be screwing around with the complex systems which are responsible for the relatively benign environment we live in.

How is the burying of naturally occuring hydrocarbon by natural processes artificial? And what percentage of the yearly output would it represent.

 

[Extrafire]

Good one...

Wind power may not be the answer either, there's evidence it can result in soil desication and the vibrations caused by the huge spinning blades may be harmful to people living close to wind farms.

Solar is really the only sustainable way to go long term to meet energy demand.

Yeah, right.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

You're talking about current reliance, I'm talking about long-term sustainability.

The amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth vastly outweighs any potential human needs and it's not going to run out any time soon.

 

[JLM]

According to yesterday's local paper, Global warming is over in the Boundary- March average temp. was 2.2C below normal & April got off to a terrible start, but finally did get 3 really nice days in a row.

 

[captain morgan]

How is that an artificial reduction in net concentrations? Care to elaborate on that?

... Based on the previous comment that the decomposition of organics were part of the natural cycle and would not result in a net increase the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That said, if there is a natural balance relative to the net concentrations of ambient CO2 in terms of contributions and emissions, the burial of organics (that today are potentially hydrocarbons) would have represented a net loss at the time that they were removed from the system.

The above is not something that I support, I simply asked the question. In fact, recognizing this provides greater support for the cyclical nature of the climatic system (based on the ghg theory) as opposed to humanity impacting the system.

 

[mit]

The problem with most of these wind projects - solar projects is that they are unreliable as to when they produce power - Our power grids in North America are basically one way sytems and not built for power from multiple access points to be put back in to them. Utilizing the solar/wind energy at the source and supplementing power from the grid is preferred but many of these projects are far away from users sprinled amongst farm land and cottage country. Just wait for a sunny - windy day this summer and see if our grid holds up.

 

[Tonington]

That said, if there is a natural balance relative to the net concentrations of ambient CO2 in terms of contributions and emissions, the burial of organics (that today are potentially hydrocarbons) would have represented a net loss at the time that they were removed from the system.

Nothing artificial about that. Organic material is laid down all the time. It's not a net loss from the system. It could be a net loss from the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels today is taking the system to the time when there was more carbon in the atmosphere, ahead of schedule.

There is no debate whatsoever as to the source of the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.