Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[captain morgan]

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.

How can it not be a net loss from the system but could a net loss from the atmosphere when the atmosphere is part of the system?

Burning fossil fuels today is taking the system to the time when there was more carbon in the atmosphere, ahead of schedule.

It's only a function of time before those fossil fuels hit surface (AB tar sands, Oil sands in Venezuela). There are multiple coal seams that are at surface and have caught fire. these are burning not only at surface but also into the geologic structures... Some of these fires have been going on for decades and were started by lightening strikes/forest fires.

This is an excellent example that the hydrocarbons do release at some point regardless of humanity. At some point they will burn/volatilize and release their components (That said, I do appreciate the direct efforts and actions taken by society to use this energy source)... Pretending that they are locked-away forever is a fantasy.

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

Sorry.. That answer wasn't accepted when Gore or Suzuki made the statement and it isn't satisfactory now.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Volcanic activity replaces the CO2 as hydrocarbons are laid down in sedimentary formations.

The VERY long term trend is towards less and less atmospheric CO2 as the planet interior cools and volcanic activity declines. At some point hundreds of millions of years from now there won't be enough CO2 to support multi-cellular organisms.

In the short-term, human activity is generating a spike in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 resulting in a shift in the dynamic equalibrium. The average global temperature is going up.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

It's only a function of time before those fossil fuels hit surface (AB tar sands, Oil sands in Venezuela). There are multiple coal seams that are at surface and have caught fire. these are burning not only at surface but also into the geologic structures... Some of these fires have been going on for decades and were started by lightening strikes/forest fires.

This is an excellent example that the hydrocarbons do release at some point regardless of humanity. At some point they will burn/volatilize and release their components (That said, I do appreciate the direct efforts and actions taken by society to use this energy source)... Pretending that they are locked-away forever is a fantasy.

It's been about 250 million years since natural processes released fossil hydrocarbon deposits on the scale we're seeing now with human activity. Erosion and other natural processes are glacial in comparison to current human activity. Surface oil seeps and weathering of coal deposits don't even compare with strip mining and extensive deep well pumping. Saudi Arabia alone is capable of producing about 8 million barrels of oil a day.

 

[captain morgan]

Volcanic activity replaces the CO2 as hydrocarbons are laid down in sedimentary formations.

This is entirely incidental... What about massive forest fires or shifts in the plates that result in the release of methane into the atmosphere?..

At some point hundreds of millions of years from now there won't be enough CO2 to support multi-cellular organisms.

You could conceivably postulate that burning hydrocarbons today positively impacts the growth or organics that will be made available thousands of years from now and benefit the planet in a self-perpetuating system... There is no specific support for this, nor is there any specific support for the contention that there won't be enough CO2 either.

In the short-term, human activity is generating a spike in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 resulting in a shift in the dynamic equalibrium. The average global temperature is going up.

These spikes occur for a myriad of reasons.. Certainly man-made is one element but certainly is not the only one, nor the largest contributor.

 

[captain morgan]

It's been about 250 million years since natural processes released fossil hydrocarbon deposits on the scale we're seeing now with human activity.

I cannot agree on this in any way... The fact that there are multiple jurisdictions on the globe that witness the exposure of things like tar sands are a function of soil erosion. This may not take anywhere close to the time frame you suggest under 'normal' circumstances, let alone major events that result in mass-loss of top cover.

Similarly, any earthquake, particularly a major one, will shift the plates at great depths and in the event that there are pockets of gas/oil, it will offer a real opportunity for release or exposure into the system.

Erosion and other natural processes are glacial in comparison to current human activity. Surface oil seeps and weathering of coal deposits don't even compare with strip mining and extensive deep well pumping. Saudi Arabia alone is capable of producing about 8 million barrels of oil a day.

Agreed, natural processes are much slower, however, this debate isn't about the speed of man's ability to emit in comparison to nature... This is about the significance of man's impact relative to all sources that contribute... I'm sure that we'll disagree in this area, however, in my mind, this is where the debate really exists.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

I cannot agree on this in any way... The fact that there are multiple jurisdictions on the globe that witness the exposure of things like tar sands are a function of soil erosion. This may not take anywhere close to the time frame you suggest under 'normal' circumstances, let alone major events that result in mass-loss of top cover.

Similarly, any earthquake, particularly a major one, will shift the plates at great depths and in the event that there are pockets of gas/oil, it will offer a real opportunity for release or exposure into the system.




Agreed, natural processes are much slower, however, this debate isn't about the speed of man's ability to emit in comparison to nature... This is about the significance of man's impact relative to all sources that contribute... I'm sure that we'll disagree in this area, however, in my mind, this is where the debate really exists.

No we're talking about mans ability to emit on top of natural processes. Maybe we should just get all those pesky plants and animals to stop all their activity so we can keep doing what we're doing. Then again we'd shortly run out of food and breathable oxygen.

 

[Tonington]

How can it not be a net loss from the system but could a net loss from the atmosphere when the atmosphere is part of the system?

If the flux into the atmosphere is greater than the flux leaving. There's a number of circumstances that could follow this pattern. It's still in the cycle, in the system, even when it leaves the atmosphere. It's not a loss, it's just mobilized elsewhere.

It's only a function of time before those fossil fuels hit surface (AB tar sands, Oil sands in Venezuela).

And the vast majority of those deposits are 100 feet underground or deeper. We're speeding up the process, and proliferating the carbon in the hydrocarbons.

This is an excellent example that the hydrocarbons do release at some point regardless of humanity.

Nobody said otherwise...

Sorry.. That answer wasn't accepted when Gore or Suzuki made the statement and it isn't satisfactory now.

The oceans are the largest sink of carbon dioxide. The oceans are currently acidifying. The oceans cannot at the same time be the largest source of new emissions and be acidifying.

The terrestrial biosphere, the ratio of carbon dioxide isotopes begins to decrease with respect to C13/C12 at the same time as the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide starts to increase. This is an expected result of burning fossil fuels.

More than that, the atmospheric increases are less than what anthropogenic sources create. About half of our emissions end up in plants, and the ocean.

There really is no question about where it comes from, unless you're willfully blind.

 

[captain morgan]

The oceans are the largest sink of carbon dioxide. The oceans are currently acidifying. The oceans cannot at the same time be the largest source of new emissions and be acidifying.

Who said anything about CO2 off of the oceans?... I was referring to the water vapor that is, according to the IPCC and essentially every other perspective, the single largest and most impacting/important green house 'gas' that affects the system... Now, factor in the CO2 off those bodies of water and that impact increases.

There really is no question about where it comes from, unless you're willfully blind.

.. So, where does it come from and why is the debate still raging? (and yes, it is still being pursued quite actively in the scientific community, most recently challenged {anthropomorphic causation} by NASA).

 

[Tonington]

Who said anything about CO2 off of the oceans?...

Try to keep up please. I said there is no debate as to where the extra carbon dioxide has come from. You said that wasn't accepted when Gore or Suzuki said it. I went through the major sources listed by extrafires graph. The oceans and biosphere breath in and out each year, steadilly. Only we're adding to that amount each year. It's not rocket science.

.. So, where does it come from and why is the debate still raging? (and yes, it is still being pursued quite actively in the scientific community, most recently challenged {anthropomorphic causation} by NASA).

You need to read things more carefully...

The debate is raging because many people who aren't trained scientifically think they can reason out what are good scientific arguments, and which are not. People like you, who repeat irrelevant questions like " please explain past glaciations" as if this is a hurdle for an anthropogenic source of retained heat. People like you who repeat this meme even after they've been shown how stupid it is to repeat such a red herring.

NASA has not challenged the cause of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Source please.

I challenge you to find even 5 peer reviewed studies in the last year that are seriously looking into the source of the increasing carbon dioxide emissions. If this is an active area of research as you say it is, this should not be difficult. Pony up Captain.

 

[captain morgan]

Try to keep up please. I said there is no debate as to where the extra carbon dioxide has come from. You said that wasn't accepted when Gore or Suzuki said it. I went through the major sources listed by extrafires graph. The oceans and biosphere breath in and out each year, steadilly. Only we're adding to that amount each year. It's not rocket science.

... And I wasn't referring to anyone's graph.... For that matter I am not suggesting that anthropomorphic sources do not contribute.... The only issue relative to this debate is if anthropomorphic sources are the big driver in global warming (or climate change or whatever the new misleading phrases are).

Are we clear?...

The debate is raging because many people who aren't trained scientifically think they can reason out what are good scientific arguments, and which are not.

... Yeah, like those uneducated hacks at NASA. I mean, exactly who do these clowns think that they are just 'cause the graduate from low-brow institutions like Berkley or MIT and have access to reams of satellite data and historical records?

People like you, who repeat irrelevant questions like " please explain past glaciations" as if this is a hurdle for an anthropogenic source of retained heat. People like you who repeat this meme even after they've been shown how stupid it is to repeat such a red herring.

... And magically, there is never an answer for this, other than the obvious deflection and suggestion that "you just don't understand"... Yeah, what a compelling non-argument straight out of the eco-fringe's deflection bible.

Tell ya what. Why not really put me in my place and answer the glaciation question and put an end to this?.. (good luck on that by the way)

I challenge you to find even 5 peer reviewed studies in the last year that are seriously looking into the source of the increasing carbon dioxide emissions. If this is an active area of research as you say it is, this should not be difficult. Pony up Captain.

I just love the eco-argument that dictates that requires everyone to prove a negative... fact is, your position has zero tangible position that can explain the 'theory' you consider as fact... Really man, don't get me to do your work.

As far as the peer reviewed research papers you demand. It has a massive opportunity to represent a self-fulfilling prophecy doesn't it... Submit your paper to those groups of peers that already support the position and it has a wonderful capacity to come up to muster...

Perhaps I can make a stronger point by considering the biggest supporting document that is perpetually referenced to support global warming.. Yeah, that's right, the IPCC document that had no less than 2500 peer-review supporters... Oops, scratch that. The number changed slightly from 2500 to 65 (or so) and is destined to change again after certain peers took legal action to have their names removed from said document.

That said, before you make such demands of the credentials and documentary evidence of others, make sure that your own house is in order, alright?

 

[Extrafire]

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.

Certainly that's true. It warms the earth (with a teensy assist from the molten core) from absolute zero to its current comfortable temperature so that's a massive amount of energy, more than we could ever need. Problem is, it's very diffuse and collecting enough of it is difficult, expecially if you're trying to replace fossil fuels. Then there's the problem of winter once you get out of the tropics. How will you heat and transport the necessities of the economy, cover half the hot dry areas in the world with solar panels and send it north and south via massive electrical transmission lines? Or do you think you can store enough in batteries to last through the winter? Once you get it to the frozen locations how do you propose to use it? Electric cars and trucks? Ever seen what happens to a batteries capacity in -20?

Sounds to me like you're pipe dreaming science fiction. If we ever could collect that much solar and figure out a way to use it, it won't be in your lifetime. And while we in the developed western economies may be dumb enough to commit ourselves to such a program, most of the rest of the world will happily go on burning the (much cheaper) fossil fuels that are in such abundance, putting us at a huge economic disadvantage.

 

[Tonington]

... And I wasn't referring to anyone's graph.... For that matter I am not suggesting that anthropomorphic sources do not contribute.... The only issue relative to this debate is if anthropomorphic sources are the big driver in global warming (or climate change or whatever the new misleading phrases are).

Anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic. I was responding directly to your statement that the source of increasing greenhouse gases is uncertain. It is not.

... And magically, there is never an answer for this, other than the obvious deflection and suggestion that "you just don't understand"... Yeah, what a compelling non-argument straight out of the eco-fringe's deflection bible.

Tell ya what. Why not really put me in my place and answer the glaciation question and put an end to this?.. (good luck on that by the way)

What are you, on crack? I've given you answers. Changes in orbital parameters for one. How does that in anyway invalidate greenhouse warming? Believe it or not, the dynamic climate system can respond in the same way, to multiple different perturbations.

How in your mind, does a human caused warming climate need to be squared with a change in orbital parameters that reduce solar insolation?

I just love the eco-argument that dictates that requires everyone to prove a negative... fact is, your position has zero tangible position that can explain the 'theory' you consider as fact... Really man, don't get me to do your work.

No, it's a standard rule in science that when you make assertions, you have evidence to support your assertions. You can't provide evidence. You have nothing.

I'm not asking you to do my work, I'm asking you to provide the citation where you came up with this notion. Otherwise, I think you just made it up.

As far as the peer reviewed research papers you demand. It has a massive opportunity to represent a self-fulfilling prophecy doesn't it... Submit your paper to those groups of peers that already support the position and it has a wonderful capacity to come up to muster...

You said it is an active area of research. Prove it man! You can't say it's an active area of research, without proof! You're just living in a fantasy land. :lol:

Perhaps I can make a stronger point by considering the biggest supporting document that is perpetually referenced to support global warming.. Yeah, that's right, the IPCC document that had no less than 2500 peer-review supporters... Oops, scratch that. The number changed slightly from 2500 to 65 (or so) and is destined to change again after certain peers took legal action to have their names removed from said document.

So? This is called moving goal posts. When I ask you about your assertions of active research, you change it into something else.

That said, before you make such demands of the credentials and documentary evidence of others, make sure that your own house is in order, alright?

I asked for documentation of the active research. Not credentials. Be honest.

 

[captain morgan]

What are you, on crack? I've given you answers. Changes in orbital parameters for one. How does that in anyway invalidate greenhouse warming? Believe it or not, the dynamic climate system can respond in the same way, to multiple different perturbations.

.. Soooo, are you now stating that the periods of glaciation are not directly related to man-made contributions?... What exactly is your point then?... (none I presume?)... This IS what the debate is about, right? .. Man-made causation or changes in orbit?.. Which is it?


How in your mind, does a human caused warming climate need to be squared with a change in orbital parameters that reduce solar insolation?

I have no idea where you developed the above notion of associating man-made sources with orbital parameters - give your head a shake ... Apparently you and the rest of Spanky and the gang still make the unfounded and unproven statement of human caused global warming... And as I fully expect that you'll point to some miniscule impact, let's be clear - this has everything to do with the ridiculous contention that humanity is altering the climate to the tune that it is increasing the temps (remember, just man-made sources here) to the level that has directly and significantly altered the mean global temps.




No, it's a standard rule in science that when you make assertions, you have evidence to support your assertions. You can't provide evidence. You have nothing.

... And that is exactly what I am asking of you... I ain't the one making these outrageous statements and not offering any shred of logic/proof to back it up. (BTW - the impact of solar/orbital does not qualify as proof of the impact of humanity)



I'm not asking you to do my work, I'm asking you to provide the citation where you came up with this notion. Otherwise, I think you just made it up.

Bullsh*t.. You are demanding that all comers that don't pray at the alter of the Goracle to prove a negative in the absence of your non-existant proof.... How many times does one have to tell you this? You make the contention, you prove it. All you have done is provide zero support for your position, yet somehow, you deem it reasonable for others to assume your position is fact and therefore defend their position.

Sorry buddy, you wanna call the tune, you pay the piper.




You said it is an active area of research. Prove it man! You can't say it's an active area of research, without proof! You're just living in a fantasy land. :lol:

Isn't this rich... The one that offers no proof in any form to support their position demands others provide it.. The typical demand of the eco-fascist.

 

[Tonington]

I should know better than to argue with an idiot. It brings the conversation down to their level, and they always beat me with experience...

 

[L Gilbert]

Reminds me of the thread about "close-mindedness". lmao

 

[Tonington]

No kidding ehh?

 

[captain morgan]

I should know better than to argue with an idiot. It brings the conversation down to their level, and they always beat me with experience...

Somehow, I can imagine that you spend a lot of time talking to yourself - that said, you'd be the most experienced on this site (and any other for that matter)... Perhaps you'd be better-off pretending to be an expert in topics wherein you have an idea like salmon food-prep and stay away from the big-people conversations.

Now run along and play with your pretend friends and show-off your deep experience...

 

[GreenFish66]

Weather or not, climate is changing!

1. Lets set up a cartesian grid ,over the the area of land, above the tar ponds ,before it was there ,measure back 30 -50 yrs (Where ever you like)..

2.Then let's set a cartesian grid up ,over the area of land, above the tar ponds..From when the tar pond opened to the present...Let's compare the weather patterns , wildlife patterns ,change over two time periods,Come up the with the desired result.Or the truth..depends on you interests..


It's not about the weather ..It's about being able to see the stars through the smoke and smog...Fresh air ..fresh water...And finding a way of growing human populations, in a balance, that helps ensure sustainabilty, and a long /happy/peaceful/prosperous future....Or something like that..

Green/clean tech

:evil3::angry6::-D

 

[captain morgan]

You could do the same experiment over growing cities/communities. In all likelihood, you may see identical results... let's keep in mind that the volume/degree of consumption is directly related to the number of people consuming. It is no secret that the global population is growing at an exponential rate. The cost in terms of emissions, pollution and resource requirements will reflect this.

In large part, the above is the core reason why plans like Kyoto or cap-trade systems will cause more harm than good is because it doesn't recognize the pop increases (ie Kyoto) or the increase in the cost of doing business (cap-trade)will result in highre prices of lower (impacted) capacity.

 

[NorthernSun]

One of the reasons CO2 is in the atmosphere is rapid deforestation in 1900 there was 5 billion hectares of forest, now less then 4 billion. This leads to less CO2 absorbed by trees and it involves eco systems being destroyed. Also, it causes soil erosion and deserts start to expand into where tress once stood.

Global warming is a problem everyone knows exists and people are starting to take the blame for it, but a lot of people don't want to take on the task of fixing it before it is too late.