Global Cooling - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 05-06-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

so then you know the percentage and are holding out?

Noted scientists like James Hansen (head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies) has been quoted saying a concentration of 450 ppm as a maximum goal for CO2 that may avoid the most significant damage to the Earth's ecosystems and economies.
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/wa.../challenge.htm

As of 2007, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 380 ppm and climbing. At the rate we're adding CO2, we'd reach 450 ppm by about 2045.

CO2 has never been this high in recorded history:

I feel like a tag team with DC.
*SLAP* You're in!

loquitur · 05-06-2008, 06:34 PM

DcDux, there is no downside to cutting emissions. Would you support switching power generation to nuclear in order to achieve that goal? Because that's the only way you'll get the numbers down substantially without significant economic impact.

Ustwo · 05-06-2008, 06:38 PM

DC this graph as much relevance here as yours.

I mean you just showed a graph of carbon emissions in a void.

Willravel · 05-06-2008, 06:40 PM

Ustwo, if you can't make an argument, then go study. Pastafarian evidence has no place here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

DcDux, there is no downside to cutting emissions. Would you support switching power generation to nuclear in order to achieve that goal? Because that's the only way you'll get the numbers down substantially without significant economic impact.

I'd be fine switching to nuclear + electric transportation (so long as we continue to develop more efficient and safe ways to make and recycle the batteries). The only issue is cost. Nuclear reactors cost $3-4b. How many do you suppose we'd need to replace all the fossil fuels burned today? The answer to that question illustrates my interest in reducing consumption overall.

Ustwo · 05-06-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I feel like a tag team with DC.
*SLAP* You're in!

Whats the really cool bit of data on that graph.

The global temperature.

And recorded history, let me show it to you.

Quote:

Geology
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years
Daniel H. Rothmandagger

Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139

Communicated by Paul F. Hoffman, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, January 30, 2002 (received for review October 9, 2001)

The last 500 million years of the strontium-isotope record are shown to correlate significantly with the concurrent record of isotopic fractionation between inorganic and organic carbon after the effects of recycled sediment are removed from the strontium signal. The correlation is shown to result from the common dependence of both signals on weathering and magmatic processes. Because the long-term evolution of carbon dioxide levels depends similarly on weathering and magmatism, the relative fluctuations of CO2 levels are inferred from the shared fluctuations of the isotopic records. The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/7/4167

In terms of weighted for greenhouse strength the human contribution is .28% of the greenhouse effect.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Keep chasing that rainbow guys.

I'm more than willing to talk about the effects of potential climate change, but those are I know are boring and non-political. What to do if it gets warmer, colder, if areas get a drought etc.

dc_dux · 05-06-2008, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

DcDux, there is no downside to cutting emissions. Would you support switching power generation to nuclear in order to achieve that goal? Because that's the only way you'll get the numbers down substantially without significant economic impact.

Loquitor...nuclear power should be an option...IF it is properly regulated. And then there is the disposal question...ask the folks near Yucca Mountain.

But that will take years...and the NIMBY effect should be interesting. Do you want a Nuke plant in your backyard?

We should also have strict security regulations for nuclear (and chemical) facilities (as recommended by the 9/11 Commission) and not voluntary industry compliance as proposed by Bush.

In the meantime, the Bush EPA should comply with the USSC ruling last year (ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE et al. v. DUKE ENERGY CORP. et al.)...dump their so-called "Clear Skies Initiative", and enforce the previous regulations on power plant emissions in the Clean Air Act.

The Bush EPA should also comply with the USSC ruling (Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al) to issue emission standards (including CO2) for motor vehicles

Ustwo · 05-06-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Loquitor...nuclear power should be an option...IF it is properly regulated. And then there is the disposal question...ask the folks near Yucca Mountain.

But that will take years...and the NIMBY effect should be interesting. Do you want a Nuke plant in your backyard?

In the meantime, the Bush EPA should comply with the USSC ruling last year (ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE et al. v. DUKE ENERGY CORP. et al.)...dump their so-called "Clear Skies Initiative", and enforce the previous regulations on power plant emissions in the Clean Air Act.

The Bush EPA should also comply with the USSC ruling (Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al) to issue emission standards (including CO2) for motor vehicles

After respondent Duke Energy Corporation replaced or redesigned the workings of some of its coal-fired electric generating units, the United States filed this enforcement action, claiming, among other things, that Duke violated the PSD provisions by doing the work without permits. Petitioner environmental groups intervened as plaintiffs and filed a complaint charging similar violations. Duke moved for summary judgment, asserting, inter alia, that none of its projects was a "major modification" requiring a PSD permit because none increased hourly emissions rates.

I read the summary, which was enough leaglese to cause me brain damage as it is, but this was about permits?

I'm not going to read all of it, and all of the rulings, but I don't see anywhere where Duke Energy increased their hourly emissions and this seems to be about if they needed a permit or not to modify their generators in a manner which didn't change their emissions.

I for one am shocked this isn't being properly enforced.

dc_dux · 05-06-2008, 07:34 PM

Thanks for your thoughtful and in-depth analysis.

Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative" exempts power plants from being held accountable to the Clean Air Act's New Source Review (NSR) standards and from being required to install cleanup technology (best available retrofit technology or BART). NSR standards require new power plants and upgraded plants to comply with modern federal emissions limits. BART protects communities from persistent haze and other air quality problems by reducing the pollution emitted from antiquated power plants.

Martian · 05-06-2008, 07:42 PM

I have no interest in weighing in on the larger debate. However, I found this interesting:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

...I think Ben Stein lost his marbles at some point...

Because it seemed so tangential and unrelated. I decided to find out what the motive was for this statement and discovered to my surprise that Ben Stein has Godwined the Evolution vs ID debate.

Willravel · 05-06-2008, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Whats the really cool bit of data on that graph.

The global temperature.

Ah, so you're going to ignore what we were talking about; CO2. Maybe we can talk about the election, too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

In terms of weighted for greenhouse strength the human contribution is .28% of the greenhouse effect.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

I guess you missed my US government study about CO2 numbers causing catastrophic climate change in very little time. Here, I'll make it harder to ignore:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'm more than willing to talk about the effects of potential climate change...

I don't blame you. It'd be tough to argue that the earth is flat, too.

dc_dux · 05-06-2008, 07:49 PM

We can talk about The Onion's article:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Quote:

Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Ustwo · 05-06-2008, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Thanks for your thoughtful and in-depth analysis.

Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative" exempts power plants from being held accountable to the Clean Air Act's New Source Review (NSR) standards and from being required to install cleanup technology (best available retrofit technology or BART). NSR standards require new power plants and upgraded plants to comply with modern federal emissions limits. BART protects communities from persistent haze and other air quality problems by reducing the pollution emitted from antiquated power plants.

Yes yes, what did that have to do with your link about permits?

dc_dux · 05-06-2008, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yes yes, what did that have to do with your link about permits?

SO you dont accept Intelligent Falling?

ps....read the Clean Air Act.

Ustwo · 05-06-2008, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Ah, so you're going to ignore what we were talking about; CO2. Maybe we can talk about the election, too?

I guess you missed my US government study about CO2 numbers causing catastrophic climate change in very little time. Here, I'll make it harder to ignore:

[/quote

[i] The results presented in this report are crucially dependent upon the validity of the GFDL model's climate sensitivity to increased CO2. The change in global surface air temperature predicted by the GFDL model is 3.7C for a doubling of CO2, which lies in the upper half of the range of 1.5 to 4.5C estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But will, why isn't the temperature rising now then? When will we reach these heights of CO2? What can the US do to stop the developing world?

Quote:

I don't blame you. It'd be tough to argue that the earth is flat, too.

Snark, nice, you just copy graphs you don't understand, get shot down and them and give a new one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

SO you dont accept Intelligent Falling?

ps....read the Clean Air Act.

So in other words you too posted a link that really had no bearing.

Are you channeling another poster who likes to do that?

Willravel · 05-06-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

But will, why isn't the temperature rising now then?

It is rising.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

When will we reach these heights of CO2?

About 2050.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

What can the US do to stop the developing world?

We should remove the log from our own eye before removing the splinter from theirs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Snark, nice, you just copy graphs you don't understand, get shot down and them and give a new one.

The graphs I posted are frighteningly simple, but if you have any questions I'd be glad to field them.

dc_dux · 05-06-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So in other words you too posted a link that really had no bearing.

Are you channeling another poster who likes to do that?

Read the Clean Air Act (is there an echo.....Read the Clean Air Act) and the process of how permits are supposed to be issued/denied for power plants (stationary sources of pollution) and you might understand the USSC decision.

Ustwo · 05-06-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Read the Clean Air Act (is there an echo.....Read the Clean Air Act) and the process of how permits are supposed to be issued/denied for power plants (stationary sources of pollution) and you might understand the USSC decision.

I understand it, I don't understand why you care.

dc_dux · 05-06-2008, 08:39 PM

I don't think you want to understand.

Ustwo · 05-06-2008, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It is rising.
.

Obviously human produced CO2 must be the cause....

host · 05-07-2008, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Whats the really cool bit of data on that graph.

The global temperature.

And recorded history, let me show it to you.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/7/4167

In terms of weighted for greenhouse strength the human contribution is .28% of the greenhouse effect.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Keep chasing that rainbow guys.

I'm more than willing to talk about the effects of potential climate change, but those are I know are boring and non-political. What to do if it gets warmer, colder, if areas get a drought etc.

Ustwo, let's recap what has transpired here....you set out to author a thread to "pooh pooh" "global warming", as you often attempt to debunk what mainstream science views as a human activity influenced, climate crisis. The centerpiece of your OP is an "article" authored by a British satirist, Christopher Booker: (in post #1)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

The, in your post (#10), you provide info about the "change of heart" (announced on Jan. 17, 2005) of meteorologist/hurrican expert Dr. Chris Landsea, which does not even seem to support your contention, because Landsea also said:

Quote:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/weath...nce_10-18.html
HURRICANE SCIENCE

<h3>October 18, 2005</h3>

....JUDITH CURRY: OK, first in our paper, we didn't say anything at all about greenhouse warming. It's a global increase in tropical sea surface temperatures. In the subsequent press releases and press conferences, everybody is asking us the question about is this greenhouse warming? <h5>And the answer is partially the warming is associated with greenhouse warming and the burning of fossil fuels.</h5> To what extent, you know, that's debated by scientists. Nobody is arguing that increase is 100 percent due to greenhouse warming, but clearly a portion of it, very likely up to 50 percent or 60 percent, of that increase that we've seen over the period is associated with greenhouse warming.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right well let's start with that question, Mr. Landsea. What's your response on that?

<h3>CHRISTOPHER LANDSEA:</h3> Well, we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, <h5>and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming.</h5> The question is whether we're seeing any real increases in the hurricane activity. And the study that the authors Judy Curry and Peter Webster and company have done, you know, they are very well renowned scientists in field, and anything that they're putting together needs to be taken seriously........

In your post (#28), you provide a link to an IBD editorial. IBD editorials are written by and exclusively for the consumption of "wingers"....remember, you chose to start this mocking exercise of a thread....is this all you got????

No....in your post (#32), you've displayed a cartoon graphic....

...and in post (#34) you post a link to an article which seems to be a gesture by you to mock academy award winning global warming documentarian, Al Gore !

Finally....all the way out in your post (#45) you've posted a linked excerpt to a scientific report concerning the effect of CO2 on climate change, but it's almost seven years old:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Geology
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years
Daniel H. Rothmandagger

Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139

Communicated by Paul F. Hoffman, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, January 30, 2002 (received for review October 9, 2001)

Rothman's aka Rothmandaggar's findings are put in context in this 18 months old article:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/sc...etD%203Cfsh3bg

In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming

...Throughout the 1990’s, reconstruction papers offered evidence on both sides of the debate about the effects of carbon dioxide. Starting in 2000, the attacks intensified as Dr. Veizer of Ottawa questioned the CO2-climate link across the whole Phanerozoic. He and two Belgian colleagues, writing in Nature, based their doubts on how two ice ages — 440 million and 150 million years ago, in the age of dinosaurs — apparently had very high carbon dioxide levels.

<h5>In 2002, Daniel H. Rothman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also raised sharp Phanerozoic questions after studying carbon dioxide clues teased from marine rocks. Writing in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, he said that with one exception — the recent cool period of the last 50 million years — he could find “no systematic correspondence” between carbon dioxide and climate shifts.</h5>

Published: November 7, 2006

(Page 3 of 3)

In 2003, Dr. Veizer joined Nir J. Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, to propose a new climate driver. They envisioned slow movements of the solar system through the surrounding galaxy as controlling the cosmic rays that bombard Earth’s atmosphere. A reduction, they argued, would lessen cloud cover and Earth’s reflectivity, warming the planet. The reverse would cause cooling. The Phanerozoic record of cosmic-ray bombardment showed excellent agreement with climate fluctuations, trumping carbon dioxide, they wrote.

In 2004, Dr. Berner of Yale and four colleagues fired back. While saying cosmic rays were possibly “of some climatic significance,” they argued that such an effect was much less than that of carbon dioxide.

In the debate, opponents can differ not only on the contours of past CO2 fluctuations but also on defining hot and cold eras. Although Dr. Veizer sees a cold period 150 million years ago, a time of increased ice at sea but not on land because the continents had shifted from the poles, Dr. Berner, in his modeling, disregards it. Such differences can muddy the dispute.

Today, each side claims new victories. Dr. Veizer says he has a comprehensive paper on the cosmic-ray theory coming out soon. Dr. Berner recently refined his model to repair an old inconsistency.

The revision, described in the May issue of The American Journal of Science, brings the model into closer agreement with the fact of wide glaciation 440 million years ago, yielding what he sees as stronger evidence of the dominant role of carbon dioxide then.

Dr. Yapp, once a carbon dioxide skeptic, concurred, saying, “The data complied in the last decade suggests that long-term climate change correlates pretty well with CO2 changes.”

Some climatologists view the Phanerozoic debate as irrelevant. They say the evidence of a tie between carbon dioxide and planetary warming over the last few centuries is so compelling that any long-term evidence to the contrary must somehow be tainted. They also say greenhouse gases are increasing faster than at any other time in Earth history, making the past immaterial.

Carbon dioxide skeptics and others see the reconstructions of the last 15 years as increasingly reliable, posing fundamental questions about the claimed powers of carbon dioxide. Climatologists and policy makers, they say, need to ponder such complexities rather than trying to ignore or dismiss the unexpected findings.

“Some of the work has been quite meticulous,” Thure E. Cerling, an expert at the University of Utah on Phanerozoic climates, said. “We are likely to learn something.”

<h3>Meanwhile, since Rothman's late 2001 determinations on the historical effects of CO2 levels, leading authorities on the subject have conducted further research:</h3>

Quote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0328155540.htm

Greenhouse Gas Effect Consistent Over 420 Million Years

ScienceDaily (Mar. 29, 2007) — New calculations show that sensitivity of Earth's climate to changes in the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) has been consistent for the last 420 million years, according to an article in Nature by geologists at Yale and Wesleyan Universities.

A popular predictor of future climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature produced by each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. This study confirms that in the Earth's past 420 million years, each doubling of atmospheric CO2 translates to an average global temperature increase of about 3° Celsius, or 5° Fahrenheit.

According to the authors, since there has continuously been life on the planet over this time span, there must be an ongoing balance between CO2 entering and leaving the atmosphere from the rocks and waters at Earth's surface. Their simulations examined a wide span of possible relationships between atmospheric CO2 and temperature and the likelihood they could have occurred based on proxy data from geological samples.

Most estimates of climate sensitivity have been based on computer simulations of climate or records of climate change over the past few decades to thousands of years, when carbon dioxide concentrations and global temperatures were similar to or lower than today. Such estimates could underestimate the magnitude of large climate-change events.

To keep Earth's carbon cycle in balance, atmospheric CO2 has varied over geologic time. Carbon-cycle models balance chemical reactions that involve carbon, such as photosynthesis and the formation of limestone, on a global scale. To better predict future trends in global warming, these researchers compared estimates from long-term modeling of Earth's carbon cycle with the recent proxy measurements of CO2.

This study used 500 data points in the geological records as "proxy data" and evaluated them in the context of the CO2 cycling models of co-author Robert Berner, professor emeritus of geology and geophysics at Yale who pioneered models of the balance of CO2 in the Earth and Earth's atmosphere.

"Proxy data are indirect measurements of CO2 -- they are a measure of the effects of CO2," explained co-author Jeffrey Park, professor of geology and geophysics at Yale who created the computer simulations for the project. "While we cannot actually measure the CO2 that was in the atmosphere millions of years ago, we can measure the geologic record of its presence. For example, measurement of carbon isotopes in ancient ocean-plankton material reflects atmospheric CO2 concentrations."

Led by Dana L. Royer, assistant professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Wesleyan University, who did his graduate work in geology at Yale, the collaboration simulated 10,000 variations in the carbon-cycle processes such as the sensitivity of plant growth to extra CO2 in the atmosphere. They evaluated these variations for a range of atmospheric warming conditions, using the agreement with the geologic data to determine the most likely warming scenarios. The model-estimated atmospheric CO2 variations were tested against data from ancient rocks.

Other proxy measurements of soil, rock and fossils provided estimates of CO2 over the past 420 million years. Calculation of the climate sensitivity in this way did not require independent estimates of temperature. It incorporated information from times when the Earth was substantially warmer and colder than today, and reflects the sensitivity of the carbon-cycle balance over millions of years.

"Our results are consistent with estimates from shorter-term records, and indicate that climate sensitivity was almost certainly greater than 1.5, but less than 5.5 degrees Celsius over this period," said Park. "At those extremes of CO2 sensitivity, [1.5°C or 5.5°C] the carbon-cycle would have been in a 'perfect storm' condition."

Quote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles...ent_report.htm

IPCC Report on Climate Change - 2007

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the fourth in a series of reports on climate change.
See also:
Earth & Climate

Two of the three reports (Working groups I and II) have been been published so far.

The first report concludes that global warming is happening, and is very likely caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Climate Change 2007 The Physical Science Basis, the report of Working Group I, "assesses the current scientific knowledge of the natural and human drivers of climate change, observed changes in climate, the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and projections for future climate change." The report was produced by about 600 authors from 40 countries, and reviewed by over 620 experts and governments.

Before being accepted, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments during the 10th Session of Working Group I, which took place in Paris, France, between 29 January and 1 February 2007. The key conclusions were that: It is "unequivocal" that global warming is occurring; the probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%; and the probability that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%. As a result it is predicted that, during the 21st century the following will occur. Regarding surface air warming in the 21st century, the best estimate for a "low scenario" is 1.8 degrees Celsius with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 degrees Celsius (3.2 degrees Fahrenheit with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 degrees Fahrenheit).....

Ustwo, aside from demonstrating your political ideology so prominently in this thread, what do you think are your most convincing posts and citations to support your opinion? I think I've done a better job supporting my contention that NIST has not conducted an investigation into the cause of the collapse of WTC 7, given the stature of the collapse as unique in the annals of high rise steel structures, commensurate with what is potentially at stake by not providing a thorough and timely determinationL

Quote:

http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm
Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire
Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index6.html
I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report?

This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year.

NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses” on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. “We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.”

Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

......14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007....

....than you have in debunking the threat of human activity influenced global warming.

Please post your opinion of what piece of information you have already provided to support your opinion in this thread, is closest to being on a par with the any of the three items in the preceding quote box, supporting my contention that NIST has never been serious about investigating the collapse of WTC 7, because I don't see anything compelling posted to support your contrary claims about global warming, Your thread is akin to a poorly documented conspiracy theory, the kind of thread you abhor when the subject is challenges to the official story of what happened on 9/11....

You don't even seem to take your own attempt here as seriously as I have approached posting my observations about your "work" here.

Bottomline: I've presented in past threads, a hell of a lot better documented challenge to NIST's 9/11 WTC collapse investigation performance, and hence, a reasonable challenge to the official story of what happened on 9/11, than you have here in support of your challenge to scientific determinations about global warming and it's causes. Yet, you continue to label my well supported opinions as "extreme"...only worthy of discussion in the "paranoia" forum. Your presentation here does not even rise to the level I have maintained in challenging the official 9/11 record. Does your weaker challenge of conventional scientific consensus even belong in this forum? How is the OP here not a conspiracy theory?

ottopilot · 05-07-2008, 04:21 AM

I find it odd how the single major source of greenhouse emissions (international livestock industry according to the UN IPCC) is always conveniently left out of the politicized global warming discussion. Along with a huge defection of the "majority of scientists" from the human-caused global warming camp, the jury is definitely still out. Pro-human-caused global warming arguments are bogus political spin unless the impact from emissions/pollutants from livestock and supporting industries are included.

EDIT - - the reference to the UN IPCC should have been United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO). The IPCC failed to include this data in their report.

I'm still waiting for Global Ape-ing.

dc_dux · 05-07-2008, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

I find it odd how the single major source of greenhouse emissions (international livestock industry according to the UN IPCC) is always conveniently left out of the politicized global warming discussion. Along with a huge defection of the "majority of scientists" from the human-caused global warming camp, the jury is definitely still out.

otto, I thought the IPCC cited energy consumption (power plants, auto emissions, coal mining) as the single major source, followed by industrial processes, and then agricultural facilities (livestock), and last, land use and forestry.

Can you point me to an IPCC doc I havent seen?

Oh..and what huge defection of scientists?

Might you be referring to the Heartland Institute (with funding from Exxon) which claims that 500 scientists have defected from the human-contributor (not human cause) camp?

Funny how many of those scientists dont even know that the Heartland has included them on their list and have demanded that their names be removed.

Update: Heartland Insitute Backs off Fraudulent List - Refuses to Apologize

Ustwo · 05-07-2008, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

I find it odd how the single major source of greenhouse emissions (international livestock industry according to the UN IPCC) is always conveniently left out of the politicized global warming discussion. Along with a huge defection of the "majority of scientists" from the human-caused global warming camp, the jury is definitely still out. Pro-human-caused global warming arguments are bogus political spin unless the impact from emissions/pollutants from livestock and supporting industries are included.

Perhaps even more alarming is how even the IPCC downplays the effects of dihydrogen monoxide which is the major contributor to the greenhouse effect.

While we hem and haw about a .28% contribution due to agriculture and fossil fuels, we ignore DHMO and its negative effects.

http://www.dhmo.org/

samcol · 05-07-2008, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Perhaps even more alarming is how even the IPCC downplays the effects of dihydrogen monoxide which is the major contributor to the greenhouse effect.

While we hem and haw about a .28% contribution due to agriculture and fossil fuels, we ignore DHMO and its negative effects.

http://www.dhmo.org/

Clearly we need to ban DHMO as it is the greatest contributor to global warming. Thanks for bringing awareness to this little known problem.

loquitur · 05-07-2008, 09:00 AM

I love the dueling graphs, guys. It's about time we got some color around here. It brightens things up.

Ustwo · 05-07-2008, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I love the dueling graphs, guys. It's about time we got some color around here. It brightens things up.

I haven't even gotten to the chicken and the egg argument yet. Do correlations in CO2 and temperature have to do with CO2 causing higher temperatures, or higher temperatures causing the release of more C02.

ottopilot · 05-07-2008, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Perhaps even more alarming is how even the IPCC downplays the effects of dihydrogen monoxide which is the major contributor to the greenhouse effect.

While we hem and haw about a .28% contribution due to agriculture and fossil fuels, we ignore DHMO and its negative effects.

http://www.dhmo.org/

Interesting, had not seen this one until now. It is absolutely a greater factor in the overall discussion on climate change and falls in line with the disregard of "inconvenient truths" by the IPCC and the man-made global warming proponents.

In my earlier post, I cited the IPCC had reported on the livestock industry. We had discussed this in threads many months ago and I'd forgotten that the IPCC actually failed to include the findings of the 2007 Rome report by the FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. entitled Livestock's Long Shadow. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm An extensive 391 page UN FAO report which utilized the IPCC's quantification and analysis methodologies.

Here is a report from the UN FAO Newsroom (Livestock a major threat to Environment) highlighting many of the findings to be published in "Livestock's Long Shadow".

Quote:

Livestock a Major Threat to Environment
Remedies urgently needed

Livestock a major threat to environment
Remedies urgently needed
29 November 2006, Rome - Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?

Surprise!

According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.

Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO’s Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.

Long shadow

The global livestock sector is growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector. It provides livelihoods to about 1.3 billion people and contributes about 40 percent to global agricultural output. For many poor farmers in developing countries livestock are also a source of renewable energy for draft and an essential source of organic fertilizer for their crops.

But such rapid growth exacts a steep environmental price, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow –Environmental Issues and Options. “The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” it warns.

When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.

Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.

Land and water

At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about 20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management contribute to advancing desertification.

The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.

Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems.

Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock’s presence in vast tracts of land and its demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity loss; 15 out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed as in decline, with livestock identified as a culprit.

Remedies

The report, which was produced with the support of the multi-institutional Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative, proposes explicitly to consider these environmental costs and suggests a number of ways of remedying the situation, including:

Land degradation – controlling access and removing obstacles to mobility on common pastures. Use of soil conservation methods and silvopastoralism, together with controlled livestock exclusion from sensitive areas; payment schemes for environmental services in livestock-based land use to help reduce and reverse land degradation.

Atmosphere and climate – increasing the efficiency of livestock production and feed crop agriculture. Improving animals’ diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, and setting up biogas plant initiatives to recycle manure.

Water – improving the efficiency of irrigation systems. Introducing full-cost pricing for water together with taxes to discourage large-scale livestock concentration close to cities.

These and related questions are the focus of discussions between FAO and its partners meeting to chart the way forward for livestock production at global consultations in Bangkok this week. These discussions also include the substantial public health risks related to the rapid livestock sector growth as, increasingly, animal diseases also affect humans; rapid livestock sector growth can also lead to the exclusion of smallholders from growing markets.

loquitur · 05-07-2008, 09:34 AM

If we think the cows are farting too much, give 'em Beano. Quick and easy way to solve the problem of excess emissions!!

ottopilot · 05-07-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

If we think the cows are farting too much, give 'em Beano. Quick and easy way to solve the problem of excess emissions!!

BEANO!

filtherton · 05-07-2008, 09:43 AM

But then all that fart would end up in my hamburgers. I know that's how it works.

Bill O'Rights · 05-07-2008, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

But then all that fart would end up in my hamburgers.

Have you been to McDonald's or Burger King lately? I hardly think that you'd notice the flatulence infused beef. And, if you did, it'd be an improvement.

filtherton · 05-07-2008, 10:03 AM

The dollar menu is the dollar menu for a reason.

Seriously, though, the more I learn about human contributions to global climate change, the less certain I am of it, but only because I haven't taken the time to study the subject thoroughly; if I spent more time I would be more certain, though I'm not sure which way I'd go. I have seen a couple papers which showed that working only with the radiative heat transfer properties of CO2 it is difficult to support a claim that even a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations would raise the temperature more than a fraction of a degree (Celsius). Methinks there would have to be more to it than CO2.

To be honest, the reality of it doesn't matter to me. Impending doom makes me apathetic, and if we are all fucked because of our carbon emissions I'd rather not do anything. The ideological split to me is a good indicator that a lot of the people who have a position on either side of the issue haven't given the science of it much thought.

On the other hand, there are a lot of reasons to do the things that we're supposed to do to avoid global catastrophe that don't rely on avoiding global catastrophe as a motivation. It's kind of a non issue for me.

dc_dux · 05-07-2008, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Interesting, had not seen this one until now. It is absolutely a greater factor in the overall discussion on climate change and falls in line with the disregard of "inconvenient truths" by the IPCC and the man-made global warming proponents.

In my earlier post, I cited the IPCC had reported on the livestock industry. We had discussed this in threads many months ago and I'd forgotten that the IPCC actually failed to include the findings of the 2007 Rome report by the FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. entitled Livestock's Long Shadow.

Otto...I'm pretty certain the latest IPCC report included the data from the 2006 FAO study.

In the 2007 IPCC report, 57% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions are CO2 (fossil fuel use) .... CH4 and N2O (primarily agriculture) combined are 22%.

In terms of industry sector contributions: 26% energy supply (power plants, coal), 19% heavy industry, 17% forestry, 14% agriculture (your farting cows), 13% transport, 8% residential/commercial buildings.

If you really want to read the 2007 Summary for Policymakers (pdf)
(see Figure SPM.3 - page 5)

The difference between fossil fuel combustion (CO2) and cow farts (CH4) is far more pronounced in the US:

U.S. Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas

Round and round we go.

Martian · 05-07-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

The ideological split to me is a good indicator that a lot of the people who have a position on either side of the issue haven't given the science of it much thought.

And there it is.

How many people in this thread made up their minds about this issue long before they did any research?

The issue is not as simple as it's made out to be.

Regarding the IPCC, the last report I read (current as of late 2007) indicated that virtually all of their findings were derived using meta-analysis. Take from that what you will.

EDIT for UsTwo:

boatin · 05-07-2008, 01:48 PM

My favorite part that has gone uncommented upon is this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

My fear as always is the backlash this will cause. The population is not truly stupid but uneducated. By tricking them to believing something, they will resent it when it turns out to be false. Much of our environmental progress in terms of how people view the environment has become tied to global warming. I worry about the reaction of people and therefore the people they elect after this fraud has come to light.

Bush's approval rating is still in the high 20s, so I wouldn't worry too much about people's resentment. If your concern were valid, his approval rating would be zero.

As far as this topic:
The last couple of posters have it right - people believe what they believe for the most part. And nothing changes that. Again, Host posts great, calm questions and is flatly ignored. When the OPs comments are strung together, as Host did, it becomes pretty clear which "side" has more credibility...

Rekna · 05-07-2008, 01:55 PM

Looking at the temperature over the last few years and saying look the earth is warming or the earth is cooling is like looking at the change in stock market with 1 minute worth of data and saying "see the stock market is increasing (or decreasing) this year" A single year is way to little data to determine what the overall trend is over 100, 1000, 10000, and especially 100,000 years. There is so much noise in these types of measurements that you can't with certainty say anything.

That is why for me the argument of global warming comes down to 1) is man kind changing the environment in a way that could have consequences. If the answer to that question is yes then the second question is 2) scientifically speaking how will those changes likely effect the earth.

The question should be "what are the likely effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere?" not "is the earth warming, cooling, or neither?"

host · 05-07-2008, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

My favorite part that has gone uncommented upon is this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

My fear as always is the backlash this will cause. The population is not truly stupid but uneducated. By tricking them to believing something, they will resent it when it turns out to be false. Much of our environmental progress in terms of how people view the environment has become tied to global warming. I worry about the reaction of people and therefore the people they elect after this fraud has come to light.

Bush's approval rating is still in the high 20s, so I wouldn't worry too much about people's resentment. If your concern were valid, his approval rating would be zero.

As far as this topic:
The last couple of posters have it right - people believe what they believe for the most part. And nothing changes that. Again, Host posts great, calm questions and is flatly ignored. When the OPs comments are strung together, as Host did, it becomes pretty clear which "side" has more credibility...

Boatin, you've given me a reason to bother to repost the last sentence in my last post. It clearly needs to be asked again, because the Ustwo quote that you displayed confirms Ustwo fears a conspiracy to "dupe" the public is what is at work in this young century!

Quote:

.....How is the OP here not a conspiracy theory?....

TheNasty · 05-09-2008, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

We have evidence of drastic ice melting and we have evidence that water is less salty. I can draw a picture if you'd like. What do you think happens to ice when it melts?

I just took a little tour of ibdeditorial.com. Here are some quotes from the front page:

And my favorite:

As it turns out, IBD is a right wing rag!

Looks like your education included a few courses on how to attack the messenger.

Willravel · 05-09-2008, 08:27 AM

If the source of information is clearly biased, then the un-cited information they present is suspect. It's not an ad hom fallacy if they don't cite information because they become the source.

Ustwo · 05-09-2008, 08:48 AM

So will what effects do you think the pacific decadal oscillation has on global climate?

05-06-2008, 06:38 PM	#43 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	DC this graph as much relevance here as yours. I mean you just showed a graph of carbon emissions in a void. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

05-06-2008, 07:34 PM	#48 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Thanks for your thoughtful and in-depth analysis. Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative" exempts power plants from being held accountable to the Clean Air Act's New Source Review (NSR) standards and from being required to install cleanup technology (best available retrofit technology or BART). NSR standards require new power plants and upgraded plants to comply with modern federal emissions limits. BART protects communities from persistent haze and other air quality problems by reducing the pollution emitted from antiquated power plants. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-06-2008 at 07:39 PM..

05-06-2008, 08:39 PM	#58 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I don't think you want to understand. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

05-07-2008, 04:21 AM	#61 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	I find it odd how the single major source of greenhouse emissions (international livestock industry according to the UN IPCC) is always conveniently left out of the politicized global warming discussion. Along with a huge defection of the "majority of scientists" from the human-caused global warming camp, the jury is definitely still out. Pro-human-caused global warming arguments are bogus political spin unless the impact from emissions/pollutants from livestock and supporting industries are included. EDIT - - the reference to the UN IPCC should have been United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO). The IPCC failed to include this data in their report. I'm still waiting for Global Ape-ing. __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 05-07-2008 at 09:35 AM..

05-07-2008, 10:03 AM	#72 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	The dollar menu is the dollar menu for a reason. Seriously, though, the more I learn about human contributions to global climate change, the less certain I am of it, but only because I haven't taken the time to study the subject thoroughly; if I spent more time I would be more certain, though I'm not sure which way I'd go. I have seen a couple papers which showed that working only with the radiative heat transfer properties of CO2 it is difficult to support a claim that even a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations would raise the temperature more than a fraction of a degree (Celsius). Methinks there would have to be more to it than CO2. To be honest, the reality of it doesn't matter to me. Impending doom makes me apathetic, and if we are all fucked because of our carbon emissions I'd rather not do anything. The ideological split to me is a good indicator that a lot of the people who have a position on either side of the issue haven't given the science of it much thought. On the other hand, there are a lot of reasons to do the things that we're supposed to do to avoid global catastrophe that don't rely on avoiding global catastrophe as a motivation. It's kind of a non issue for me. Last edited by filtherton; 05-07-2008 at 10:18 AM..

05-06-2008, 06:34 PM	#42 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	DcDux, there is no downside to cutting emissions. Would you support switching power generation to nuclear in order to achieve that goal? Because that's the only way you'll get the numbers down substantially without significant economic impact.

05-07-2008, 09:00 AM	#65 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I love the dueling graphs, guys. It's about time we got some color around here. It brightens things up.

05-07-2008, 09:34 AM	#68 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	If we think the cows are farting too much, give 'em Beano. Quick and easy way to solve the problem of excess emissions!!

05-07-2008, 09:43 AM	#70 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	But then all that fart would end up in my hamburgers. I know that's how it works.

05-07-2008, 01:55 PM	#76 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Looking at the temperature over the last few years and saying look the earth is warming or the earth is cooling is like looking at the change in stock market with 1 minute worth of data and saying "see the stock market is increasing (or decreasing) this year" A single year is way to little data to determine what the overall trend is over 100, 1000, 10000, and especially 100,000 years. There is so much noise in these types of measurements that you can't with certainty say anything. That is why for me the argument of global warming comes down to 1) is man kind changing the environment in a way that could have consequences. If the answer to that question is yes then the second question is 2) scientifically speaking how will those changes likely effect the earth. The question should be "what are the likely effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere?" not "is the earth warming, cooling, or neither?" Last edited by Rekna; 05-08-2008 at 09:21 PM..

05-09-2008, 08:27 AM	#79 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	If the source of information is clearly biased, then the un-cited information they present is suspect. It's not an ad hom fallacy if they don't cite information because they become the source.

05-09-2008, 08:48 AM	#80 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	So will what effects do you think the pacific decadal oscillation has on global climate? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.