"How can anyone with half a brain think that Pascal's wager is a good argument?"
They don't. The half brained ones think it is a poor argument. The fully/whole/functional brained ones think it is a wager! Would you argue with dice or hand of blackjack? No. But you'll gamble with morality... and perhaps even immortality. Take the money and herp!
AGW isn't a hoax. If you think it's a hoax, then you need to explain why increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases won't cause increased global warming.
Without greenhouse gases, the global temperature should be no more than -18C and that's assuming an albedo of 0.30. CO2 allows the Earth to be warm enough to have water vapor in the atmosphere which increases the global warming.
The -18C is important, because the way the atmosphere works. The atmosphere cools and becomes less dense with increasing altitude until the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere) which is around -18C and then the stratosphere progressively becomes warmer with increasing altitude.
Net heat is lost from the tropopause. With increasing CO2 levels, the tropopause becomes higher so there's a thicker troposphere which means that the temperature at the surface MUST increase. It's basic physics.
Unless you can disprove that, then it's NO HOAX.
CrusadeRex,
You'd better hope that you've picked the right god to worship, if there's one and he's vindictive if you've picked the wrong one, because otherwise you've lost Pascal's wager. I think I'll go along with Bertrand Russell in the unlikely event that there's a god after all, and just note 'not enough evidence'.
Michael,
Still haven't got around to investigating whether they had prayers at the original constitutional convention? (hint, they didn't)
@Bach, "You'd better hope that you've picked the right god to worship.." There is only one God, one creator. I know I have picked the right path to Him....at least for me.
"Unless you can disprove that, then it's NO HOAX." Disprove a predicted future event? Positivism is just plain WEIRD.
@RickK 'What if in our mad dash for less regulation and smaller government, we create an uncontrolled financial meltdown and ruin our economy?" Eh? Your government has been growing exponentially since the 40's. All sides admit to that. Never heard of 'Big government'? Guess they don't get CNN in Plato's Cave.
"Or what if we spend hundreds of billions on a war of revenge with no defined goals and ruin our economy." For you.
"If we ruin our economy trying to save the environment, at least we can explain it to our children without feeling ashamed." Sounds to me like your already ashamed. A (chicken) little scared too. I, for one, am not.
@Pépé . Awesome link.
@Anon. What liberals? Ron Paul? You mean leftists. Reds. Internationalists. Sure, they hate all nations and cultures and seek to replace them. But the commies are so full of hot air they make a good argument FOR AGW.
There is only one God, one creator. I know I have picked the right path to Him....at least for me.
How do you know that you shouldn't be a Mormon, or a Pentecostalist, or a Hindu, or a Muslim? If any of them are correct, you lose the wager. And you have no way to determine that you are actually correct and they are not.
cursadeREX said: "Sounds to me like your already ashamed."
Damn right I am. I'm ashamed when I see Americans like you, egnorant and proud, beating your chest in macho glee as we bomb Iraq and Afghanistan. We pour hundreds of billions into the Bush/Rumsfeld campaign that accomplishes nothing but to kill thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of other people, and to make more of the world hate us. And when someone puts their hand up to object to it, you call them chicken? Are you actually a real person, or a troll portraying a caricature of some survivalist wannabe?
crusadeREX said: "There is only one God, one creator."
Billions of people have said that with equal or greater conviction about thousands of gods. You have no more evidence than they do. You have nothing but belief - the same belief they have about their other gods. And like many of them, you're comfortable in the shelter of your ego, confident that YOU'RE right and THEY'RE wrong. But at some point, some brief flash of intellectual honesty may whisper to you that there's no more evidence for your un-named god than there is for Ra or Thor or Ganesha.
Honest people say "I have this belief system because I think there is something more out there and the rites, rituals and community of my particular belief system work for me."
But it takes a deep ability to lie to yourself to say "My version of god is right and other versions are wrong."
Yeah, right. All that money in climate science. I know that's why people study meteorology and Earth sciences - for the money.
And of course, the scientist who could overturn the AGW theory through better science and better evidence would refuse to do so out of loyalty to his fellow scientists, right? Because there are no wealthy companies that would pay millions to disprove AGW, are there? Right Pepe?
Oil companies certainly wouldn't pay for some solid science to refute AGW, would they?
How can you be so blind to the truth!!!??!! ALL the money is on the Anti-AGW side, coming from the CURRENT energy companies. There is a FORTUNE available for the scientist who can really prove the Earth isn't warming, or can really prove humans aren't doing it.
Science gives its highest awards (along with money) to those who over-turn the orthodoxy of what other scientists believe, and can support it with better science and better evidence.
And yet, with all those enticements, with all that fame to be had, with all that MONEY available to the guys who disprove AGW, the consensus is still that AGW is true.
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's bad science, it's pseudo-science, it's all a darn lie to make clueless scientists get our money over a phantom problem.
Pepe (I'm writing this on an iPad, so I can't put in the accents),
You still haven't answered the question. If you think that AGW is a hoax, then why shouldn't increasing an important greenhouse gas, CO2, not increase global warming? Increasing CO2 leads to a feedback with increasing water vapor and methane too.
I looked at your links. They aren't very impressive.
The first one I looked at repeats that old canard that global warming stopped in 1998. No, 1998 was an abnormally warm year due to a strong el Nino. Global temperatures go up and down from year to year, so you have to consider the trend line over a sufficiently long period, usually 30 years. 10 years isn't sufficient, particularly when you deliberately start with a warmer than usual year.
The list of 1,000 dissenting scientists isn't impressive. The scientists include a lot of chemists, engineers, systems analysts, astrophysicists. Very few climatologists. How many scientists are there in the world? Considerably more that 1,000 I'd bet. I'd think that America would graduate that many PhDs in science, mathematics or engineering in a year.
The open letter to Chancellor Merkel from 60 dissenting scientists is notable for the howlers it makes. It repeats the fallacy that CO2 is almost at saturation for absorption of infrared radiation, so increasing CO2 will not cause increased retention of heat.
Yes, it will. CO2 doesn't absorb infrared radiation at a single discrete frequency. It absorbs it over a fairly narrow range falling off to either side of a peak. As you increase the CO2, absorption of infrared radiation increases as more of the non peak radiation is absorbed.
More importantly, with increasing altitude, the amount of CO2 decreases even though it remains around 390 ppmv. The air is less dense, so the amount of CO2 drops, and eventually at a sufficiently high altitude, the amount of CO2 drops below saturation, and the infrared radiation streams through and is lost to space.
This is at the tropopause with a temperature of -18C. With increasing CO2, the triplanes increases in altitude, with more thickness of atmosphere beneath, rather like more sheets on a bed; the top sheet stays the same temperature, the bottom sheet (next to you) increases in warmth.
If there was anything to this saturation business, then heatseeking missiles wouldn't work.
Look at the science, not at the claims of the denialists, particularly when they make nonsensical assertions with no grounding in reality. Without greenhouse gases, the Earth should be -18C, so the small amount of CO2 is extremely important in warming the Earth, rather retaining heat.
Venus, with its runaway greenhouse effect and its temperature of around 450C actually should also be below freezing too. At its distance from the Sun, it gets around 90% more solar radiation, but its albedo, its reflectiveness, is twice that of the Earth, so it actually gets less solar radiation than the Earth. Its tropopause is very high in the atmosphere compared to the Earth, with a temperature below freezing. There's many layers beneath, and the bottom layer is scorching.
Damn the spell check on an iPad. The 4th last paragraph should read:
This is at the tropopause, with a temperature of -18C. With increasing CO2, the tropopause increases in altitude, with more thickness of atmosphere beneath ...
Actually, I'm carbon neutral. I have a 1 litre car, which does 25km per month. I cycle most places. I use about 3 kilowatt.hour/day, but I have a solar panel which generates 3 kilowatt.hour/day in Winter and 7+ kilowatt.hour/day in Summer.
The Sun heats the Earth, but greenhouse gases retain the heat. Learn some science won't you. If it wasn't for the greenhouse gases, the Earth would be -18C. How many times do I have to tell you idiots this. Trace amounts of greenhouse gases are extremely important.
GW is natural; it's the A that's a hoax! Just have a look at GW numbers.
...10 years isn't sufficient...
What about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age? Oh, Sorry! You rather believe the Hockey Stick fable...
Most atheists are ignorant, blind and gullible: they are ignorant of history, blind to new scientific evidence that contradicts their worldview and gullible of the dictum and dogma of the establishment, any establishment.
"Most atheists are ignorant, blind and gullible: they are ignorant of history, blind to new scientific evidence that contradicts their worldview and gullible of the dictum and dogma of the establishment, any establishment."
You are completely nuts. What the hell does atheism have to do with global warming?
orry for the delayed response folks....weekend, family, ...life etc.
Anon, "How do you know that you shouldn't be a Mormon, or a Pentecostalist, or a Hindu, or a Muslim?" How do I know? That is experiential - not something I can relate in this back and forth. I suspect you would not want to hear the answer, anyway. Sufficed to say: I know it is the correct path for ME. Maybe it is not them? No matter. I win either way... and so do they.
"If any of them are correct, you lose the wager." That is incorrect. We could ALL be correct about what counts, and incorrect on the details. You don't seem to understand theology or the nature of the wager being discussed. If ANY of them are correct I win.
"And you have no way to determine that you are actually correct and they are not." There are many ways to determine truth, and many ways by which truth can be presented. Scientific dogma need not apply.
@where is my f'n pocket protector "Wow. Do these guys exist outside your paranoid mind?" Paranoid? I am military and currently work in Branch services (Field Intelligence). Paranoia is light fare compared to what I deal with EVERY day. No...I wish it was delusions, but these folks ACTUALLY exist. They make a case for themselves. Religious maniacs ALSO exist. I have actually FOUGHT against them, and they have REALLY tried to kill me - with REAL weapons. I have attended services for two good friends in the last 24 months who did they DID kill. Maybe the problem is not such much my paranoia (professional), but your PRONOIA?
CNTD from above @RickK, "I'm ashamed when I see Americans like you, egnorant and proud, beating your chest in macho glee as we bomb Iraq and Afghanistan." I am not American. No need to feel shame for me or my deeds. I was deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 and spent 4 years living and fighting in war zone with very little leave. I saw, smelled, and tasted war up close. No glee here. War is a sad and horrible duty to the soldier. It it what we train for an hope NEVER to see...and when we do see finally it, we wish we had not. We do our duty, not make war to pleasure ourselves. It is only cowards who paint it otherwise. You dishonour the service of those who are brave enough to stand for your Republic with such rhetoric, RickK. I wish you could see that. That dishonouring IS worthy of shame. Hence the feather.
"Billions of people have said that with equal or greater conviction about thousands of gods. " Sure. They are all deluded madmen or fools... only modern positivists see the truth.
Finally, allow me to rephrase your final comment in order to make it relevant to my own: "My form of religious worship and tradition is the correct one FOR ME, and other forms of worship are not FOR ME." That is what I am saying, or meant to relate. Is there something 'wrong' about that? Pray tell.
It seems you mistake God for the rituals that Honour Him. No biggy! Little kids (and some atheists) do it all the time. Common category error. In short: My religious practices are for ME - not a 3rd Century Norseman, nor even a relatively similar minded modern Jew or Agnostic (like my two best friends). They their own path and it is correct for them. I am not writing on this page in hopes of converting anyone...unlike you. Rather, I am simply stating my position of faith in contrast to the faith based position I was responding to. Mine was a reciprocally broad statement.
@Bach, I disagree with your convictions regarding the HUMAN elements of climate change, you know that by now. But, I do applaud your attempt to do SOMETHING personally....at least you have put your money where your mouth is. I am pretty 'green' myself, if for rather different reasons.
@Pépé "GW is natural; it's the A that's a hoax! Just have a look at GW numbers." TOO TRUE. No one here is suggesting there are climate cycles or warming or cooling. Rather the suggestion is that ASSUMING MANKIND is solely responsible for recent changes is HUBRIS. That arrogance is beautifully displayed when they suggest climate change can be HALTED or even reversed by 'science'. They do not seek to adapt, but rather to ENGINEER the Earth to halt it's natural cycles.... Thank Goodness most people are beginning to see through the political and positivist BS. I suspect many people on this page will too; And when they do, many will deny they ever supported AGW.
CrusadeREX said: "My form of religious worship and tradition is the correct one FOR ME, and other forms of worship are not FOR ME."
Ahh, I'd love to believe that, C-REX. But your ceaseless criticism of those who don't believe as you do (for example, atheists) proves that you absolutely believe YOUR beliefs are right for OTHER PEOPLE as well, or at least that their beliefs are wrong.
CrusadeREX said: "You dishonour the service of those who are brave enough to stand for your Republic with such rhetoric, RickK."
So you think criticizing a war or criticizing Bush and Rumsfeld's decisions that led to the war is the same as criticizing the soldiers and that it dishonors them?
Are you kidding? Is your view of American citizenship really that simplistic and naive?
But, then... maybe it's different in your country. Maybe you don't feel that the public has a duty to keep its soldiers out of harm's way unless there are clear goals and clear benefits to be gained from the conflict. That's where you and I differ.
Perhaps you're so anxious to criticize me and call me a coward that you didn't really think through the implications of what you were saying. Perhaps you'd like to re-phrase and try again?
Thank you, Gary H, for yet another of your typically constructive posts.
I've gone back over months of posts to see if my impression of your contributions is accurate. And not once have I found a single post that wasn't just an snarky insulting rant with precisely zero discussion of the actual issues or of your position on those issues.
You might try reading back over your posts and reflecting on what image they project. Is that really what you're going for? Because it's very very unflattering.
backfiend - Not to be picky, but I think you probably have a ways to go before you can call yourself carbon neutral. Look at the products you buy, the food you consume and the waste you produce.
However, your efforts to lessen your impact on the planet are commendable and should serve as a model for others (or at least for those who believe this planet's resources are all we get and no divine force is going to rescue us if we screw it up).
I still haven't seen you counter the argument that there is more money to be made by the scientist(s) who can definitively disprove AGW.
You're still promoting the AGW-promoting-scientific-conspiracy-to-make-money argument.
Now think about it. Along comes a scientist who can definitively prove that humans are not harming the planet and are not contributing to AGW.
How could this scientist avoid fame beyond measure? Their face would be on every news outlet for months or years. Their books would sell like wildfire. They'd be figuratively (or literally) carried upon the shoulders of millions of people like you, or millions of people who want to drive V8 cars and Hummers. The car companies, the oil companies, the large factory owners, the coal companies - all of them would support and reward such research and such a conclusion.
And considering the global and scientific impact of such anti-AGW proof, how could this radical, dissenting scientist NOT end up with a Nobel Prize?
So, I've no doubt that scientists have implicitly and sometimes explicitly conspired to protect their own conclusions or arguments - they're human - it happens in every human endeavor. But time and again throughout the history of science, we've seen that the big money and big fame is in breaking the conspiracy and overturning the orthodoxy. And in this case, that big money is enhanced by the contributions of some of the world's richest companies.
So your conspiracy argument is a failure. AGW hasn't been refuted because the current science supports AGW. That's simply the reality, however much you dislike it.
"So you think criticizing a war or criticizing Bush and Rumsfeld's decisions that led to the war is the same as criticizing the soldiers and that it dishonors them?" I think your attempt to discredit an active military effort by laying the blame for a very real ideological conflict at the feet of political figures in a blatantly partisan fashion is so utterly and obviously naive that it belies cowardice. How do I determine this? You are so utterly afraid of an external threat that you lay blame on your leaders and pretend there is no enemy worth fighting. Was it Bush who arranged the 9/11 attacks? Did he arrange all the attacks on the USA's Allies too? Or maybe they did that themselves?
"Ahh, I'd love to believe that, C-REX. But your ceaseless criticism of those who don't believe as you do (for example, atheists) proves that you absolutely believe YOUR beliefs are right for OTHER PEOPLE as well, or at least that their beliefs are wrong." I am not here to convert you or anyone. I don't really care if you believe that or not. I am glad to see you admit that Atheism is a belief system. Do I think my religious belief system is better than others? OF COURSE I do. You sure seem to think your ideology is better than mine.
"... maybe it's different in your country. Maybe you don't feel that the public has a duty to keep its soldiers out of harm's way unless there are clear goals and clear benefits to be gained from the conflict." No. No different. There are elements here who want the enemy to pay reparations, for example. Here we have a saying about our military in the field 'If you do not stand behind our troops, kindly get IN FRONT of them'.
"That's where you and I differ." The difference between you and I on this is a matter of experience. I actually did my bit. I know the enemy is not imaginary and I know the reasoning behind these conflicts is strategic. I understand the conflict is ideological. That is where you and I differ.
The problem with Afghanistan was that Bush got sidetracked in Iraq, an unnecessary war that cost at least 3 trillion dollars and countless lives.
Also, Afghanistan wasn't particularly well managed. It should have been, get in, get bin Laden and get out. The British and the Russians have found that staying in Afghanistan for long is a very bad idea. Easy to take but hard to stay. And the politicians made all the very bad decisions.
@crusadeREX "Maybe the problem is not such much my paranoia (professional), but your PRONOIA?" Unlike what you seem to think, this is not witty, and it's also irrelevant.
"It seems you mistake God for the rituals that Honour Him." Yeah, right. How do you know there is one god, and not two, not three, not twenty?
I won't bother turning on my computer so as to be able to put on the accents in your name.
But the Oregon petition isn't a list of 31,000 scientists who have disproved AGW (you need to improve your reading comprehension skills). It's a list of 31,000 individuals who don't think that AGW is happening, a big difference.
The list of 'scientists' include engineers and medical practitioners making up a very large proportion of the number. Actual scientists with PhD degrees make up a very small proportion. Confusingly, astrophysicists are included in the category of 'atmosphere scientists' (at least they both start with 'A').
To disprove AGW all you need to do is to show why increasing the level of greenhouse gases won't increase global warming over its current warming from -18C. We know CO2 levels are increasing at a rate of 2-3 ppmv per year, and we know it's coming from fossil fuels because the atmospheric CO2 bears the signature of coming from fossil fuel with its very low C14 content. And we know that warming will increase the level of other greenhouse gases such as water vapor and methane, so increasing CO2 leads to positive feedbacks.
We could ALL be correct about what counts, and incorrect on the details.
Umm, no. If the Muslim is correct, then you've got a one way ticket to oblivion. Your faiths are not mutually compatible. Hence, you lose the so-called "Wager".
"The problem with Afghanistan was that Bush got sidetracked in Iraq, an unnecessary war that cost at least 3 trillion dollars and countless lives." Bush was not my CNC. I did not go on his mandate, nor was our military recalled from that theatre on his command. During the first year of my deployment we chased Bin Laden into Pakistan and pummelled the Taliban and Haqqanis who did the rear guard actions(just making the press). We chased them into remote valleys (not a nice winter), into underground complexes, pounded their positions,and eventually ran them well into Pakistan.
"Also, Afghanistan wasn't particularly well managed." You're telling me! The invasion and first two years were a proper, well executed warfare. Mostly textbook stuff, with the exception of some tragic 'friendly fire' episodes. After that the nation building BS began. In late 2008 it went almost completely political, and the hand tying ROE began to actually be enforced. I was already 'at home', but was still engaged in a different capacity that made this madness ALL too clear. This crazy ROE and led directly our DnD's decision to scale back and eventually withdraw all forces but support and engineering. Luckily this freed up command, intelligence and operations for new conflicts such as Libya.
"The British and the Russians have found that staying in Afghanistan for long is a very bad idea." Very true. History teaches us Afghanistan is a 'get in and get' out zone. Alexander onward. But let's not forget in the beginning of this war a decent majority of the 'fighters' we engaged were 'foreign' (Pakistani and various Jihadis). Most of the Northern Tribes (the actual Pashto or 'Pashtun') were allied with us AGAINST the Taliban or neutral.
"And the politicians made all the very bad decisions." I suspect you mean ALL the politicians. They always do. When (often well meaning) civilians interject themselves into the running of a war, we always see BIG mistakes. Afghanistan has been no exception to this rule. But, and it is a BIG but (___!___), the worst politicians were the ones who decided to ANNOUNCE public timetables for general withdrawal of combat capable forces. That is a NO NO in military strategy. You just don't give your enemy that kind hope. Even peace negotiations would have been preferable to the mess the CURRENT US administration has created for the remaining forces in Iraq, for example. You're right on that last point, Bach. Fortunately you can only see the tip of the iceberg. I say fortunately because the rest of the mountain of frozen political BS is even worse.
"Unlike what you seem to think, this is not witty, and it's also irrelevant." Okay. Then why do you bring paranoia into it, and why do you comment on irrelevancies? Your answer is not 'witty' either, rather just plain WEIRD.
"Yeah, right. How do you know there is one god, and not two, not three, not twenty?" Yeah right. You want me to preach at you? I have already explained that my understanding is experiential. If you want to read a good, reasonable theological argument for Monotheism, look it up or read a book or something. I am not your confessor, Anon.
"Umm, no. If the Muslim is correct, then you've got a one way ticket to oblivion. Your faiths are not mutually compatible. Hence, you lose the so-called "Wager"." Those ARE the details. The Wager is not whether God is called Allah or YWHE or Brahma. You should REALLY look it up if you're going to comment on it. You're tilting at windmills again, Anon. I still win the wager. You still miss the central thrust of it.
Oh, and Anon... On the details, when you write: "If the Muslim is correct, then you've got a one way ticket to oblivion"
You may wish to examine the details. Here is just one example of the details you seem to have missed:
"Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve . [Quran 2:62]"
@bach... To disprove AGW all you need to do is to show why increasing the level of greenhouse gases won't increase global warming...
If you had consulted the links I gave, you would see that natural causes account for 99.72% of global warming and man made causes account for only 0.28%. As I said before, GW is natural and the A is insignificant; those who are trying to sell us the A are pushing a really big hoax.
You should make it an habit of consulting the references I give so I can stop spoon feeding you.
You really need to consider carbon cycles. Only looking at what puts CO2 into the atmosphere while ignoring the processes that remove it is just silly.
The fact remains that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing at a rate of 2-3 ppmv per year and it's coming from the burning of fossil fuels. Humans are putting about 750 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere that hasn't seen the light of day for at least 100 million years. The oil, natural gas and coal took hundreds of millions of years to form, and we are burning them at a rate of around a million times faster.
Just stating that the human proportion of CO2 released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is low compared to the total release of CO2 into the atmosphere by other processes (animal respiration, degassing of the oceans, volcanic activity, burning of forests etc) without considering the processes that take CO2 out of the atmosphere (plant photosynthesis, solution of CO2 into the oceans, subduction of carbonate containing sedimentary rocks into the mantle by tectonic plate movements, regrowth of forests after fires etc) is a fallacy.
Notice that there's no significant formation of fossil fuels to replace the enormous amounts humans are currently burning.
I wonder where they get their 99.72% natural, 0.28% human induced?
The Sun gets the Earth from -270C to -18C. Greenhouse gases get it from -18C to 15C, so natural gets 285C of warming and 0.28% of natural works out to be around 0.9C which is about the amount of warming since 1850. Is that how it's calculated?
Or is it calculated by just counting the processes putting CO2 into the atmosphere and ignoring the processes removing it, while ignoring the positive feedbacks on other greenhouse gases such as water vapor and methane as being not manmade?
OK, I've had a relook at your link. It's making the 2nd fallacy, just considering the processes that put CO2 into the atmosphere without considering the processes that take CO2 out of the atmosphere. It also ignores positive feedbacks on water vapor and methane, declaring these to be entirely natural. It also assumes that N2O from fertilizers is entirely natural and gives a suspiciously high figure for the proportion of CFCs as being natural.
You still can't get around the fact that the atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing at a rate of 2-3 ppmv per year (about 1% per year), and it's gone from 270 to 390 ppmv from preindustrial times to now.
@bach... Seems to me that now it is you who need to improve your reading comprehension skills.
Let me illustrate:
The Sun gets the Earth from -270C to -18C. Greenhouse gases get it from -18C to 15C, so natural gets 285C of warming and 0.28% of natural works out to be around 0.9C which is about the amount of warming since 1850.
Do you realize how illogical (and I am being very polite here) this statement is? Just try to have it publish in a peer-review journal!
Since you are a so firm believer that Global Warming is cause by us, stupid humans, what is your stance on geo-engineering?
PS: I could give you many links on that subject, but I do hope you can find them by yourself on your iPad. If this is not the case, I will be happy to oblige.
I was trying to come up with a reason why anyone would wrongly think that global warming is 99.72% natural and 0.28% manmade.
No, it wouldn't make it into a peer reviewed article, because it's a silly idea, as silly as the idea that you can just take the inputs of CO2 into the atmosphere and ignore the processes taking CO2 out, as your link does.
You still need to explain why the CO2 level has gone from 270 to 390 ppmv.
Geo-engineering would be the plan of last resort. I don't include carbon sequestration as geo-engineering. Geo-engineering includes injecting SO2 into the high atmosphere so more of the Sun's light is reflected, increasing the Earth's albedo.
It might work, though it's illegal for governments to do it under international treaty (nothing stops a billionaire or two to do it though), if it works, then continuing it indefinitely would be necessary (it would gain time to think of a better idea), having a high albedo mightn't work (Venus gets 90% more solar radiation than the Earth, but reflects 100% more light, but still has a runaway greenhouse effect).
It also has the problem that it allows the acidification of the oceans to continue.
I think you need some numbers. The human consumption of energy is 16 terra watts per day. This works out to be an average of under 2,500 watts per person per day. Americans use an average of 10,000 watts per person per day. Australians and Canadians slightly more, say 11,000, Europeans less, around 5,000. And there are many perhaps billions who use very little.
By 2050, there are going to be at least 2 billion more humans on Earth, so we need to increase energy production to at least 32 terra watts per day, which would give an average of 3,500 watts per person per day, not even at European levels.
One way would be to double all our current sources of energy, twice as much oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal...
We are currently using 90 million barrels of oil per day, so we'd need to increase it to 180 million barrels per day in a business as usual plan. A major oilfield, if we find one, usually contains enough oil to supply the world with oil for 1 or 2 years (the oil fields last much longer because it takes a large amount of money and time to exploit a new field setting up the infrastructure). The Alberta oil sands would be of about this size; a lot of oil, will be producing for a long time but won't be anywhere near enough.
We would be needing to find major new oilfields every year for the next 40 years.
It's a difficult problem, but I don't think that business is going to work.
More numbers. The global economy is 61 trillion dollars per year. America about 15 trillion dollars. Energy is about 10% of the economy; global 6 trillion dollars per year, America around 1.5 trillion dollars. Subsidies for fossil fuels is around 450 billion dollars per year. America could be self-sufficient in energy using wind power in 30 years by investing 1 trillion dollars per year for the next 30 years. Enormous numbers but doable, and would generate a lot of employment.
What's really needed is conservation of energy (the site you linked to asked how Americans could cope with driving 30% less to comply with Kyoto, actually that's easy, just drive a car with 30% better fuel consumption, Hummers are out) and a combination of energy sources.
Energy security is an enormous problem, but ignoring it won't make it go away.
CrusadeREX said: "Here we have a saying about our military in the field 'If you do not stand behind our troops, kindly get IN FRONT of them'."
Yep, there it is. If I don't support the war, then I'm guilty of not supporting the troops. Therefore, the only way to avoid insulting the troops (and being called a coward by people like you) is to support every war.
That works equally well for your involvement in Iraq, the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, the American involvement in Vietnam or the German involvement in WWII. Don't protest or avoid war, because that's insulting to the honorable service men.
How wonderfully black and white your world is.
I call bullsh*t, C-REX. I see no way that we'll walk out of Afghanistan or Iraq and leave either country in the hands of people who don't hate us and our occupational force. I know you refer to nation building as "BS", but if we leave countries in ruin and populations that hate us (which we are doing) then the war was a waste and the lives lost in vain. There is a bigger picture here than just your "textbook stuff".
Finally, as for my being a coward - I honestly believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will ultimately make the world less safe for my children. Iraq and Afghanistan are awash in displaced persons. Violence is endemic. The average person is significantly less safe than before the wars. And there are thousands of 20-something Iraqis and Afghanistanis who can't remember life before the hated Allied occupational force. What have we accomplished?
I honor the soldiers more than you do, C-REX, because I wish to pursue options that don't waste their lives.
If you think questioning such actions is cowardly, then it's a good thing you're not an American. Because here it is our civic duty to question the government when it screws up.
No, AGW is a problem. You haven't been paying attention.
OK, if you think 'peak' oil is a reason for action, then that's good. It will probably not be so much a peak as a plateau dropping off as demand for oil continues to increase, limited by the increasing oil prices.
Your link noting only inputs of CO2 into the atmosphere whilst ignoring the processes removing CO2 is absolute rubbish.
To disprove AGW you need to disprove that humans haven't caused the CO2 level to go from 270 to 390 ppmv and that increasing greenhouse gases won't cause increased retention of heat and hence global warming.
Since you seem not to have read/understood the links I gave you, I will summarize it for you:
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example:
During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm.
According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
If Global Warming stops, then you can start worrying! It means our warm interglacial phase is over and we may be heading into another Ice Age!
Only an idiot thinks that greenhouse gases are the only factor influencing climate.
The distribution of the continents during the Cambrian was entirely different to today. The supercontinent of Rodinia had just broken up leading to increased volcanic activity increasing the the CO2 level and ending the ice-ball Earth period of climate.
The climate during the Jurassic was entirely different to today. For a start, it was hotter, and there was a great inland sea covering much of the central North American continent due to the higher sea levels.
How do we know what the CO2 levels and temperatures were 350 MYA? You're putting a lot of faith in estimates that would have enormous error and uncertainty bars. Look at the reconstructions of temperature for the past 2,000 years using different methods (including Mann's tree ring reconstructions). They all give similar shapes, but they don't coincide.
It's the last 3 million years that are most instructive (the current ice age, with its 50 or so glaciations and 50 or so interglacials), since the modern arrangement of continents became established with North and South America joining at Panama.
The interglacials resulted from minor warming due to minor variations in the Earth's orbit and tilt (the Milankovich cycles) leading to positive feedback from increasing CO2 levels as the oceans warm.
The current interglacial has lasted longer than all the previous ones, and also has been very good for humans (we've gone from 1 to 7 billion in very little time and doubled in less than a generation).
We've been very successful in feeding very large numbers of people because we've had cheap abundant energy to make fertilisers and run tractors. It takes 10 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of food. We turn fossil fuel into food.
We're currently engaged in an irresponsible experiment. We're betting that either AGW isn't true, or if it is, it will be benign or even beneficial.
Agreed. We could be heading into another glaciation. But that's not thought to be likely for at least another 20,000 years, so we don't need to worry about it. And even if it happens anytime soon, we could try geo-engineering by 'painting' the poles black with carbon particles to decrease albedo.
The challenge remains. Disprove that humans aren't responsible for CO2 going from 270 to 390 ppmv and that increasing CO2 levels won't cause increased global warming.
Disprove that humans aren't responsible for CO2 going from 270 to 390 ppmv and that increasing CO2 levels won't cause increased global warming.
You are absolutely right! The increase in CO2 due to humans accounts for 0.28% of global warming due to green house effect; that's 0.0028 degree per 1 degree increase. So, yes, humans do contribute to global warming.
How do you calculate 0.28%? 270 to 390 ppmv is around 40%. Global warming increases water vapor due to increased evaporation. I'm also not including methane (from wet agriculture and grazing of cattle for meat), N2O from fertilizers and CFCs (now banned, but still persisting in the atmosphere).
The 0.28% comes from not considering the processes taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, just the one's putting it in, which is idiotic.
You are an idiot. The link does exactly what I've said it does. It considers inputs and doesn't consider the processes that take greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.
That is absolutely moronic. I also have doubts about some of the assertions. CFCs natural?
Learn some science and basic logic. Mathematics isn't also your forte.
The major process taking CO2 out of the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is actually solution in oceans, which accounts for around half. As the oceans warm, solubility of CO2 in the oceans decreases, and this will result in less uptake in future, and may eventually cause the oceans to be a net contributor to atmospheric CO2.
It also doesn't allow for the melting of permafrost causing rotting of frozen buried plant matter producing methane, and the collapse of oceanic methane clathrates from oceanic warming, as happened in the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum 55 MYA.
I stand by my comments. I'm not certain who writes the website you link to, 'Plant Fossils of West Virginia', but I suspect it's strongly linked to the coal industry, since pages boosting coal powered electricity plants figures reasonably highly. The coal industry with its 'clean coal'.
Do you know who writes it? Do you care? Do you think it's important?
It's still moronic to consider just the processes putting CO2 into the atmosphere and not considering the processes taking CO2 out.
The challenge still remains. Prove that humans aren't responsible for the increase in CO2 levels from 270 to 390 ppmv and that increasing CO2 levels won't cause increased warming.
I'll dispute every statement you make when you take it uncritically from a website you are incapable of understanding, and probably are unaware of who wrote it, and for what motives.
You dispute the statements of scientists concerning AGW, thinking that they are engaging in fraud for financial reasons, while accepting the anonymous writings that support your desires without even considering the possibility that they might have ulterior motives.
You're an idiot for coming up with same tired and wrong argument time after time.
My argument is valid. Atmospheric CO2 has gone from 270 to 390 ppmv and it bears the signature of coming from fossil fuel. The C14 level has decreased so much over preindustrial levels because of the burning of C14 poor fossil fuels that scientists have to use timber from 1850 to calibrate C14 dating of archaeological material. Increasing the CO2 level will increase global warming. So AGW is true.
Your argument, on the other hand, is idiotic and fallacious, and I suspect that you are a tool for the coal industry.
You're pretty recalcitrant in refusing to look at what I've suggested that you should take into consideration.
Humans are responsible for CO2 going from 270 to 390 ppmv so that's a 44% increase. Water vapor follows global warming and is a positive feedback.
To put it in a way you might understand, imagine you've maxed out your credit card and owe $50,000. Suppose you're paying 20% interest. Suppose to bring your finances into balance, you have your income ($50,000 per annum) paid into your credit card account and pay for all expenditures with the credit card. Suppose you can't reduce your spending below $50,000 pa, so you're not paying anything off the principal. Next year you owe $62,000, the year after $74,000. You wouldn't claim (or perhaps you would) that the amount of interest you're paying isn't responsible for your increasingly dire financial situation, since $12,000 is much less than $50,000.
But that's what you're doing with CO2. Humans are burning fossil fuels, laid down over hundreds of millions of years, releasing carbon that hasn't seen the light of day for at least 100 million years. There's no significant deposition of plant material to replace the fossil fuels we are burning.
You're confused, thinking that the carbon released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is insignificant in comparison to the carbon released from natural causes such as animal respiration, forest fires, degassing of the oceans, volcanic activities... Whereas, actually all of the natural causes of release of CO2 into the atmosphere are balanced by other natural processes; plant photosynthesis, regrowth of forests, dissolving of CO2 in the oceans, subduction of carbonate containing sedimentary rocks into the mantle due to tectonic plate movement ...
What we are doing, burning fossil fuels, isn't balanced by any process, and we are increasing positive feedbacks, more water vapor, more methane from melting permafrost ... Positive feedbacks don't lead to stability.
You are an idiot. I'm glad that you're no longing commenting, because your arguments are puerile.
What if G-d is a big hoax and we spend our life worshipping him for nothing?
ReplyDelete@Phil McCrackin,
ReplyDeleteEver hear of Pascal's wager? You just lost it.
How can anyone with half a brain think that Pascal's wager is a good argument?
ReplyDelete@Charles Derpwin (Consider this a gift)
ReplyDelete"How can anyone with half a brain think that Pascal's wager is a good argument?"
They don't. The half brained ones think it is a poor argument. The fully/whole/functional brained ones think it is a wager! Would you argue with dice or hand of blackjack? No. But you'll gamble with morality... and perhaps even immortality.
Take the money and herp!
AGW isn't a hoax. If you think it's a hoax, then you need to explain why increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases won't cause increased global warming.
ReplyDeleteWithout greenhouse gases, the global temperature should be no more than -18C and that's assuming an albedo of 0.30. CO2 allows the Earth to be warm enough to have water vapor in the atmosphere which increases the global warming.
The -18C is important, because the way the atmosphere works. The atmosphere cools and becomes less dense with increasing altitude until the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere) which is around -18C and then the stratosphere progressively becomes warmer with increasing altitude.
Net heat is lost from the tropopause. With increasing CO2 levels, the tropopause becomes higher so there's a thicker troposphere which means that the temperature at the surface MUST increase. It's basic physics.
Unless you can disprove that, then it's NO HOAX.
CrusadeRex,
You'd better hope that you've picked the right god to worship, if there's one and he's vindictive if you've picked the wrong one, because otherwise you've lost Pascal's wager. I think I'll go along with Bertrand Russell in the unlikely event that there's a god after all, and just note 'not enough evidence'.
Michael,
Still haven't got around to investigating whether they had prayers at the original constitutional convention? (hint, they didn't)
What if in our mad dash for less regulation and smaller government, we create an uncontrolled financial meltdown and ruin our economy?
ReplyDeleteOoops, too late
Or what if we spend hundreds of billions on a war of revenge with no defined goals and ruin our economy.
Ooops, too late
If we ruin our economy trying to save the environment, at least we can explain it to our children without feeling ashamed.
bachfiend,
ReplyDeleteGlobal warming is a hoax because libruls hate America.
It's pretty obvious.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
ReplyDeleteCould also be titled...
When Scientists Lie For Money
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Bach,
ReplyDelete"You'd better hope that you've picked the right god to worship.."
There is only one God, one creator. I know I have picked the right path to Him....at least for me.
"Unless you can disprove that, then it's NO HOAX."
Disprove a predicted future event? Positivism is just plain WEIRD.
@RickK
'What if in our mad dash for less regulation and smaller government, we create an uncontrolled financial meltdown and ruin our economy?"
Eh? Your government has been growing exponentially since the 40's. All sides admit to that. Never heard of 'Big government'? Guess they don't get CNN in Plato's Cave.
"Or what if we spend hundreds of billions on a war of revenge with no defined goals and ruin our economy."
For you.
"If we ruin our economy trying to save the environment, at least we can explain it to our children without feeling ashamed."
Sounds to me like your already ashamed. A (chicken) little scared too.
I, for one, am not.
@Pépé . Awesome link.
@Anon. What liberals? Ron Paul? You mean leftists. Reds. Internationalists. Sure, they hate all nations and cultures and seek to replace them. But the commies are so full of hot air they make a good argument FOR AGW.
There is only one God, one creator. I know I have picked the right path to Him....at least for me.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that you shouldn't be a Mormon, or a Pentecostalist, or a Hindu, or a Muslim? If any of them are correct, you lose the wager. And you have no way to determine that you are actually correct and they are not.
cursadeREX said: "Sounds to me like your already ashamed."
ReplyDeleteDamn right I am. I'm ashamed when I see Americans like you, egnorant and proud, beating your chest in macho glee as we bomb Iraq and Afghanistan. We pour hundreds of billions into the Bush/Rumsfeld campaign that accomplishes nothing but to kill thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of other people, and to make more of the world hate us. And when someone puts their hand up to object to it, you call them chicken? Are you actually a real person, or a troll portraying a caricature of some survivalist wannabe?
crusadeREX said: "There is only one God, one creator."
Billions of people have said that with equal or greater conviction about thousands of gods. You have no more evidence than they do. You have nothing but belief - the same belief they have about their other gods. And like many of them, you're comfortable in the shelter of your ego, confident that YOU'RE right and THEY'RE wrong. But at some point, some brief flash of intellectual honesty may whisper to you that there's no more evidence for your un-named god than there is for Ra or Thor or Ganesha.
Honest people say "I have this belief system because I think there is something more out there and the rites, rituals and community of my particular belief system work for me."
But it takes a deep ability to lie to yourself to say "My version of god is right and other versions are wrong."
Pepe said: "When Scientists Lie For Money"
ReplyDeleteYeah, right. All that money in climate science. I know that's why people study meteorology and Earth sciences - for the money.
And of course, the scientist who could overturn the AGW theory through better science and better evidence would refuse to do so out of loyalty to his fellow scientists, right? Because there are no wealthy companies that would pay millions to disprove AGW, are there? Right Pepe?
Oil companies certainly wouldn't pay for some solid science to refute AGW, would they?
How can you be so blind to the truth!!!??!! ALL the money is on the Anti-AGW side, coming from the CURRENT energy companies. There is a FORTUNE available for the scientist who can really prove the Earth isn't warming, or can really prove humans aren't doing it.
Science gives its highest awards (along with money) to those who over-turn the orthodoxy of what other scientists believe, and can support it with better science and better evidence.
And yet, with all those enticements, with all that fame to be had, with all that MONEY available to the guys who disprove AGW, the consensus is still that AGW is true.
Gosh... maybe, just maybe, AGW is true.
@RickK
ReplyDeleteGosh... maybe, just maybe, AGW is true.
Gosh... this lie is REALLY expensive!
The Black Hole of Global Warming Spending
@Pépé
ReplyDeleteOh look, a conspiracy theory.
@evil...
ReplyDeleteOh look, a conspiracy theory.
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's bad science, it's pseudo-science, it's all a darn lie to make clueless scientists get our money over a phantom problem.
The New Evangelists
ReplyDelete"it's all a darn lie to make clueless scientists get our money over a phantom problem."
ReplyDeleteThis is a conspiracy theory.
"The New Evangelists"
It's funny when religious fanatics use "religion", "faith" or "evangelist" as bad words.
Pepe (I'm writing this on an iPad, so I can't put in the accents),
ReplyDeleteYou still haven't answered the question. If you think that AGW is a hoax, then why shouldn't increasing an important greenhouse gas, CO2, not increase global warming? Increasing CO2 leads to a feedback with increasing water vapor and methane too.
I looked at your links. They aren't very impressive.
The first one I looked at repeats that old canard that global warming stopped in 1998. No, 1998 was an abnormally warm year due to a strong el Nino. Global temperatures go up and down from year to year, so you have to consider the trend line over a sufficiently long period, usually 30 years. 10 years isn't sufficient, particularly when you deliberately start with a warmer than usual year.
The list of 1,000 dissenting scientists isn't impressive. The scientists include a lot of chemists, engineers, systems analysts, astrophysicists. Very few climatologists. How many scientists are there in the world? Considerably more that 1,000 I'd bet. I'd think that America would graduate that many PhDs in science, mathematics or engineering in a year.
The open letter to Chancellor Merkel from 60 dissenting scientists is notable for the howlers it makes. It repeats the fallacy that CO2 is almost at saturation for absorption of infrared radiation, so increasing CO2 will not cause increased retention of heat.
Yes, it will. CO2 doesn't absorb infrared radiation at a single discrete frequency. It absorbs it over a fairly narrow range falling off to either side of a peak. As you increase the CO2, absorption of infrared radiation increases as more of the non peak radiation is absorbed.
More importantly, with increasing altitude, the amount of CO2 decreases even though it remains around 390 ppmv. The air is less dense, so the amount of CO2 drops, and eventually at a sufficiently high altitude, the amount of CO2 drops below saturation, and the infrared radiation streams through and is lost to space.
This is at the tropopause with a temperature of -18C. With increasing CO2, the triplanes increases in altitude, with more thickness of atmosphere beneath, rather like more sheets on a bed; the top sheet stays the same temperature, the bottom sheet (next to you) increases in warmth.
If there was anything to this saturation business, then heatseeking missiles wouldn't work.
Look at the science, not at the claims of the denialists, particularly when they make nonsensical assertions with no grounding in reality. Without greenhouse gases, the Earth should be -18C, so the small amount of CO2 is extremely important in warming the Earth, rather retaining heat.
Venus, with its runaway greenhouse effect and its temperature of around 450C actually should also be below freezing too. At its distance from the Sun, it gets around 90% more solar radiation, but its albedo, its reflectiveness, is twice that of the Earth, so it actually gets less solar radiation than the Earth. Its tropopause is very high in the atmosphere compared to the Earth, with a temperature below freezing. There's many layers beneath, and the bottom layer is scorching.
Damn the spell check on an iPad. The 4th last paragraph should read:
ReplyDeleteThis is at the tropopause, with a temperature of -18C. With increasing CO2, the tropopause increases in altitude, with more thickness of atmosphere beneath ...
You are a source of CO2 bach!!
ReplyDelete"Save the planet, kill yourself".
HINT: The sun heats earth.
What a surprise to AGW nuts huh!
Gary H,
ReplyDeleteActually, I'm carbon neutral. I have a 1 litre car, which does 25km per month. I cycle most places. I use about 3 kilowatt.hour/day, but I have a solar panel which generates 3 kilowatt.hour/day in Winter and 7+ kilowatt.hour/day in Summer.
The Sun heats the Earth, but greenhouse gases retain the heat. Learn some science won't you. If it wasn't for the greenhouse gases, the Earth would
be -18C. How many times do I have to tell you idiots this. Trace amounts of greenhouse gases are extremely important.
@bach...
ReplyDeleteIf you think that AGW is a hoax...
GW is natural; it's the A that's a hoax! Just have a look at GW numbers.
...10 years isn't sufficient...
What about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age? Oh, Sorry! You rather believe the Hockey Stick fable...
Most atheists are ignorant, blind and gullible: they are ignorant of history, blind to new scientific evidence that contradicts their worldview and gullible of the dictum and dogma of the establishment, any establishment.
They are a sorry lot!
"Most atheists are ignorant, blind and gullible: they are ignorant of history, blind to new scientific evidence that contradicts their worldview and gullible of the dictum and dogma of the establishment, any establishment."
ReplyDeleteYou are completely nuts. What the hell does atheism have to do with global warming?
@anon:
ReplyDelete[What the hell does atheism have to do with global warming?]
Scientism is atheist idolatry, and the AGW hoax is its current flavor.
Which basically means "hurrr athiesm is evil, globul warmin is evil, therefore atheism = global warmin conspiracy DURRRRRRRRR JESUS AKBAR".
ReplyDeleteHow about taking the Global Warming Test!
ReplyDeleteorry for the delayed response folks....weekend, family, ...life etc.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
"How do you know that you shouldn't be a Mormon, or a Pentecostalist, or a Hindu, or a Muslim?"
How do I know? That is experiential - not something I can relate in this back and forth. I suspect you would not want to hear the answer, anyway.
Sufficed to say: I know it is the correct path for ME. Maybe it is not them? No matter. I win either way... and so do they.
"If any of them are correct, you lose the wager."
That is incorrect. We could ALL be correct about what counts, and incorrect on the details.
You don't seem to understand theology or the nature of the wager being discussed. If ANY of them are correct I win.
"And you have no way to determine that you are actually correct and they are not."
There are many ways to determine truth, and many ways by which truth can be presented. Scientific dogma need not apply.
@where is my f'n pocket protector
"Wow. Do these guys exist outside your paranoid mind?"
Paranoid? I am military and currently work in Branch services (Field Intelligence). Paranoia is light fare compared to what I deal with EVERY day.
No...I wish it was delusions, but these folks ACTUALLY exist. They make a case for themselves.
Religious maniacs ALSO exist.
I have actually FOUGHT against them, and they have REALLY tried to kill me - with REAL weapons. I have attended services for two good friends in the last 24 months who did they DID kill.
Maybe the problem is not such much my paranoia (professional), but your PRONOIA?
CNTD from above
ReplyDelete@RickK,
"I'm ashamed when I see Americans like you, egnorant and proud, beating your chest in macho glee as we bomb Iraq and Afghanistan."
I am not American.
No need to feel shame for me or my deeds.
I was deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 and spent 4 years living and fighting in war zone with very little leave. I saw, smelled, and tasted war up close. No glee here.
War is a sad and horrible duty to the soldier. It it what we train for an hope NEVER to see...and when we do see finally it, we wish we had not.
We do our duty, not make war to pleasure ourselves.
It is only cowards who paint it otherwise.
You dishonour the service of those who are brave enough to stand for your Republic with such rhetoric, RickK. I wish you could see that.
That dishonouring IS worthy of shame. Hence the feather.
"Billions of people have said that with equal or greater conviction about thousands of gods. "
Sure. They are all deluded madmen or fools... only modern positivists see the truth.
Finally, allow me to rephrase your final comment in order to make it relevant to my own:
"My form of religious worship and tradition is the correct one FOR ME, and other forms of worship are not FOR ME."
That is what I am saying, or meant to relate.
Is there something 'wrong' about that? Pray tell.
It seems you mistake God for the rituals that Honour Him. No biggy! Little kids (and some atheists) do it all the time. Common category error.
In short: My religious practices are for ME - not a 3rd Century Norseman, nor even a relatively similar minded modern Jew or Agnostic (like my two best friends). They their own path and it is correct for them. I am not writing on this page in hopes of converting anyone...unlike you.
Rather, I am simply stating my position of faith in contrast to the faith based position I was responding to. Mine was a reciprocally broad statement.
@Bach,
I disagree with your convictions regarding the HUMAN elements of climate change, you know that by now. But, I do applaud your attempt to do SOMETHING personally....at least you have put your money where your mouth is. I am pretty 'green' myself, if for rather different reasons.
@Pépé
"GW is natural; it's the A that's a hoax! Just have a look at GW numbers."
TOO TRUE.
No one here is suggesting there are climate cycles or warming or cooling. Rather the suggestion is that ASSUMING MANKIND is solely responsible for recent changes is HUBRIS. That arrogance is beautifully displayed when they suggest climate change can be HALTED or even reversed by 'science'. They do not seek to adapt, but rather to ENGINEER the Earth to halt it's natural cycles....
Thank Goodness most people are beginning to see through the political and positivist BS. I suspect many people on this page will too; And when they do, many will deny they ever supported AGW.
CrusadeREX said: "My form of religious worship and tradition is the correct one FOR ME, and other forms of worship are not FOR ME."
ReplyDeleteAhh, I'd love to believe that, C-REX. But your ceaseless criticism of those who don't believe as you do (for example, atheists) proves that you absolutely believe YOUR beliefs are right for OTHER PEOPLE as well, or at least that their beliefs are wrong.
CrusadeREX said: "You dishonour the service of those who are brave enough to stand for your Republic with such rhetoric, RickK."
So you think criticizing a war or criticizing Bush and Rumsfeld's decisions that led to the war is the same as criticizing the soldiers and that it dishonors them?
Are you kidding? Is your view of American citizenship really that simplistic and naive?
But, then... maybe it's different in your country. Maybe you don't feel that the public has a duty to keep its soldiers out of harm's way unless there are clear goals and clear benefits to be gained from the conflict. That's where you and I differ.
Perhaps you're so anxious to criticize me and call me a coward that you didn't really think through the implications of what you were saying. Perhaps you'd like to re-phrase and try again?
Thank you, Gary H, for yet another of your typically constructive posts.
ReplyDeleteI've gone back over months of posts to see if my impression of your contributions is accurate. And not once have I found a single post that wasn't just an snarky insulting rant with precisely zero discussion of the actual issues or of your position on those issues.
You might try reading back over your posts and reflecting on what image they project. Is that really what you're going for? Because it's very very unflattering.
backfiend - Not to be picky, but I think you probably have a ways to go before you can call yourself carbon neutral. Look at the products you buy, the food you consume and the waste you produce.
ReplyDeleteHowever, your efforts to lessen your impact on the planet are commendable and should serve as a model for others (or at least for those who believe this planet's resources are all we get and no divine force is going to rescue us if we screw it up).
@Pepe,
ReplyDeleteI still haven't seen you counter the argument that there is more money to be made by the scientist(s) who can definitively disprove AGW.
You're still promoting the AGW-promoting-scientific-conspiracy-to-make-money argument.
Now think about it. Along comes a scientist who can definitively prove that humans are not harming the planet and are not contributing to AGW.
How could this scientist avoid fame beyond measure? Their face would be on every news outlet for months or years. Their books would sell like wildfire. They'd be figuratively (or literally) carried upon the shoulders of millions of people like you, or millions of people who want to drive V8 cars and Hummers. The car companies, the oil companies, the large factory owners, the coal companies - all of them would support and reward such research and such a conclusion.
And considering the global and scientific impact of such anti-AGW proof, how could this radical, dissenting scientist NOT end up with a Nobel Prize?
So, I've no doubt that scientists have implicitly and sometimes explicitly conspired to protect their own conclusions or arguments - they're human - it happens in every human endeavor. But time and again throughout the history of science, we've seen that the big money and big fame is in breaking the conspiracy and overturning the orthodoxy. And in this case, that big money is enhanced by the contributions of some of the world's richest companies.
So your conspiracy argument is a failure. AGW hasn't been refuted because the current science supports AGW. That's simply the reality, however much you dislike it.
"So you think criticizing a war or criticizing Bush and Rumsfeld's decisions that led to the war is the same as criticizing the soldiers and that it dishonors them?"
ReplyDeleteI think your attempt to discredit an active military effort by laying the blame for a very real ideological conflict at the feet of political figures in a blatantly partisan fashion is so utterly and obviously naive that it belies cowardice.
How do I determine this? You are so utterly afraid of an external threat that you lay blame on your leaders and pretend there is no enemy worth fighting.
Was it Bush who arranged the 9/11 attacks? Did he arrange all the attacks on the USA's Allies too? Or maybe they did that themselves?
"Ahh, I'd love to believe that, C-REX. But your ceaseless criticism of those who don't believe as you do (for example, atheists) proves that you absolutely believe YOUR beliefs are right for OTHER PEOPLE as well, or at least that their beliefs are wrong."
I am not here to convert you or anyone. I don't really care if you believe that or not.
I am glad to see you admit that Atheism is a belief system.
Do I think my religious belief system is better than others? OF COURSE I do. You sure seem to think your ideology is better than mine.
"... maybe it's different in your country. Maybe you don't feel that the public has a duty to keep its soldiers out of harm's way unless there are clear goals and clear benefits to be gained from the conflict."
No. No different. There are elements here who want the enemy to pay reparations, for example.
Here we have a saying about our military in the field 'If you do not stand behind our troops, kindly get IN FRONT of them'.
"That's where you and I differ."
The difference between you and I on this is a matter of experience.
I actually did my bit. I know the enemy is not imaginary and I know the reasoning behind these conflicts is strategic. I understand the conflict is ideological.
That is where you and I differ.
CrusadeRex,
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Afghanistan was that Bush got sidetracked in Iraq, an unnecessary war that cost at least 3 trillion dollars and countless lives.
Also, Afghanistan wasn't particularly well managed. It should have been, get in, get bin Laden and get out. The British and the Russians have found that staying in Afghanistan for long is a very bad idea. Easy to take but hard to stay. And the politicians made all the very bad decisions.
@crusadeREX
ReplyDelete"Maybe the problem is not such much my paranoia (professional), but your PRONOIA?"
Unlike what you seem to think, this is not witty, and it's also irrelevant.
"It seems you mistake God for the rituals that Honour Him."
Yeah, right. How do you know there is one god, and not two, not three, not twenty?
@RickK
ReplyDeleteAlong comes a scientist who can definitively prove that humans are not harming the planet and are not contributing to AGW...
How about 31,000 scientists!.
Stop deluding yourself.
Pepe,
ReplyDeleteI won't bother turning on my computer so as to be able to put on the accents in your name.
But the Oregon petition isn't a list of 31,000 scientists who have disproved AGW (you need to improve your reading comprehension skills). It's a list of 31,000 individuals who don't think that AGW is happening, a big difference.
The list of 'scientists' include engineers and medical practitioners making up a very large proportion of the number. Actual scientists with PhD degrees make up a very small proportion. Confusingly, astrophysicists are included in the category of 'atmosphere scientists' (at least they both start with 'A').
To disprove AGW all you need to do is to show why increasing the level of greenhouse gases won't increase global warming over its current warming from
-18C. We know CO2 levels are increasing at a rate of 2-3 ppmv per year, and we know it's coming from fossil fuels because the atmospheric CO2 bears the signature of coming from fossil fuel with its very low C14 content. And we know that warming will increase the level of other greenhouse gases such as water vapor and methane, so increasing CO2 leads to positive feedbacks.
The physics are settled.
@Pépé
ReplyDelete"Stop deluding yourself." Said the religious guy. Hilarious.
We could ALL be correct about what counts, and incorrect on the details.
ReplyDeleteUmm, no. If the Muslim is correct, then you've got a one way ticket to oblivion. Your faiths are not mutually compatible. Hence, you lose the so-called "Wager".
"The problem with Afghanistan was that Bush got sidetracked in Iraq, an unnecessary war that cost at least 3 trillion dollars and countless lives."
ReplyDeleteBush was not my CNC. I did not go on his mandate, nor was our military recalled from that theatre on his command. During the first year of my deployment we chased Bin Laden into Pakistan and pummelled the Taliban and Haqqanis who did the rear guard actions(just making the press). We chased them into remote valleys (not a nice winter), into underground complexes, pounded their positions,and eventually ran them well into Pakistan.
"Also, Afghanistan wasn't particularly well managed."
You're telling me! The invasion and first two years were a proper, well executed warfare. Mostly textbook stuff, with the exception of some tragic 'friendly fire' episodes. After that the nation building BS began. In late 2008 it went almost completely political, and the hand tying ROE began to actually be enforced. I was already 'at home', but was still engaged in a different capacity that made this madness ALL too clear.
This crazy ROE and led directly our DnD's decision to scale back and eventually withdraw all forces but support and engineering.
Luckily this freed up command, intelligence and operations for new conflicts such as Libya.
"The British and the Russians have found that staying in Afghanistan for long is a very bad idea."
Very true. History teaches us Afghanistan is a 'get in and get' out zone. Alexander onward. But let's not forget in the beginning of this war a decent majority of the 'fighters' we engaged were 'foreign' (Pakistani and various Jihadis). Most of the Northern Tribes (the actual Pashto or 'Pashtun') were allied with us AGAINST the Taliban or neutral.
"And the politicians made all the very bad decisions."
I suspect you mean ALL the politicians. They always do. When (often well meaning) civilians interject themselves into the running of a war, we always see BIG mistakes. Afghanistan has been no exception to this rule. But, and it is a BIG but (___!___), the worst politicians were the ones who decided to ANNOUNCE public timetables for general withdrawal of combat capable forces. That is a NO NO in military strategy. You just don't give your enemy that kind hope.
Even peace negotiations would have been preferable to the mess the CURRENT US administration has created for the remaining forces in Iraq, for example.
You're right on that last point, Bach. Fortunately you can only see the tip of the iceberg. I say fortunately because the rest of the mountain of frozen political BS is even worse.
"Unlike what you seem to think, this is not witty, and it's also irrelevant."
ReplyDeleteOkay. Then why do you bring paranoia into it, and why do you comment on irrelevancies? Your answer is not 'witty' either, rather just plain WEIRD.
"Yeah, right. How do you know there is one god, and not two, not three, not twenty?"
Yeah right. You want me to preach at you? I have already explained that my understanding is experiential. If you want to read a good, reasonable theological argument for Monotheism, look it up or read a book or something. I am not your confessor, Anon.
"Umm, no. If the Muslim is correct, then you've got a one way ticket to oblivion. Your faiths are not mutually compatible. Hence, you lose the so-called "Wager"."
Those ARE the details. The Wager is not whether God is called Allah or YWHE or Brahma.
You should REALLY look it up if you're going to comment on it.
You're tilting at windmills again, Anon.
I still win the wager. You still miss the central thrust of it.
Oh, and Anon...
ReplyDeleteOn the details, when you write:
"If the Muslim is correct, then you've got a one way ticket to oblivion"
You may wish to examine the details.
Here is just one example of the details you seem to have missed:
"Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve . [Quran 2:62]"
@bach...
ReplyDeleteTo disprove AGW all you need to do is to show why increasing the level of greenhouse gases won't increase global warming...
If you had consulted the links I gave, you would see that natural causes account for 99.72% of global warming and man made causes account for only 0.28%. As I said before, GW is natural and the A is insignificant; those who are trying to sell us the A are pushing a really big hoax.
You should make it an habit of consulting the references I give so I can stop spoon feeding you.
Pepe,
ReplyDeleteYou really need to consider carbon cycles. Only looking at what puts CO2 into the atmosphere while ignoring the processes that remove it is just silly.
The fact remains that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing at a rate of 2-3 ppmv per year and it's coming from the burning of fossil fuels. Humans are putting about 750 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere that hasn't seen the light of day for at least 100 million years. The oil, natural gas and coal took hundreds of millions of years to form, and we are burning them at a rate of around a million times faster.
Just stating that the human proportion of CO2 released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is low compared to the total release of CO2 into the atmosphere by other processes (animal respiration, degassing of the oceans, volcanic activity, burning of forests etc) without considering the processes that take CO2 out of the atmosphere (plant photosynthesis, solution of CO2 into the oceans, subduction of carbonate containing sedimentary rocks into the mantle by tectonic plate movements, regrowth of forests after fires etc) is a fallacy.
Notice that there's no significant formation of fossil fuels to replace the enormous amounts humans are currently burning.
I wonder where they get their 99.72% natural, 0.28% human induced?
The Sun gets the Earth from -270C to -18C. Greenhouse gases get it from -18C to 15C, so natural gets 285C of warming and 0.28% of natural works out to be around 0.9C which is about the amount of warming since 1850. Is that how it's calculated?
Or is it calculated by just counting the processes putting CO2 into the atmosphere and ignoring the processes removing it, while ignoring the positive feedbacks on other greenhouse gases such as water vapor and methane as being not manmade?
@bach...
ReplyDeleteI wonder where they get their 99.72% natural, 0.28% human induced?
You must read the whole article and understand it.
Pepe,
ReplyDeleteOK, I've had a relook at your link. It's making the 2nd fallacy, just considering the processes that put CO2 into the atmosphere without considering the processes that take CO2 out of the atmosphere. It also ignores positive feedbacks on water vapor and methane, declaring these to be entirely natural. It also assumes that N2O from fertilizers is entirely natural and gives a suspiciously high figure for the proportion of CFCs as being natural.
You still can't get around the fact that the atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing at a rate of 2-3 ppmv per year (about 1% per year), and it's gone from 270 to 390 ppmv from preindustrial times to now.
@bach...
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that now it is you who need to improve your reading comprehension skills.
Let me illustrate:
The Sun gets the Earth from -270C to -18C. Greenhouse gases get it from -18C to 15C, so natural gets 285C of warming and 0.28% of natural works out to be around 0.9C which is about the amount of warming since 1850.
Do you realize how illogical (and I am being very polite here) this statement is? Just try to have it publish in a peer-review journal!
@bach...
ReplyDeleteSince you are a so firm believer that Global Warming is cause by us, stupid humans, what is your stance on geo-engineering?
PS: I could give you many links on that subject, but I do hope you can find them by yourself on your iPad. If this is not the case, I will be happy to oblige.
Pepe,
ReplyDeleteI was trying to come up with a reason why anyone would wrongly think that global warming is 99.72% natural and 0.28% manmade.
No, it wouldn't make it into a peer reviewed article, because it's a silly idea, as silly as the idea that you can just take the inputs of CO2 into the atmosphere and ignore the processes taking CO2 out, as your link does.
You still need to explain why the CO2 level has gone from 270 to 390 ppmv.
Geo-engineering would be the plan of last resort. I don't include carbon sequestration as geo-engineering. Geo-engineering includes injecting SO2 into the high atmosphere so more of the Sun's light is reflected, increasing the Earth's albedo.
It might work, though it's illegal for governments to do it under international treaty (nothing stops a billionaire or two to do it though), if it works, then continuing it indefinitely would be necessary (it would gain time to think of a better idea), having a high albedo mightn't work (Venus gets 90% more solar radiation than the Earth, but reflects 100% more light, but still has a runaway greenhouse effect).
It also has the problem that it allows the acidification of the oceans to continue.
I think you need some numbers. The human consumption of energy is 16 terra watts per day. This works out to be an average of under 2,500 watts per person per day. Americans use an average of 10,000 watts per person per day. Australians and Canadians slightly more, say 11,000, Europeans less, around 5,000. And there are many perhaps billions who use very little.
By 2050, there are going to be at least 2 billion more humans on Earth, so we need to increase energy production to at least 32 terra watts per day, which would give an average of 3,500 watts per person per day, not even at European levels.
One way would be to double all our current sources of energy, twice as much oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal...
We are currently using 90 million barrels of oil per day, so we'd need to increase it to 180 million barrels per day in a business as usual plan. A major oilfield, if we find one, usually contains enough oil to supply the world with oil for 1 or 2 years (the oil fields last much longer because it takes a large amount of money and time to exploit a new field setting up the infrastructure). The Alberta oil sands would be of about this size; a lot of oil, will be producing for a long time but won't be anywhere near enough.
We would be needing to find major new oilfields every year for the next 40 years.
It's a difficult problem, but I don't think that business is going to work.
More numbers. The global economy is 61 trillion dollars per year. America about 15 trillion dollars. Energy is about 10% of the economy; global 6 trillion dollars per year, America around 1.5 trillion dollars. Subsidies for fossil fuels is around 450 billion dollars per year. America could be self-sufficient in energy using wind power in 30 years by investing 1 trillion dollars per year for the next 30 years. Enormous numbers but doable, and would generate a lot of employment.
What's really needed is conservation of energy (the site you linked to asked how Americans could cope with driving 30% less to comply with Kyoto, actually that's easy, just drive a car with 30% better fuel consumption, Hummers are out) and a combination of energy sources.
Energy security is an enormous problem, but ignoring it won't make it go away.
Pepe,
ReplyDeleteAnd you still haven't noted that the Oregon petition doesn't support your assertion that 31,000 scientists have disproved AGW.
CrusadeREX said: "Here we have a saying about our military in the field 'If you do not stand behind our troops, kindly get IN FRONT of them'."
ReplyDeleteYep, there it is. If I don't support the war, then I'm guilty of not supporting the troops. Therefore, the only way to avoid insulting the troops (and being called a coward by people like you) is to support every war.
That works equally well for your involvement in Iraq, the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, the American involvement in Vietnam or the German involvement in WWII. Don't protest or avoid war, because that's insulting to the honorable service men.
How wonderfully black and white your world is.
I call bullsh*t, C-REX. I see no way that we'll walk out of Afghanistan or Iraq and leave either country in the hands of people who don't hate us and our occupational force. I know you refer to nation building as "BS", but if we leave countries in ruin and populations that hate us (which we are doing) then the war was a waste and the lives lost in vain. There is a bigger picture here than just your "textbook stuff".
Finally, as for my being a coward - I honestly believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will ultimately make the world less safe for my children. Iraq and Afghanistan are awash in displaced persons. Violence is endemic. The average person is significantly less safe than before the wars. And there are thousands of 20-something Iraqis and Afghanistanis who can't remember life before the hated Allied occupational force. What have we accomplished?
I honor the soldiers more than you do, C-REX, because I wish to pursue options that don't waste their lives.
If you think questioning such actions is cowardly, then it's a good thing you're not an American. Because here it is our civic duty to question the government when it screws up.
You know about duty, don't you?
@bach...
ReplyDeleteWhat's really needed is conservation of energy...
...because of Peak Oil...not because of anthropological global warming. AGW is a faux-problème!
Pepe,
ReplyDeleteNo, AGW is a problem. You haven't been paying attention.
OK, if you think 'peak' oil is a reason for action, then that's good. It will probably not be so much a peak as a plateau dropping off as demand for oil continues to increase, limited by the increasing oil prices.
Your link noting only inputs of CO2 into the atmosphere whilst ignoring the processes removing CO2 is absolute rubbish.
To disprove AGW you need to disprove that humans haven't caused the CO2 level to go from 270 to 390 ppmv and that increasing greenhouse gases won't cause increased retention of heat and hence global warming.
@bach...
ReplyDeleteSince you seem not to have read/understood the links I gave you, I will summarize it for you:
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example:
During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm.
According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
If Global Warming stops, then you can start worrying! It means our warm interglacial phase is over and we may be heading into another Ice Age!
Pépé,
ReplyDeleteOnly an idiot thinks that greenhouse gases are the only factor influencing climate.
The distribution of the continents during the Cambrian was entirely different to today. The supercontinent of Rodinia had just broken up leading to increased volcanic activity increasing the the CO2 level and ending the ice-ball Earth period of climate.
The climate during the Jurassic was entirely different to today. For a start, it was hotter, and there was a great inland sea covering much of the central North American continent due to the higher sea levels.
How do we know what the CO2 levels and temperatures were 350 MYA? You're putting a lot of faith in estimates that would have enormous error and uncertainty bars. Look at the reconstructions of temperature for the past 2,000 years using different methods (including Mann's tree ring reconstructions). They all give similar shapes, but they don't coincide.
It's the last 3 million years that are most instructive (the current ice age, with its 50 or so glaciations and 50 or so interglacials), since the modern arrangement of continents became established with North and South America joining at Panama.
The interglacials resulted from minor warming due to minor variations in the Earth's orbit and tilt (the Milankovich cycles) leading to positive feedback from increasing CO2 levels as the oceans warm.
The current interglacial has lasted longer than all the previous ones, and also has been very good for humans (we've gone from 1 to 7 billion in very little time and doubled in less than a generation).
We've been very successful in feeding very large numbers of people because we've had cheap abundant energy to make fertilisers and run tractors. It takes 10 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of food. We turn fossil fuel into food.
We're currently engaged in an irresponsible experiment. We're betting that either AGW isn't true, or if it is, it will be benign or even beneficial.
Agreed. We could be heading into another glaciation. But that's not thought to be likely for at least another 20,000 years, so we don't need to worry about it. And even if it happens anytime soon, we could try geo-engineering by 'painting' the poles black with carbon particles to decrease albedo.
The challenge remains. Disprove that humans aren't responsible for CO2 going from 270 to 390 ppmv and that increasing CO2 levels won't cause increased global warming.
@bach...
ReplyDeleteDisprove that humans aren't responsible for CO2 going from 270 to 390 ppmv and that increasing CO2 levels won't cause increased global warming.
You are absolutely right! The increase in CO2 due to humans accounts for 0.28% of global warming due to green house effect; that's 0.0028 degree per 1 degree increase. So, yes, humans do contribute to global warming.
Pepe,
ReplyDeleteHow do you calculate 0.28%? 270 to 390 ppmv is around 40%. Global warming increases water vapor due to increased evaporation. I'm also not including methane (from wet agriculture and grazing of cattle for meat), N2O from fertilizers and CFCs (now banned, but still persisting in the atmosphere).
The 0.28% comes from not considering the processes taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, just the one's putting it in, which is idiotic.
@bach...
ReplyDeleteActually, the human contribution of CO2 is 0.117% not 0.28% as stated (my mistake).
You will find answers to your questions in Table 4a here (near to bottom of the page).
As for taking out the CO2 this is done mainly by the flora which is very beneficial: greens take CO2 and release O2!
Pepe,
ReplyDeleteYou are an idiot. The link does exactly what I've said it does. It considers inputs and doesn't consider the processes that take greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.
That is absolutely moronic. I also have doubts about some of the assertions. CFCs natural?
Learn some science and basic logic. Mathematics isn't also your forte.
The major process taking CO2 out of the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is actually solution in oceans, which accounts for around half. As the oceans warm, solubility of CO2 in the oceans decreases, and this will result in less uptake in future, and may eventually cause the oceans to be a net contributor to atmospheric CO2.
It also doesn't allow for the melting of permafrost causing rotting of frozen buried plant matter producing methane, and the collapse of oceanic methane clathrates from oceanic warming, as happened in the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum 55 MYA.
Pepe,
ReplyDeleteI stand by my comments. I'm not certain who writes the website you link to, 'Plant Fossils of West Virginia', but I suspect it's strongly linked to the coal industry, since pages boosting coal powered electricity plants figures reasonably highly. The coal industry with its 'clean coal'.
Do you know who writes it? Do you care? Do you think it's important?
It's still moronic to consider just the processes putting CO2 into the atmosphere and not considering the processes taking CO2 out.
The challenge still remains. Prove that humans aren't responsible for the increase in CO2 levels from 270 to 390 ppmv and that increasing CO2 levels won't cause increased warming.
@bach...
ReplyDeleteThe challenge still remains. Prove that humans aren't responsible...
À quoi bon!
You will always dispute any and every words I write.
Pepe,
ReplyDelete'Whats the point?'
I'll dispute every statement you make when you take it uncritically from a website you are incapable of understanding, and probably are unaware of who wrote it, and for what motives.
You dispute the statements of scientists concerning AGW, thinking that they are engaging in fraud for financial reasons, while accepting the anonymous writings that support your desires without even considering the possibility that they might have ulterior motives.
You're an idiot for coming up with same tired and wrong argument time after time.
Pepe,
ReplyDeleteMy argument is valid. Atmospheric CO2 has gone from 270 to 390 ppmv and it bears the signature of coming from fossil fuel. The C14 level has decreased so much over preindustrial levels because of the burning of C14 poor fossil fuels that scientists have to use timber from 1850 to calibrate C14 dating of archaeological material. Increasing the CO2 level will increase global warming. So AGW is true.
Your argument, on the other hand, is idiotic and fallacious, and I suspect that you are a tool for the coal industry.
You're pretty recalcitrant in refusing to look at what I've suggested that you should take into consideration.
@bach...
ReplyDeleteAtmospheric CO2 has gone from 270 to 390 ppmv... ...Increasing the CO2 level will increase global warming. So AGW is true...
Ok, I will, YET AGAIN, spoon feed you.
1- The increase in CO2 due to us accounts for 0.117% of green house gases contributing to GW.
1a- BTW, this is your beloved 270 to 390 ppmv increase.
2- The main source of GW is WATER VAPOR and we only contribute 0.001% to that.
3- Considering the other green house gases, we contribute ONLY 0.28% of GW and nature rings in for the rest at 99.72%
IN CONCLUSION:
Global Warming (GW) IS REAL, and is NATURAL.
Anthropological Global Warming is a VUE DE L’ESPRIT, because 0.28% is INSIGNIFICANT.
This is my last comment. If you cannot understand it… well that's just YOUR PROBLEM!
Sorry.
Pepe,
ReplyDeleteHumans are responsible for CO2 going from 270 to 390 ppmv so that's a 44% increase. Water vapor follows global warming and is a positive feedback.
To put it in a way you might understand, imagine you've maxed out your credit card and owe $50,000. Suppose you're paying 20% interest. Suppose to bring your finances into balance, you have your income ($50,000 per annum) paid into your credit card account and pay for all expenditures with the credit card. Suppose you can't reduce your spending below $50,000 pa, so you're not paying anything off the principal. Next year you owe $62,000, the year after $74,000. You wouldn't claim (or perhaps you would) that the amount of interest you're paying isn't responsible for your increasingly dire financial situation, since $12,000 is much less than $50,000.
But that's what you're doing with CO2. Humans are burning fossil fuels, laid down over hundreds of millions of years, releasing carbon that hasn't seen the light of day for at least 100 million years. There's no significant deposition of plant material to replace the fossil fuels we are burning.
You're confused, thinking that the carbon released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is insignificant in comparison to the carbon released from natural causes such as animal respiration, forest fires, degassing of the oceans, volcanic activities... Whereas, actually all of the natural causes of release of CO2 into the atmosphere are balanced by other natural processes; plant photosynthesis, regrowth of forests, dissolving of CO2 in the oceans, subduction of carbonate containing sedimentary rocks into the mantle due to tectonic plate movement ...
What we are doing, burning fossil fuels, isn't balanced by any process, and we are increasing positive feedbacks, more water vapor, more methane from melting permafrost ... Positive feedbacks don't lead to stability.
You are an idiot. I'm glad that you're no longing commenting, because your arguments are puerile.
@bachfiend
ReplyDeletebach
ReplyDeleteI agree. Your self description is outstanding!