"Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sec24Row7

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

---

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

By the way, feel free to test WC's intellectual honesty.

---

I already did in my earlier posts in this thread. He's a complete denier. I don't believe global warming theory is correct but he denies that there is any reason to reduce CO2 emissions.

Quote:

---

That is still not quite certain. What is more certain is that the longer we wait the less likely we will be able to do something about it, and the more expensive it will be.

---

As I mentioned 2050 is the conservative prediction of doom and gloom. At some point you have to agree that the predictions of global warming theory have to be correct or global warming theory isn't correct.

Quote:

---

Please don't tell me you are one of the "nuclear is the only answer to fossil fuels" crowd.

Nuclear has its share of drawbacks that outweigh it benefits enough to the point where it isn't really an economically viable option.

---

If the 2050 prediction is correct then nuclear is the only thing that can be done fast enough and provide enough energy. If you subract litigation from environmentalists it only takes around 6 years to build a reactor. It is economically viable, the South Texas Plant is currently building two new reactors (the 1st new reactors in the US over 25 years). They're doing it with investor money, didn't need to raise taxes or have some cap and trade scheme. Storage of waste isn't a problem, Yucca mountain. Plus advances in plasma waste disposal technology or something similar will probably eliminate the need to store nuclear waste.

See this is where I always begin to question wether GW believers actually believe there own words. The world is coming to an end but it would be better to let it happen than storing some nuclear waste underground in the middle of a desert. Makes no sense.

I thought this was a good article. Have there been ANY environmental catastrophic predictions that HAVE been correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter E. Williams

Environmentalists' Wild Predictions
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."

C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."

In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdat...ML/Slide13.png

Here is a good example of how to make a case with graphs.

---

Further, look at the graph for solar irradiance.

in 1750 it was at a tad over 1370. Now it seems to be a tad under 1371.

This is LESS than a variance of 7 hundredths of one percent.

Yet temperatures have climbed by more than 7 hundredths of one percent in that time, if you simply look at the average global temperatures in the same graph.

The slope of average global temperatures shows a general upwards curve, yet the slope of the solar irradiance line is virtually flat.

Why is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Storage of waste isn't a problem, Yucca mountain.

---

Really? How much waste is currently stored there again?

I don't really have anything against nuclear per se, but the fact that nukes have a VERY poor record of massive cost overruns would tend to indicate to me that they aren't really economically viable.

To get me on board, you would have to handle the following concerns not present in other competing forms of power.

1) Security of waste/fuel shipments.
2) Use of water.
3) NIMBY. (all forms of power have the NIMBY effect, but anyone who says that nukes don't have MUCH more resistance than other forms of power, rightly or wrongly, is lying)
4) Cost overruns. (see NIMBY, all it takes is a lawsuit to delay construction a few years and watch the costs mount)

I would support something like this from nuclear power:

1) Uniform, standardized, most current generation reactors. France did what they did using standardized reactors, and this cut their unit costs considerably to my understanding.

2) Very limited use of water. Water is becoming a serious drawback for steam powered electricity generation, as well as cooling reactors.

3) Very very very limited and secure waste/fuel shipments.

Personally, the above seems like more bother than it is worth, when one could just as easily spend money on standardizing and improving solar and wind, especially for distributed generation schemes that offer the added benefit of making the grid more robust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Ah yes, the Global Warming Petition Project.
A list of signers shows the components of that 31,000
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdat...f_Signers.html

Like…

IV) Food Science (74)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,075)

Because Food Science and Electrical Engineering are disciplines intimately involved in evaluating climate data, right?

The requirements to get on this list of petitioners?
A printer, a stamped envelope, and legible handwriting.
Sounds to me to be eerily similar to the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.

They have a petition too.

---

First of all, the requirements were B.S. (Bachelor of Science) degree of higher.

Attacking Food Sciences? From wiki on Food Sciences:

Quote:

---

Food science is a highly interdisciplinary applied science. It incorporates concepts from many different fields including microbiology, chemical engineering, biochemistry, and many others.

Some of the subdisciplines of food science include:

Food safety - the causes, prevention and communication dealing with foodborne illness
Food microbiology - the positive and negative interactions between micro-organisms and foods
Food preservation - the causes and prevention of quality degradation
Food engineering - the industrial processes used to manufacture food
Product development - the invention of new food products
Sensory analysis - the study of how food is perceived by the consumer's senses
Food chemistry - the molecular composition of food and the involvement of these molecules in chemical reactions
Food packaging - the study of how packaging is used to preserve food after it has been processed and contain it through distribution.
Molecular gastronomy - the scientific investigation of processes in cooking, social & artistic gastronomical phenomena
Food technology - the technological aspects
Food physics - the physical aspects of foods (such as viscosity, creaminess, and texture)

---

Tell me that understanding Food Chemistry and Molecular Gastronomy doesn’t enlighten one to parts of Climatology. You must have all the prerequisite sciences for these classes.

How about [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_Engineering]Electrical Engineering]:

Quote:

---

Electrical engineers typically possess an academic degree with a major in electrical engineering. The length of study for such a degree is usually four or five years and the completed degree may be designated as a Bachelor of Engineering, Bachelor of Science, Bachelor of Technology or Bachelor of Applied Science depending upon the university. The degree generally includes units covering physics, mathematics, computer science, project management and specific topics in electrical engineering. Initially such topics cover most, if not all, of the sub-disciplines of electrical engineering. Students then choose to specialize in one or more sub-disciplines towards the end of the degree.

---

I know from experience the level of mathematics and physics that such a degree entails. Probably far more than required for climatologists!

I did a search, and once I found a list at a university, I looked at it. For a BS in Climatology, CHEM 111 and 132 are required. CSCI 142 or 201. MATH 191, 192, 291, and 394. PHYS 221 and 222, and STAT 225. Several Atmospheric (ATMS) courses. Problem here, is they are all simple weather and metrology except for one:

Quote:

---

420 Applied Climatology (3)
Application of climatological and statistical principles to weather-sensitive fields such as agriculture, construction, transportation and energy conservation. Prerequisite: ATMS 405 or permission of instructor. See department chair.

---

That doesn’t add much to being a climatologist if you ask me.

There were Climatology related courses not required:

Quote:

---

223 Physical Climatology (3)
Causes of spatial and temporal climate variation, with special emphasis on energy and water balance regions of the earth and its atmosphere. Consequences of anthropogenic climate change will be explored. Prerequisite: ATMS 103 or 105. On demand.

331 Principles of Air Pollution (ENVR 331) (3)
Sources, sinks and controls of air pollution, legal aspects, meteorological factors which influence air pollution, analytical techniques for quantifying air pollution. Prerequisites: CHEM 111,132 and one of the following: ATMS 103 or 105, or ENVR 130. On demand.

340 General Climatology (3)
A technical study of the physical controls of climate and the applicability of climatology to people's activities. Prerequisites: ATMS 103 or 105; MATH 191. See department chair.

---

Here are the required courses:

Quote:

---

CHEM 111 General Chemistry Laboratory (1)
CHEM 132 General Chemistry (3)
CSCI 142 Computer Programming I (FORTRAN) (3) or 201 Introduction to Algorithm Design (3) [weird! Misprint on one maybe?]
MATH 191 Calculus I (4)
MATH 192 Calculus II (4)
MATH 291 Calculus III (4)
MATH 394 Differential Equations (3)
PHYS 221 Physics I (4)
PHYS 222 Physics II (4)
STAT 225 Introduction to Calculus-Based Statistics (4)
ATMS 103 Introduction to Meteorology (3)
ATMS 205 Weather Analysis (3)
ATMS 241 Geography in Meteorology (1 hr)
ATMS 251 Mathematics in Meteorology (1 hr)
ATMS 261 UNIX Applications in Meteorology (1)
ATMS 305 Atmospheric Thermodynamics and Statics (3)
ATMS 310 Atmospheric Kinematics and Dynamics (3)
ATMS 320 Meteorological Instruments (3)
ATMS 405 Meteorological Statistics (3)
ATMS 410 Synoptic Meteorology I (4)
ATMS 411 Synoptic Meteorology II (4)
ATMS 420 Applied Climatology (3)
ATMS 455 Physical Meteorology (3)

---

What’s missing? The most important things. Geosciences! That’s why I use the likes of NOAA and NASA research to complete my knowledge. Not mere Climatologists. Most of them are a joke when they fall for the political dogma of global warming. They have no understanding of long term solar effects and other things relaing to the weather that are not associated with day to day predictions. Climatology, by title, does not give the person the proper background to assess global climate changes. It is only a very small slice relative to geosciences. Climatology is limited to the present climate. Not any long term fluxes involved, or historical comparisons. The people to listen to are those with Goescience degrees, like paleoclimatologists. Not glorified weathermen! My God… How many times are meteorologists wrong? As for Climatologists, they are no more capable by title to measure and predict cause and effects of long term climate changes any more than any other profession requiring a Bachelor of Sciences degree.

I’ll bet the sciences of chemistry and physics are more demanding in many areas other than Climatology!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

They say most, not all.

---

Quote:

---

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.8
This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most
of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to
have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations” (Figure
2.5). {WGI 9.4, SPM}

---

Quote:

---

The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4
in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000
years.

---

Probability of Occurrence IAW IPCC:

Quote:

---

<01% Exceptionally Unlikely
<05% Extremely Unlikely
<10% Very Unlikely
<33% Unlikely
<50% Less Likely than Not
33% to 66% About as likely as not
>50% More Likely than Not
>66% Likely
>90% Very Likely
>95% Extremely Likely
>99% Virtual Certainty

Confidence in Conclusion:

<10% Very Low
~20% Low
~50% Medium
~ 80% High
>90% Very High

---

So, you like a 2 out of 3 chance augmented by most (50%), or 1 in three odds?

Wow... 33% is good with you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Really? How much waste is currently stored there again?

---

This is a typical tactic of so called environmentalists. Do everything possible to prevent any progress through litigation and political pressure. Then use the lack of progress as an argument against it.

The fact remains that nuclear energy is the only viable technology to solve the problem in the short amount of time we suppossedly have left. The "green" solutions (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal) only have the capacity to be supplemental forms of energy production. I believe solar will ultimately be the energy source for mankind but not in our lifetimes. There needs to be considerable advances in it's efficiency and perhaps more importantly a true breakthrough in energy storage technology.

Interestingly enough, the same illogical approach is used in the area of transportation fuel. Simply pursuing efficiency technology such as carbon fiber to make vehicles lighter and switching to natural gas would reduce CO2 emissions from vehicles to an acceptable level. Instead of pursuing this approach the GW chooses to pursue electric vehicles and biofuels, both of which have serious issues in terms of viability.

With electric vehicles you have the whole issue of lithium supply. There probably isn't enough lithium on the planet to switch all the vehicles over. And once again there isn't enough time to develop new battery technology according to the GW doomsday timeline.

Pursuing biofuels is even worse. First there is the question of viability but even worse is the fact that we are actually increasing CO2 levels by pursuing biofuels. Some estimate that up to 20% of manmade CO2 emissions could be mitigated simply by halting the clearing of rainforests. Not just from the uptake of CO2 by forests but because burning is the method use to clear the forests. Instead rainforests are being cleared at an ever increasing rate to grow valuable biofuel crops. If you like the idea of man's closest relative, orangatans, living happily in the forest well too bad. It's pretty much accepted that they have no chance of surving now that Borneo's forests are being cleared rapidly because palm oil brings such a nice price now.

I think it's an interesting question as to why so called environmentalists are opposed to real solutions in favor of ineffective or even harmful solutions. I don't really know the answer but I think for some it's just a niave feel good factor of technologies that they deem earth friendly. For the more powerful (Gore, Pickens, etc.) I think the motivation is simply money. In any case, I think environmentalists are often the worst friend the environment could ever have.

And just for grins, here is an article on an evironmentally friendly wind farms.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...lls-usat_x.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

That was a tad unfair. I would give the Global Warming Petition project a bit more credibility than the twoofers any day.

But, it does not show me an overwhelming consensus of scientists. Nor does it provide a large, formal organization that disbelieves the AGW theory.

---

31,000 is not an overwhelming consensus compared to the 52(?) who wrote and edited the final writing for the IPCC? Or other alarmists?

Remember. The hundreds the IPCC claims are not part of their consensus!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

And just for grins, here is an article on an evironmentally friendly wind farms.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...lls-usat_x.htm

---

:lol

Fuck birds. Gimmie my electricity.

























Didn't see that one coming didja? :p:

Seriously, the birdkill is a price I am willing to pay for wind power. All forms of electricity have their costs, and, in my opinion, the costs in this case are far outweighed by the benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randomguy said

They say most, not all.


Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.8
This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most
of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to
have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations” (Figure
2.5). {WGI 9.4, SPM}


The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4
in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000
years.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Probability of Occurrence IAW IPCC:

<01% Exceptionally Unlikely
<05% Extremely Unlikely
<10% Very Unlikely
<33% Unlikely
<50% Less Likely than Not
33% to 66% About as likely as not
>50% More Likely than Not
>66% Likely
>90% Very Likely
>95% Extremely Likely
>99% Virtual Certainty

Confidence in Conclusion:

<10% Very Low
~20% Low
~50% Medium
~ 80% High
>90% Very High

So, you like a 2 out of 3 chance augmented by most (50%), or 1 in three odds?

Wow... 33% is good with you?

---

http://media.bigoo.ws/content/image/bunny/bunny_11.gif

Let me go back and re-do your math for you, Mr.-I'm-smarter-than-99%-of-the-population.

Quote:

---

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.

---

Quote:

---

Probability of Occurrence IAW IPCC:

<01% Exceptionally Unlikely
<05% Extremely Unlikely
<10% Very Unlikely
<33% Unlikely
<50% Less Likely than Not
33% to 66% About as likely as not
>50% More Likely than Not
>66% Likely
>90% Very Likely
>95% Extremely Likely
>99% Virtual Certainty

---

I won't even bother with "most" for you, and will stick to your 51%.

.51*.9= .46%

In this case, we aren't even talking about odds, we are talking about expected values ala basic probabilities.

Why should I assign weight to your assessments if you both can't read and confuse simple concepts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

31,000 is not an overwhelming consensus compared to the 52(?) who wrote and edited the final writing for the IPCC? Or other alarmists?

Remember. The hundreds the IPCC claims are not part of their consensus!

---

31,000 people signing a petition is not a formal organization, is it?

If that is the definition of a large formal organization, then you must include the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth as a valid organization by the same definition.

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

It also begs the question:

"Are all of these scientists really that irrational/illogical/unethical, and you out of the thousands of people who have looked at the data aren't?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

They have been bought and paid for by politicians, or jobs in jeopardy if they don’t play along.

---

So all of these scientists that you disagree with are putting out lies and spin and useless junk science, but the ones you agree with are the only ones doing actual research with evidence that logically supports their conclusions?

Gotcha.

As long as you agree with the ideology, then the science is valid.

That sounds just like what drove the Soviet science community to totally suck, and to lag behind western science.

Since you have ascribed a motive to all of these scientists, please provide proof of this motive, and proof that they are deliberately lying and falsifying evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Seriously, the birdkill is a price I am willing to pay for wind power. All forms of electricity have their costs, and, in my opinion, the costs in this case are far outweighed by the benefits.

---

Well going back to the my interesting question. Why are you willing to pay any price for a technology that will do virtually nothing to impact global warming dilema you believe in? Seriously, I really would like to know why people like you embrace these types of things. It is just an irrational, illogical way of thinking to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Well going back to the my interesting question. Why are you willing to pay any price for a technology that will do virtually nothing to impact global warming dilema you believe in? Seriously, I really would like to know why people like you embrace these types of things. It is just an irrational, illogical way of thinking to me.

---

Solar and wind will do "virtually nothing", but nuclear will be the panacea to stave off the worst effects of CO2-caused global warming?

Seriously?

I am an accountant. I am about what is economically feasible, and what offers the best cost per dollar spent.

Birdkill for wind power is not "any price" it is a rather measurable and known quantity, just as the problems associated with nuclear, which you failed to address.

These problems are solvable and quantifiable.

The only reason you don't like wind is that it doesn't seem to be your pet idea.

The reality is way more complex and doesn't point to any one solution, sorry. Nuclear will be part of a future power mix, but do not offer much bang for the buck, because at present it has a lot of serious drawbacks.

How do you propose to solve the water problem of cooling?
How do you propose to solve the problem of water consumption in the fuel mining process?

These are logical questions to ask, and should be addressed by any reasonable proposal.

You want to shoehorn me based on some cardboard cutout of what you think a "liberal" is, and sorry reality doesn't work that way either.

I get very leery of people who claim to have a monopoly on "logic and rationality".

Based on the evidence that I have seen, solar and wind offer the best alternative, with geothermal following close behind.

Nukes are all well and good, but the first time a waste shipment is targeted by 20 idiots who aren't afraid to die and have access to enough high explosive truck bombs to breach the container, the costs associated with nukes will go waaay past what most are willing to pay.

I would rather not bother, and think we can better spend our money elsewhere. If that is "illogical and irrational", oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

---

10 minutes to put the whole debate in perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

10 minutes to put the whole debate in perspective.

---

If you follow this guy's logic, we should have been trying to warm up the atmosphere back in the 1970's to stave off the global cooling that was being predicted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

These problems are solvable and quantifiable.

---

Well thanks for the unbiased link. Under what cost category is fighting legal challenges from environmental groups?

Where is the acreage required to supply energy needs category?

The design of coal and nuclear plants can't be duplicated. :blah I loved that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The only reason you don't like wind is that it doesn't seem to be your pet idea.

---

No, I don't like it because it isn't a viable alternative. Same with solar. You really can't do more to "go green" than Germany has done. They're now building new coal fire plants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

How do you propose to solve the water problem of cooling?
How do you propose to solve the problem of water consumption in the fuel mining process?

---

Get more water. Or ask the French, Japanese, US plants, how they do it? It's not a new technology.

I'm all for wind and solar, but the amount of windmills and solar arrays would have to be increased by orders of magnitude to supply our energy needs. Maybe we can get everyone to move out of Nevada and cover the entire state with solar panels?

https://www.eere-pmc.energy.gov/PMC_.../energypie.jpg

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

These problems are solvable and quantifiable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Well thanks for the unbiased link. Under what cost category is fighting legal challenges from environmental groups?

Where is the acreage required to supply energy needs category?

The design of coal and nuclear plants can't be duplicated. :blah I loved that one.



No, I don't like it because it isn't a viable alternative. Same with solar. You really can't do more to "go green" than Germany has done. They're now building new coal fire plants.



Get more water. Or ask the French, Japanese, US plants, how they do it? It's not a new technology.

---

I made no claim about the links veracity or trustworthiness. The implication was merely that costs and benefits are quantifiable, and that the link provided was an example of such an analysis. There are a couple of things in the analsysis that I noted were probably a bit inaccurate, namely that nuclear and solar PV plants probably have much longer useful lives than was assumed.

I am not the one advocating nuclear power plants, if you don't know how they are getting their water, then don't make me do the research.

Your claim that it is the only solution, your burden of proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I'm all for wind and solar, but the amount of windmills and solar arrays would have to be increased by orders of magnitude to supply our energy needs.

https://www.eere-pmc.energy.gov/PMC_.../energypie.jpg

---

Not only that, we would need to solve the problem of storage. I think that was mentioned by Snake at some point.

Distributed power generation would alleviate a lot of this problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

That isn't a yes or no answer.

Either it is plausible or not.

---

Why do you complain about me not answeing simple questions that I have.

It is past plausable, it is real. There is a real warming effect from CO2. It is just insignificant!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

If we do nothing, and continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate far higher than it is absorbed, then is it at least plausible that we will see higher temperatures?

---

Yes, up to maybe another 1 C past current warming. However, I believe feedbacks will keep this from happening. We are talking about extreme levels of CO2 to do that however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

You have answered this question "yes" from what I understand, so let's go from there, I won't belabor the point.

If we dump a lot more CO2 into the air at a rate far faster than it is absorbed, exponential abasorption or not, will that mean a greater impact on temperatures?

---

Only a small impact on temperatures as CO2 already traps most the IR that it can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I expect you to dodge this question with either a non-answer, or another question. That would not be intellectually honest. Yes or no please, it is a fair question.

---

You complain about dodging questions, I just see repeated questions as irrelavant. I have never said more CO2 does not have no warning effect!

How about going back and answering my questions to you that you haven't yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I'm all for wind and solar, but the amount of windmills and solar arrays would have to be increased by orders of magnitude to supply our energy needs. Maybe we can get everyone to move out of Nevada and cover the entire state with solar panels?

https://www.eere-pmc.energy.gov/PMC_.../energypie.jpg

---

I have no problem with renewable energy sources as a supplemental engery supply. They have been used for decades.

The entire point of my posts to RandonGuy have been about the logic flaw in global warming predictions versus their proposed solutions. Everytime I have had this discussion it goes exactly the same. They try to change the subject because they really don't have a valid argument.

I'll restate the facts...

If the predictions of Global Warming theory are not valid then Global Warming theory is not a valid science.

If the predictions of Global Warming theory are correct then the only solution in the short time we have is an all out effort to go nuclear in the next 15-20 years max. All the "green" proposals cannot be implemented fast enough to avoid the doomsday prediction.

If you go back to my original post in this thread you'll see the real issue with CO2 emissions. We have considerably longer to address that issue and so we can pursue a much more reasonable approach now and hopefully new technologies will emerge over the next 50 - 100 years to resolve the issue entirely.

I am not proposing an all out effort to go nuclear. It's just the only realistic solution to the problem that alarmists believe in. And they are against it.:rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

By the by, the term for this is "half life", in that it is very similar to radioactive decay. That is the term that the climate scientists use to describe the persistance of greenhouse gasses.

I also noticed that, for all your reading on the subject, you couldn't answer the question of how persistant CO2 is.

---

To my knowledge, there is no known answer for this within any certainty I'm comfortable with. They use ratios of C12 to C13 to determine such things. However, all it tells us is how much fossile fuels were converted to atmospheric CO2 in the mix. Persistance is far too complicated, and not important. The other factors in the carbon cycle are more important. Sinking and sourcing. If sink = 0, persictance = infinity! If the oceans are warming, persistance is increased. If they cool, persistance is decreased. It has variations of it's own.

Persistance is highly skewed anyway when you consider the normal 92 gigatons of sinking in cold water to the 90 gigatons of sourcing from warm water. With only about a 2.2% annual reduction in CO2 at the current equilibrium imbalance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Your graph implies that the half-life of CO2 is (to my eye) about 10 years. The research I have read says it is more like a hundred or so, if not much longer.

---

It depends on the equilibrium imbalance. In balance, it's infinity.

Why does it matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Since this is your baliwhack, you find something about this on a website you trust and get back to me with a more firm answer as to the "half-life" of atmospheric CO2. Surely there is something in your denier peer-reviewed science about this.

---

Again, why does it matter?

Please stay with subjects of importance, or convince me it's important.