So about that Global Warming thing....

[Viva Las Espuelas]

.....and in 10 years china will consume what the whole world consumes today.

[Nbadan]

There is a common myth that the United States has become more dependent on foreign oil because it has failed to expand production domestically. The truth is that the United States is not an exceptionally oil-rich area, especially after decades of intensive extraction: proven reserves are only about 22 billion barrels. In contrast, the Middle East has 740 billion barrels in proven reserves. And we've already reached the apex for American oil extraction, as domestic oil production has declined by half since hitting its peak in 1970.

Proposals for expanding domestic oil production into fragile areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are dramatically shortsighted. While damaging a pristine and long-protected environmental area, the additional resources would be a drop in the bucket in reducing the amount of imported oil. Oil fields in the Arctic Refuge would likely produce less in total than what the United States now consumes in six months, and less than 1 percent of the oil we are projected to consume over the 50 year production lifetime. Even at the point of its peak production rate in 2027, it would likely equal less than 2 percent of projected U.S. consumption for that year.

[tlongII]

There is a common myth that the United States has become more dependent on foreign oil because it has failed to expand production domestically. The truth is that the United States is not an exceptionally oil-rich area, especially after decades of intensive extraction: proven reserves are only about 22 billion barrels. In contrast, the Middle East has 740 billion barrels in proven reserves. And we've already reached the apex for American oil extraction, as domestic oil production has declined by half since hitting its peak in 1970.

Proposals for expanding domestic oil production into fragile areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are dramatically shortsighted. While damaging a pristine and long-protected environmental area, the additional resources would be a drop in the bucket in reducing the amount of imported oil. Oil fields in the Arctic Refuge would likely produce less in total than what the United States now consumes in six months, and less than 1 percent of the oil we are projected to consume over the 50 year production lifetime. Even at the point of its peak production rate in 2027, it would likely equal less than 2 percent of projected U.S. consumption for that year.

Bull . You don't know what you're talking about.

[Nbadan]

Bull . You don't know what you're talking about.

Don't take my word for it go the Realclimate website and read what real climate scientist have to say about global climate change...

[travis2]

Yes, let's see what real climate scientists have to say...

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.ht...81196a6d71&k=0

And I wouldn't take your word for whether or not the sky was blue.

[travis2]

Or maybe...http://www.climateaudit.org/

[remingtonbo2001]

Why can't we just agree that no one is really sure?


You don't know, I don't know.

However, I'm taking bets. Just paypal the money to my account and we'll check back in 40 years. Promise.

[travis2]

Why can't we just agree that no one is really sure?


You don't know, I don't know.

However, I'm taking bets. Just paypal the money to my account and we'll check back in 40 years. Promise.

Actually, I've never claimed a solid position. Only the anti-human bigots like some of the above claim that any disagreement with their position is support for the opposite.

[peewee's lovechild]

First off, 90% of the population doesn't drive diesel engines.

Moron, that was my point.

I'm sorry you didn't understand that.
I forgot we have to speak slooooooooooowly to you.

Second, once again, what part of, the EPA's gross restrictions on the engines is strapping businesses don't you understand?

So, you'll mortgage the future to save a couple of dollars today??

Honestly, you're willing to make your kids and grandkids suffer because you want to save a couple of dollars??

**EDIT**
No body in their right mind would you, so it may be a moot point to answer the second question.

[peewee's lovechild]

When ANY of you alarmist wads actually shows me any credentials that prove to me you have the brains to read and understand what goes into climate research, I'll listen to you.

Until then, take your Stalinist dreams and shove them straight up your ass. None of you have shown me you have the slightest scientific or mathematical education to be able to sort truth from fiction concerning these reports.

Stalin was a climatologist??

That's interesting.

[peewee's lovechild]

Oh, BTW...my MS is in Electrical Engineering, as is my PhD-in-progress (specifically in statistical signal processing). Further, I have spent the last 15 years of my professional career concentrating on measurement technology, measurement processes, and measurement uncertainty. Trust me...I can follow the math, and I can follow the physics. And what the IPCC is doing is criminal, the way they have perverted the scientific process for their own personal gain.

And yet you still used the term "Stalinist dreams" to describe global warming?

Hey, can you explain to me in terms of measurement, or perhaps in mathematical terms, what happens to all the carbon emitted from vehicles and coal plants and what not?

What does carbon do to our atmosphere?

What are the repurcussions of having too much carbon in the atmosphere?

Do you know what the ozone layer is?

What would cause the ozone layer to dissapate?

Since 1900, how much carbon has been emitted to the atmosphere and what has been the cause?

In what percentage has carbon emission gone up every decade since 1900?

[Don Quixote]

Why can't we just agree that no one is really sure?


You don't know, I don't know.

However, I'm taking bets. Just paypal the money to my account and we'll check back in 40 years. Promise.

Yes, an agnostic on global warming. What a reasonable position. So reasonable that I happen to hold to it myself.

If we're going to do the serious damage to our economy, food supply, etc., that the enviros are surely wanting, we better be darn sure that this crisis is real, not imaginary.

[Wild Cobra]

Don't take my word for it go the Realclimate website and read what real climate scientist have to say about global climate change...

Propaganda Dan, RealClimate is a site of propaganda!

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I gotta jump in here...

Hey, can you explain to me in terms of measurement, or perhaps in mathematical terms, what happens to all the carbon emitted from vehicles and coal plants and what not?

I can not, but the ocean's equilibrium is such that it sinks carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. In fact, the oceans contain 50 times the CO2 as the atmosphere.

What does carbon do to our atmosphere?

Increase the growth of plants. CO2 levels already trap most of the IR that can be trapped. There is very little increase to temperature by increasing CO2. The IPCC and alarmists use the same old misunderstood sciences that indicates a 1.5 C to 4.5 C increase in temperature by doubling CO2. Doubling CO2 can not increase the temperature this much. Modern understanding of CO2 gas models make this assessment impossible. It is likely under 0.5 C for doubling CO2 levels.

What are the repercussions of having too much carbon in the atmosphere?

Be specific. We do have a carbon problem. It's called soot, or black carbon. Asia is causing this soot to fall over the arctic ice cap, increasing the melt rate substantially. CO2 is not a problem for man kind until at least the 3% point (30,000 ppm). It will likely cause problems for more sensitive life like birds before that, but we will never see such levels.

Do you know what the ozone layer is?

What would cause the ozone layer to dissapate?

Several things do that. Primarily, the 11 year solar cycle. The southern pole gets hit harder because of the polarity of the magnetism, and that the earth is closest to the sun in early January. Total irradiance from the sun is normally about 0.1% higher with high sunspot activity, but the cosmic radiation responsible for atmospheric changes increase even higher.

Since 1900, how much carbon has been emitted to the atmosphere and what has been the cause?

A great deal. Our atmosphere now contains about 40% more CO2 than it did a hundred years ago. The cause is debatable. The obvious answer is that we produce it from burning fuel and coal. Still, volcanic eruptions account for large volumes too. You see, there is another equilibrium of about 28 ppm for every 1 C of average ocean temperature change. It appears the oceans have warmed by 3 C since 1900. That would account for 84 ppm of the 387 ppm. In 1900, the level was about 280 ppm. The natural balance would change the 280 ppm to about 364 ppm. Well within error range considering we now measure atmospheric CO2 in warm places like Hawaii rather than the historical ice core records.

In what percentage has carbon emission gone up every decade since 1900?

Emission doesn't matter. What matters is can it be slinked fast enough.

Consider this:



Notice that alarmists will pick a starting period of low temperature to today's relative high. This shows highs to highs, and lows to lows, correlating to under 0.2 C increase over your coveted 100 years. Now here's a kicker... Solar irradiance in now about 0.1% long term average higher now (after 1950) than 1900 and earlier. That 0.1% increase may seem insignificant, but considering how cold the earth would be with no solar radiation, it amounts to over 0.2 C just by the increase in solar irradiation. Matches up pretty good to the 0.18 C trend when all averages are taken into account.

FromNASA:

[Nbadan]

Yes, let's see what real climate scientists have to say...

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.ht...81196a6d71&k=0

And I wouldn't take your word for whether or not the sky was blue.

Let's see...

Edward Wegman ...Dr. Wegman indicated that the report had only been peer-reviewed by those he selected

Wikipedia

Nice...

[Nbadan]

Or maybe...http://www.climateaudit.org/

Steve McIntyre...

Inc. When Northwest Explorations Inc. was taken over in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc. to form the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased being a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003.[4]



Prior to 2003 he was an officer or director of several small public mineral exploration companies.

Wikipedia

A guy who has had or continues to have interest in mineral and oil and gas...no bias there!

[Nbadan]

anti-human bigots

That's about all you need to know about God-fearing Travis...

[Nbadan]

If we're going to do the serious damage to our economy, food supply, etc., that the enviros are surely wanting, we better be darn sure that this crisis is real, not imaginary.

Yes, people who care about the environment we are leaving our children want us to starve.

[Nbadan]

Propaganda Dan, RealClimate is a site of propaganda!

Of course...that the standard answer to anything you don't believe in...

[Nbadan]

I can not, but the ocean's equilibrium is such that it sinks carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. In fact, the oceans contain 50 times the CO2 as the atmosphere.

..and all that CO2 just magically disappears in the ocean, right?

Acid Oceans From Carbon Dioxide Will Endanger One Third Of Marine Life, Scientists Predict

“It appears this acidification is now taking place over decades, rather than centuries as originally predicted. It is happening even faster in the cooler waters of the Southern Ocean than in the tropics. It is starting to look like a very serious issue.”

Corals and plankton with chalky skeletons are at the base of the marine food web. They rely on sea water saturated with calcium carbonate to form their skeletons. However, as acidity intensifies, the saturation declines, making it harder for the animals to form their skeletal structures (calcify).

“Analysis of coral cores shows a steady drop in calcification over the last 20 years,” says Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of CoECRS and the University of Queensland. “There’s not much debate about how it happens: put more CO2 into the air above and it dissolves into the oceans.

“When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you put calcification out of business in the oceans.” (Atmospheric CO2 levels are presently 385 ppm, up from 305 in 1960.)

Science daily

[Wild Cobra]

Of course...that the standard answer to anything you don't believe in...

No, I call it like I see it. I have done exhaustive work on the subject and I understand the sciences behind global warming. I see it as nothing more than natural cycles, with no significant impact by us. The alarmists use lies, cherry picked data, and propaganda to try convince us man made warming is real.

I suspect this is a one-world-government ploy to knock the USA and other first world countries down. Look at the key players. All globalists!

[Wild Cobra]

..and all that CO2 just magically disappears in the ocean, right?

Acid Oceans From Carbon Dioxide Will Endanger One Third Of Marine Life, Scientists Predict



Science daily

Another alarmist article.

About 1/3rd of a PH unit... Do you know what that means? Most people don't. A PH unit is a factor of ten. 0.301 PH change is a factor of two. How can our increased CO2 in the atmosphere possible chnage the ocean PH that much? Please show me the math. If you understood the carbon cycle, the amount of CO2 in the world, and how much we produced....

Keep it up Propaganda Dan... You really earned the name.

[Nbadan]

Yes, it's is about keeping America down

or....... we can't afford to be wrong about the socio-economic effects of global climate change...it we are wrong then we're out a few billion dollars, but if they're right, we're out our future and our children's future....

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, it's is about keeping America down

or....... we can't afford to be wrong about the socio-economic effects of global climate change...it we are wrong then we're out a few billion dollars, but if they're right, we're out our future and our children's future....

Those of us who understand the sciences and see the relevant data do not fear increased CO2. It is a financial or world domination driven agenda, or else the so called experts advocating it are really stupid. I refuse to sit by and let people like you who piss in their pants over the fear lead us to economic ruin.

In fact, to get the results of ocean acification you pet article said, we would have had to expel modern day CO2 levels for 185 years, and have no deep ocean mixing or farther chemical changes from the carbonic acid. The article claims it was over 50 years... No degradation of the carbonic acid and having deep ocean mixing would require over 7,000 years of our current CO2 emissions to change the ocean PH that much.

Nature alone makes changes that dwarf what mankind can do.

Do you have a clue as to how massive the oceans are compared to the atmosphere?

[travis2]

Don't confuse our local communist with facts. He barely has enough time to post while he's sucking off the corpse of his hero, Joe Stalin.

And I don't know if his accusing others of bias is hysterical or just plain sad.