Global cooling!

[palerider]

Can you see that there is a conflict between the above two paragraphs?

Nope. We hardly create enough "greenhouse" gas to register. Not nearly enough even to overcome the natural deviation from year to year. Our contribution is statistically insignifigant. You have been lied to, and you have been frightened, and you have been manipulated by a group of people who want to keep the grant money rolling in to the tune of about 50 billion dollars per year.

 

[PLC1]

Nope. We hardly create enough "greenhouse" gas to register. Not nearly enough even to overcome the natural deviation from year to year. Our contribution is statistically insignifigant. You have been lied to, and you have been frightened, and you have been manipulated by a group of people who want to keep the grant money rolling in to the tune of about 50 billion dollars per year.

And, yet, there has been a significant increase since the beginning of the industrial age.

Of course that doesn't prove that humans have caused global climate change, as one of your paragraphs stated. The other said that we couldn't be the cause of it. That's the conflict in your statement.

 

[palerider]

And, yet, there has been a significant increase since the beginning of the industrial age.

Of course that doesn't prove that humans have caused global climate change, as one of your paragraphs stated. The other said that we couldn't be the cause of it. That's the conflict in your statement.

I have given accurate numbers for the amount of "greenhouse" gas that we are contributing. We do not contribute even enough to overcome the natural deviation. The increase is due to warmer oceans (been warming for some 14,000 years since the ice started melting) not being able to hold as much CO2 as cooler oceans. The increase is natural and is explained by the 500 to 1,000 year lag between warming and increased atmospheric CO2.

Tell me. How is it that you can look at the fact that mankind contributes one tenth of one percent of a gas that amounts to about 540 one thousanths of the atmosphere and believe that we are causing climate change? Are you not able to grasp how little that is? In the past 150 years atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280 to 360 parts per million. Do you have any idea what the average percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has been across the history of the earth? Any idea at all? Here is a chart showing the average atmospheric concentrations. Relative to hisorical norms, the atmosphere is starved for CO2 and we can't even produce enough to overcome the natural deviation from year to year

If you must be afraid, be afraid of something real. Anthropogenic climate change is a scam perpetrated upon those who aren't able to grasp the facts and make a rational assesment of them. You have been had and now your pride won't let you admit that you bought the scam.

 

[9sublime]

What does you chart show? The emissions from cars, or emissions from everything?

 

[palerider]

What does you chart show? The emissions from cars, or emissions from everything?

This chart shows the contribution to the "greenhouse" effect. The gray shows what is natural, and the green shows what is manmade. Our contribution is so small as to be statistically insignifigant.

These numbers mean something 9sublime. They tell a truth that goes beyond what you see and what you believe humanity's place and effect in the world is. A medium sized volcano can produce more CO2 in an 8 hour period than all of humanity can produce in a year. A truely large volcano like Krakatoa put more CO2 out during its eruption than mankind has produced since we walked out of the jungle. Face it. With regard to global climate, we are insiginifigant. We can certainly dirty up the place, no doubt about that, but dirtying up our living area is a far cry and a long shot from having an effect on the global climate.

Folks like PLC1 are great at parrotting the information that environmentalist organizations put out for public consumption, but it is clear that he has never looked at the information and asked the logical questions. Information is useless unless you are able to put it into some context, ask relavent questions and determine whether you are being told the truth or not.

 

[PLC1]

This chart shows the contribution to the "greenhouse" effect. The gray shows what is natural, and the green shows what is manmade. Our contribution is so small as to be statistically insignifigant.

These numbers mean something 9sublime. They tell a truth that goes beyond what you see and what you believe humanity's place and effect in the world is. A medium sized volcano can produce more CO2 in an 8 hour period than all of humanity can produce in a year. A truely large volcano like Krakatoa put more CO2 out during its eruption than mankind has produced since we walked out of the jungle. Face it. With regard to global climate, we are insiginifigant. We can certainly dirty up the place, no doubt about that, but dirtying up our living area is a far cry and a long shot from having an effect on the global climate.

Folks like PLC1 are great at parrotting the information that environmentalist organizations put out for public consumption, but it is clear that he has never looked at the information and asked the logical questions. Information is useless unless you are able to put it into some context, ask relavent questions and determine whether you are being told the truth or not.

Actually, I would like to be proven wrong on this one. There have been a couple of times I thought maybe I had been, but the facts simply didn't check out.

Here are some facts about carbon dioxide that didn't come out of an "environmentalist organization":

Carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere is considered a trace gas currently occurring at an average concentration of about 385 parts per million by volume or 582 parts per million by mass. The mass of the Earth atmosphere is 5.14×1018 kg [14], so the total mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 3.0×1015 kg (3,000 gigatonnes). Its concentration varies seasonally (see graph at right) and also considerably on a regional basis: in urban areas it is generally higher and indoors it can reach 10 times the background atmospheric concentration.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; see greenhouse effect for more.

Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.[15] In 1999, 2,244,804,000 metric tons of CO2 were produced in the U.S. as a result of electric energy generation. This is an output rate of 0.6083 kg (1.341 pounds) per kWh.[16]

A 35% increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is not insignificant, especially when you consider the feedback loops that spring from it.

2.2 X 10 to the 12 may not seem like much against a total concentration in the order of 10 to the 15th, but the one is for one year, in one country, and only one cause. Add it all together, and you have a significant contribution to the total carbon dioxide concentration made by humans.

Still, that doesn't prove that humans are the cause of global climate change, but it is some pretty compelling evidence that we are. What is certain, and yet dismissed as a myth, is that the climate of the Earth is changing. That change is going to affect humans whether we have caused it or not.

 

[9sublime]

Palerider, I want to know what that graph considers man made co2... because it could be excluding quite a few things.

Also, what is the time span of the contribution? Because that tiny contribution, over the entire existence of man, especially post-industrial revolution, is going to add up to something.

 

[PLC1]

Here's another radical environmental group promoting the myth of global climate change. When will it ever end?

 

[palerider]

Palerider, I want to know what that graph considers man made co2... because it could be excluding quite a few things.

It includes all sources of anthropogenic CO2 including your soda pop.

Also, what is the time span of the contribution? Because that tiny contribution, over the entire existence of man, especially post-industrial revolution, is going to add up to something.

It is our yearly contribution to atmospheric CO2. And we don't live in a static system so our CO2 output last year is irrelavent to our CO2 output this year. CO2 simply does not hang around. If it did, there would be no other gas in the atmosphere but CO2.

I get it. You are a true believer and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to diminish your belief that we are causing the climate to change. For some internal reason, you need to believe that we are driving the earth towards catastrophy. If you believe that our one tenth of one percent contribution to a gas that amounts to five hundred and forty thousanths of the atmosphere is driving us to ruin, go right ahead and believe it. And when that belief peters out and the grant money dries up for climate change you go right ahead and place your faith in the next biggest thing to come along. Far be it from me to try and interfere with your faith.

You have said that you believe that people should not try and ram their religions down other people's throats. I believe the same thing. Faith is defined as a belief in a thing not based on any sort of proof. Clearly you can't prove anthropogenic global warming so it is your faith. Believe all you want, but don't try and force me to pay my hard earned money into your religion.

 

[palerider]

Here's another radical environmental group promoting the myth of global climate change. When will it ever end?

Do you really believe that our one tenth of one percent contribution to a "greenhouse" gas that amounts to five hundred and forty one thousanths of the total atmosphere is driving global climate change? Do you believe that the earth's climate is balanced on such a knife edge?

 

[PLC1]

Do you really believe that our one tenth of one percent contribution to a "greenhouse" gas that amounts to five hundred and forty one thousanths of the total atmosphere is driving global climate change? Do you believe that the earth's climate is balanced on such a knife edge?

It doesn't take much to change the climate of the Earth. Take a look at the geological record to see how much climate has changed in the past.

Even a small change can have a great effect on life, especially on human life. The planet doesn't have to become like Venus in order to make a difference.

And, it doesn't really matter what I believe. I am not a climatologist. I'm just some guy with a computer doing a little on line research to see what the facts may be and who is saying what. So far, the scientific community seems to be telling us that the climate of the Earth is changing, that it is most likely that humans are at least accelerating that change. All of the hype and predictions of disaster are coming from political types, as is the assertion that climate change is not real despite evidence to the contrary.

As I've said before, it really doesn't matter whether humans are to blame or partially to blame for the changes we are seeing. It is likely that we are, but, if not, that fact won't make a real difference. The Earth will change, we can't stop it, we will have to learn to live with it.

 

[palerider]

It doesn't take much to change the climate of the Earth. Take a look at the geological record to see how much climate has changed in the past.

It was a yes/no question. Are you unable to simply say what you believe? Is what you believe so embarrassing to you that you find that you can't state it outright without qualification?

And, it doesn't really matter what I believe. I am not a climatologist. I'm just some guy with a computer doing a little on line research to see what the facts may be and who is saying what. So far, the scientific community seems to be telling us that the climate of the Earth is changing, that it is most likely that humans are at least accelerating that change. All of the hype and predictions of disaster are coming from political types, as is the assertion that climate change is not real despite evidence to the contrary.

Are you really interested in facts? Or are you interested in a political agenda?

I asked a couple of simple questions and you don't seem to be able to answer it outright. Let me ask one more time.

Do you really think that the one tenth of one percent that we contribute to a gas that comprises five hundred and forty one thousanths of the atmosphere is driving global climate change.

And do you believe that the earth's climate is balanced on such a knife edge that our contribution of one tenth of one percent to a gas that is five hundred and forty one thousanths of the atmosphere can tip the balance?

 

[Pidgey]

Sorry... had a family emergency with the mother-in-law: pneumonia and a concurrent bad UTI. She's in her 80s and I can see that we're beginning a very rough time.

Anyhow...

Warren Anderson is a physicist.
Dennis Avery is a sales director.
Robert Carter is a lawyer.

I didn't check any of the others. Is there a recognized climatologist on the list anywhere?

My query was actually regarding why one would particulary want a climatologist in the list of contributors.

S. Fred Singer (the editor of that paper) was Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia. He had an awful lot to do with a lot of weather and climate study programs for over 40 years including some of the satellite development programs. The actual graphs and scientific portion references included within the paper are listed in several pages at the end of the paper. If you're looking for a list of the scientists who actually "contributed" to the body of the work, that would be your list. Anything else would just be final assembly, legal and other such stuff.

In the little spare time that I've had in the last few days, I've been working on some Excel spreadsheets to get a better idea of how much CO2 we're actually releasing. It's not so hard to figure by way of going to the government's sites regarding the worldwide consumption figures for oil, coal and gas. I have to make some allowances for the carbon/hydrogen ratios for each component because of variances but they're pretty good. Coal is the worst (to calculate) because they list it in terms of BTUs. The estimate that I got is a little high, though, because a portion of total goes into producing solids like plastics and whatnot.

I've also calculated the CO2 total mass in the atmosphere based on the average taken at Mauna Loa. Got a few more things to check but I don't know if I'll have a chance to get to it today.

Pidgey

 

[PLC1]

It was a yes/no question. Are you unable to simply say what you believe? Is what you believe so embarrassing to you that you find that you can't state it outright without qualification?

I already told you what I believe.

Are you really interested in facts? Or are you interested in a political agenda?

As I've said repeatedly, my opinion is based on what I've read in apolitical journals such as the National Geographic and Discover, as well as online research. It is the headinthesanders who have opinions based on a political agenda.

I asked a couple of simple questions and you don't seem to be able to answer it outright. Let me ask one more time.

Do you really think that the one tenth of one percent that we contribute to a gas that comprises five hundred and forty one thousanths of the atmosphere is driving global climate change.

And do you believe that the earth's climate is balanced on such a knife edge that our contribution of one tenth of one percent to a gas that is five hundred and forty one thousanths of the atmosphere can tip the balance?

Once again, I've answered outright. Yes, I think that it doesn't take much to change the climate of the Earth enough to be noticeable, especially given the feedback loops that are created. A 35% increase in carbon dioxide appears to be enough to make a difference, at least, that is what science is telling us. Pundits, of course, have a different opinion.

Since your argument is based solely on the fact that carbon dioxide makes up only a small part of the atmosphere, let me ask you a yes or no:

Do you think that the Earth would be different without that five hundred and forty one thousandths of the atmosphere?

 

[palerider]

Once again, I've answered outright. Yes, I think that it doesn't take much to change the climate of the Earth enough to be noticeable, especially given the feedback loops that are created. A 35% increase in carbon dioxide appears to be enough to make a difference, at least, that is what science is telling us. Pundits, of course, have a different opinion.

OK. Finally a comittment. You say that you think that our one tenth of one percent contribution to a gas that amounts to five hundred and forty thousanths of the total atmosphere is driving climate change.

Now. If our one tenth of one percent can drive climate change, explain, if you will why the earth's own natural deviation doesn't drive climate change when it can vary by as much as 3% per year.

Since your argument is based solely on the fact that carbon dioxide makes up only a small part of the atmosphere, let me ask you a yes or no:

Do you think that the Earth would be different without that five hundred and forty one thousandths of the atmosphere?

Clearly, my argument isn't based upon nothing more than the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. I was trying to get you to see that your belief that our one tenth of one percent contribution is insignifigant when compared to the earths own natural deviation of up to 3 percent per year. If that natural deviation of 3% isn't enough to tip the scales and cause a shift in climate, how then can our one tenth of one percent contribution have an effect. We would have to produce more than the earth's natural deviation in order to have any affect at all and we don't even come close.