Controversial new climate change results

Controversial new climate change results
( -- New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of CO2 has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of CO2 having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.

So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? “Not necessarily”, says Knorr. “Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed”.

Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.

More information: Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? by Wolfgang Knorr. Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613, 2009.

Provided by University of Bristol (news : web)

Explore further

Scientists close in on missing carbon sink

Citation: Controversial new climate change results (2009, November 10) retrieved 24 May 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 10, 2009
"Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent."

Wow! that's a really large error range. Might as well say 0 - 100% error. It leaves me to beleive that the precent error is entirely based on how you look at the study specifics and results, meaning the error was derived without indepth analysis of the study. For example, are you considering just the acts of cutting the forests, or are you also considering the long term loss of CO2 absorbed by these ecosystems.

Either way and regardless of this study, nothing has changed. We still must change our fuel source to non-burning or hydrogen fuel for a multitude of reasons: Cancer, smogg, Ocean dead zones, acid rain, economic sense, technological sense, national security, cost, and yes, still global warming not to mention an infinite number of effects yet to be identified. We are definitely playing with fire, a little water costs nothing in the grand sceem.

Nov 10, 2009
"The strength of the new that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data...and does not rely on computations with complex climate models."

Relies of data not models - what an interesting concept. When will they learn that models are not data.

Nov 10, 2009
You said it best Gunslingor1, whether or not climate change is man made is irrelevant. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the world is heating up cooling down, or staying the same - because climate change is all about IDEOLOGY, and climate change legislation is how to FORCE that ideology on everyone else.

The wealthy love climate change laws because they allow the upper classes to live at current levels of consumption at the expense of the middle and lower classes. It is a redistribution of both wealth and liberty from the lower classes to the upper classes and elites, who will then govern the rest on behalf of "mother earth."

Nov 10, 2009
You said it....

Thanks, and I do agree that the legislation is intentionally overburdening consumers when it should be forcing industry to change. A lot of money has gone into promoting conservation by consumers. Nothing has been spent on conservation of industry, which is the majority of power consumption in the US. Changing to non-burning or hydrogen fuel in every facit of the world is the only way to progress to the future.

One thing that really grinds my gears is when people tell me that man is to insignificant to have an effect on the planet; rediculous statement, I know. They don't understand that we live on this tiny little sliver covering the massive globe. The sliver holds all that is dear to us, and it must be protected. There are almost 7B people on earth, will they still think man is to insignificant to effect the planet when there are 14B, what about 50B! Unfortunately, I am beginning to think a revolusion is the only way to save our current evolutionary state

Nov 10, 2009
Seems like every few weeks now another wing of the AGW house of cards falls down, I'm actually beginning to believe academic honesty will prevail.

As said above, we need to focus on getting off of fossil fuels for a hundred reasons that have nothing to do with a changing climate. This counterproductive rhetoric (Anthropogenic Global Warming) needs to be eliminated from POLITICS for good. Even the purely scientific AGW proponents should be able to see this.

More and more People are realizing it everyday. Economically oppressive legislation will fail to accomplish anything that actually NEEDS done, CO2 is a red herring - the latest in political mind control, the latest way to get votes. Carbon legislation will do nothing towards moving America forward.

Controlling actual pollution? Good. Getting off of fossil fuels? Great! Adding an unnecessary expense to the very foundation of modern living? Very bad.

Nov 10, 2009
Seems ......q]

I agree with your intent, however, there are still the environmental issues. We can't leave them out, it's too important. We are talking about the future of all life, as far as we know, in the entire universe. Ideally the solution would be to simply state "no new coal plants" and to replace existing plants with nuclear and renewables asap; all fossil plants should disappear (period). It's an antiquate technology with far worse side effects than nuclear.

I agree that academic honesty should prevail, but it hasn't in the last 50 years. We should have started this process then.

I must state though, as I suspect you will benifit from the statement, what does the majority of the science community have to gain from accepting the natural law of CO2 IR radiation absorbsion? What do proponents have to gain? Well, that one should be obvious be the first question is pointless. There never was anything to gain for supporting natural laws, well, other than a safe earth.

Nov 10, 2009
Most savvy persons know green politics are just new forms of control, cleverly packaged as a mass-market ideology. Imagine a scheme so devious its victims will actually pay a premium for their own incarceration, all while fervently believing their submission is a virtuous act. Then imagine the ruling classes securing their lavish lifestyles by restricting the consumption and movements of the working classes and the poor.

Believe me, if there is any scarcity coming, it will be the poor will bear it and the rich who remain fat.

So when fat-faced Al shames you for money in the name of green Gaia, give him the bum's rush.

As for natural laws, we are absolutely living natural laws, the failure to recognize human life and activity as "natural" behavior is a shortcoming common in climate debates.

Instead of panic and calls for revolution, we should examine changes on the earth calmly, with the unshakable sense that the sky is not falling. To do else is madness.

Nov 10, 2009
Ideally the solution would new coal plants...all fossil plants should disappear.

As you indicated at the start of this statement this is simply not realistic, it is nothing more than ideology, we have to deal in reality.

Unfortunately Mankind will burn fossil fuels until there are essentially no more left on earth, that's the way it is. That's economics and reality. Even if cold fusion is made reality tomorrow there will be peoples and nations that will be using fossil fuels until the day they are gone simply because it will always be the most economically viable option, somewhere.

I agree, of course, that the environmental concerns are important. However it is worth noting that America at least does, or is on the path towards doing, about everything and anything that can reasonably be done for control of air pollution. In fact we do quite a few unreasonable things. Of course there are other environmental issues like soil and water, habitat destruction, etc.


Nov 10, 2009
These have been neglected perhaps because they are not visible like an orange-brown haze and billowing smoke are. But even in these cases, its not like America still has a "Frontierist" attitude. Awareness and accountability, in the business sector, increases all the time. What America still lacks horribly in is personal responsibility, and this is one of the biggest environmental factors there are. Urban sprawl, trash, conservation of energy and water, these could arguably be the biggest environmental problems in America. AGW was a part of this problem. AGW rhetoric ignored personal responsibility beyond the checkbook. Of course the govt has no business telling ppl how they live their lives (how eco-friendly ppl live), so what can be done? Education. The more people learn the more they are willing to do, if they can. And that's all that can be asked really.

Of course, as unfair as it may be, the most important future in environmental concerns is China and India, developing nations...

Nov 10, 2009
Well written, however, I do believe the sky is falling. Yes, the earth does swing climate back and forth cyclically, but this always progresses naturally over 100s of thousands if not millions of yrs. We are effectively terraforming the planet back to its primordial state (of CO2 abundance) when life first formed in less than 100 years.

Nov 10, 2009
We are effectively terraforming the planet back to its primordial state (of CO2 abundance) when life first formed in less than 100 years. Second, life will not be able to adapt in only 100 years to a 4deg change, it might as well be a blink of the eye. And third, there is serious danger of a runaway effect. Why risk it when we have a solution that is better than fossil in every way, both for the consumer and the producer. The only reason producers are so against the switch is they will loss the power and control over a central fuel source (fossil). They are scared of distributed generation because anyone can do it, otherwise, they would have started the process 50yrs ago.

Nov 10, 2009
They are scared of distributed generation because anyone can do it, otherwise, they would have started the process 50yrs ago.

No comment on the rest of what you're saying because you're entitled to your opinion. But the reason most things are centralized is because it is the most efficient method of distribution. Thats not to say its the most resilient. Food, power, water, sanitation, nearly all of the urban world counts on centralized services because that is the only means to support that large of a population. If any natural disaster comes along that disrupts any of these services for more than 24-48 hours a lot of people will be in serious trouble. If New York experienced a hurricane that stopped service, good luck to all the people with gardens and chicken coops on their roofs feeding everyone in the city......

Nov 10, 2009
But the reason most things are centralized is because it is the most efficient method of distribution.

LOL, sorry but that is obviously false. Obviously, distribution is the most efficient method of distribution, not centralism. Even the control systems in modern plants are distributed.

If any natural disaster comes along that disrupts any of these services for more than 24-48 hours a lot of people will be in serious trouble.

Agreed, which is why distribution is good for spreading the risk, even though it is just a side effect.
Your right, we do currently depend on centralize generation. The best solution is a combination of both configurations. Therw is absoluty no reason to burn fuel anymore, we have master the power of the atom. One glass of water contains more energy than all the electric power every produced by man. Granted, we can only harness this for larger atoms. FYI - I am a Fossil Process Engineer, I know my shizzle better than most

Nov 10, 2009
Life won't have any problem with small temperature changes. Temps far below freezing and above 110F are the only impediments to life. It's incorrect to apply the "average temperature" from climate computer models to any specific effect - it's an artificial number that represents a large range of variation.

It's the same fallacy that alarmists commit when they describe individual CO2 emissions in terms of the planet's temperature. To monetize CO2, it is necessary to codify this fallacious causality into law, which is absurd and intellectually dissonant.

Nov 10, 2009
Obviously, distribution is the most efficient method of distribution, not centralism.

I'm sorry gunslingor, you're wrong, diffuse economies have more waste. For example, more energy is needed to raise 100 1 acre plots, each with there own part time tending and associated support technology, than 1 100 acre field with it's dedicated tending and centralized support, this is pretty simple to see. Then you consider with diffuse ag, say each plot feeds 1 family, but not everything is eaten, whether it's leftovers on a dinner plate or whole fruit left on the vine in simple surplus. All the "energy" that went into that is wasted, whereas with centralized agriculture everything is sold, so the energy invested to grow it has already seen the economic return, before waste.

Modern agriculture would not be centralized operations if diffuse agriculture was more economic. That's what market economics does, in theory at least, make things more efficient.

to be continued...

Nov 10, 2009
LOL, sorry but that is obviously false. Obviously, distribution is the most efficient method of distribution, not centralism. Even the control systems in modern plants are distributed.

I completely disagree with this, you're confusing efficiency and resiliency here. Its far more efficient to have one centralized control system. Control systems are distributed to provide redundancy, in case of a failure. Adding redundancy to a system is a SAFETY issue, it actually adds cost and complexity. Do you think building triple redundancy into computer systems going in space is done to be more efficient?

Nov 10, 2009
Thats not to say its the most resilient. Food, power, water, sanitation, nearly all of the urban world counts on centralized services because that is the only means to support that large of a population. If any natural disaster comes along that disrupts any of these services for more than 24-48 hours a lot of people will be in serious trouble.

True sustainability may mean diffuse energy and diffuse ag and diffuse economy, however that's not modern living.

What sustainable modern living really comes down to is energy. Reliable, constant energy. I agree we should be using nuclear in combination with solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, all the diffuse, intermittent renewables, I also won't fault ppl for using fossils. Of course, as you touched on above gunslingor, the powers that be do not want the People to have diffuse, reliable, constant energy. That greatly diminishes Our need of Them. Which means it's politics, and Big Gov't specifically that is sustainability's biggest opponent.

Nov 10, 2009
"Hydrogen fuel" is an oxymoron. Hydrogen is not a fuel source, but an extremely inefficient energy storage system.
This is just another example of how AGW is based on a house of cards, and the race is on to resist the extreme taxation and control sought by world governments.

Nov 10, 2009
I am sick of hearing brainwashed people complain about regulating industry. Are you people seriously that stupid.
Even after the housing ripoff and countless billions of debt to other countries you are going to talk about oppressing the insanely wealthy. God forbid that global warming could hurt profit margins. Damn idiots.

Nov 11, 2009
"life will not be able to adapt in only 100 years to a 4deg change"

That's news to me. Life forms in Minnesota adapt to 65-70 C swings in a single year's time, and this is not even the most extreme climate.

How come nobody will deal with the fact that burning coal only returns carbon to the environment that has been missing for thousands of years? How much of the absorbed fraction of fossil fuel CO2 is being used to expand the total mass of living organisms through photosynthesis? Obviously the earth once supported more than it presently does; where else did the coal originate?

Nov 11, 2009
Timing. The most important element of many good jokes, and many strategies.

This article was released by web, one month before the next major conference on the subject. In three to six months, the current impact of this article may be found to shrivel under scrutiny, but there is not enough time before Copenhagen.

Maybe God does not play dice, but we do.

Nov 11, 2009
Ironically, "dirty" co2 emissions like you get from free coalburning could contribute less to global warming than "clean" co2 emissions burning natural gas, burning coal you put an additional cloud of dustparticles in the air that shield sunlight.

I believe that global warming is real, but is for a great deal masked its true extend by fine particle emissions. Do we want keep wearing this mask and wait for a certain critical point to happen?

Nov 11, 2009

This article is not any problem for GW as it just refines the sources. The damage is still there, just still in balanced damage between sea, land and air.

As far distributed generation, it's the only way to go because 'free' energy is widely spread. This allows people an even playing field against big business which will keep them in check.

As for the cost increases in fossil fuels, yes they should be in them instead of in our income taxes, health care, etc. Then with the revenues give a tax cut, help switching to RE and balance the budget FF subsidies have driven up.

Personally I'd rather make my own energy than pay big business their high rates for it. For under $10k you can buy RE equipment to give you energy for a lifetime.

Without these benefits the price will still go up, just big business, oil dictators will get the money instead of it coming back to us.

Nov 11, 2009
OKay, this has been an interesting and frustrating conversation. I would love to continue it with you folks, but this format is getting unbearable. Does anyone have another venue we could continue discussing?

At least, we all seem to agree that, for whatever reason, we need to stop burning so much.

The earth is a complicated system, we simple do not understand all the facets and cannot model its behavior.

If anyone really doesn't beleive CO2 absorbs more light energy then air, then just do a simple experimeter with CO2 in 1 bottle and air in the other, measure the temperature in each when exposed to light.

If you really think man is not to blaim for the CO2 increase in the atmospher, then show me any other source that puts more than 90 BILLION TONS EVERY YEAR! No, volvanos do not emit this much on a yearly basis, though there instantanious emitions can be greater than man for short time spans.

Nov 11, 2009
One major volcanic eruption can alter the whole planet's weather for years. Aside from ash, they also emit powerful greenhouse gases: water vapor and methane (and a weaker greenhouse gas byproduct, CO2). The majority of volcanoes are underwater, and therefore, not under surveillance. But there is plenty of evidence of increased volcanism during the past 30 years. Are they heating Arctic seawater, thus altering the local climate? Climate change, meanwhile, has been definitely linked to a 17,000-year dance of the Earth and Sun; this cycle portends imminent and severe cooling ... The theory of AGW has all the hallmarks of hubris. I am reminded of a story attributed to LBJ; he likened Congress to a bunch of ants clinging to a log floating down the Potomac --- each one thinking it was driving.

Nov 11, 2009
Well, buddy, what do we have to gain? There is no advantage for a scientist to accept global warming, no personnal monitary gain. Do you really think the majority of the science community is only concerned with making a name for themselves rather than futhering human knowledge. However, what the other side has to gain is obvious. The fact that you use the word hubris, the title of the book best describing the oil men bush administration, lead me to believe your a major moron. So you really don't think 7 billiob people can have a negative effect on the planet. Well, I have pictures. Just look at google maps. the majority of habitable land is checkboarded with farms. Areas that were once the denses and most bio diverse areas are now gray, covered by cities. The planet, as it currently, stands is not what it once was. I'm sorry, but I feel other life forms have just as much right to exist as we do. We have accelerated extincts massively. Humans cannot survive without our ecosystems

Nov 11, 2009

Most people here aren't going to debate you on the facts of climate change because they are intelligent enough to understand that the climate varies, and natural process (of which man is a part) help shape the climate.

What many of us reject is the attempt to make us panic because of very recent observations and speculative theories. What we also reject is the attempt of certain groups to take advantage of this activity in order to profit or use as a vehicle for their pet ideologies.

We need to first calm down the debate and return to rational decorum - by doing this we will neutralize the agitators who are deliberately inducing emotional reactions from the uneducated public in order to generate political energy for themselves.

Ecology needs to be kept far from demagogues and revolutionaries seeking a vehicle to ride into power. Wise ecology is the proper domain of the well-run state, not some delusional malcontents who hate Western Liberalism.

Nov 11, 2009
Even after the housing ripoff and countless billions of debt to other countries you are going to talk about oppressing the insanely wealthy.

jcrow, you good sir have demonstrated you have absolutely no understanding or comprehension of how carbon taxing will effect the economy.

All of industry, not just utilities, but every industry that is the basis of modern living, those which use combustion sources for power, mining, manufacturing, everything, will be required to implement prohibitively expensive technologies to sink carbon, a non-pollutant, not a health concern, just a life sustaining gas. The Industry WILL NOT just simply ABSORB this cost. It will RAISE the PRICE of it's PRODUCT (i.e. everything you buy).

Can you comprehend this?

This raises the COST OF LIVING from the very base of industry. Who is going to be affected more by an increased cost of living? It's not the wealthy. Its the lower 90% of incomes in the US. Get a clue, finish high school before you post please.

Nov 11, 2009

I understand and agree the debate should be civil.

"What we also reject is the attempt of certain groups to take advantage of this activity in order to profit or use as a vehicle for their pet ideologies."
-Thats fine and I do reject that as well. But you fail to take the same stance in regards to fossil fuel industries and there associated media conterparts intentionally stamping out viable alternatives. Nuclear is one example. Why do we even have a debate concerning the waste? Are we debating what to do with the nuclear waste produced by Naval ships? Nope, that's out of the debate. nuclear waste is a political issue, not a technical issue. If you could magically turn burnt carbon back into a solid that can be handled, I would be fine with using it, but this is completely impossible. Just try doing it with a cigarette rather than a tons of coal. Clean coal is a joke, even the most modest system of CO2 capture (1% absorbsion)or scrubbing costs more than the plant itsel

Nov 11, 2009
Furthermore, we need to rationally acknowledge the business of producing intelligent life will radically alter the environment, and that this impact will not be negotiable. We have to accept that as the natural consequence of raising up an intelligent species limited to a single world.

What we need are new worlds where we can distribute ourselves to more advantageous densities. The alternative to finding new worlds is to commit genocide on our own species (like Dr. Holdren, Obama's Science adviser, advocates by mass sterilization).

Nov 11, 2009
But you fail to take the same stance in regards to fossil fuel industries and there associated media conterparts intentionally stamping out viable alternatives.

Gunslingor, here (and in other places of your posts) you seem to acknowledge that it is "the Powers that Be" who stand directly in the way of sustainable energies. I agree with this, it is the Gov't and their Lobbies who stand in the way of a more free People. How can you not see that the modern AGW movement is a construct of "the Powers that Be", a construct that they are using to fortify their strength and control over the People?

Please explain this to me. And if you can't, please explain to me why you still back the AGW movement?

Give up the AGW argument, it will only result in a People more dependent on their Government, less sustainable.

Back the 100 other arguments for sustainable energy and development, fight Big Government, fight for the People.

Nov 11, 2009

when you say AWG I am assuming you mean accelerated global warming. I don't make any claims regarding the speed of warming other than the movie "day after tomorrow" was full of crap. Even with the most drastic estimates, that movie fit 10k years of enviromental activity into a couple days not to mention the Jupiter type huricanes.

However, I must acknowledge the fact that the evidence does point to serious consequences within 50-100 years, and there is the dangers of runnaway effects. Historically 1-3 species goes extinct and 1-3 species evolves into something new every ten years; Currently we extinction rates of 1-3 species per year. My fear is that this will continue to accelerate, reducing the progress of life drastically. This is unacceptable.

"the powers that be" currently have total control. They control the fuel needed for the entire economy. They fear lossing this power via people generating fuel (e.g. electricy) rather than using their extracted fuels.

Nov 11, 2009
AGW-anthropogenic global warming, literally translated, global warming beginning in humans. i.e. What the whole CO2 thing is about.

You didn't really address my question.

Do you not see how the AGW movement, i.e. CO2 legistlation, is a construct of Government to gain more control over People, via economic oppression?

Do you not see that you can argue for renewable energies, for sustainable development, without arguing for AGW, without arguing for the Government to get bigger?

Do you not see that if we fix any of the other 100 problems that are arguments for renewable energy, for sustainable development, than we simultaneously fix any possible AGW problem, if it is there (which is uncertain)?

What I'm saying is AGW is not a necessary argument to get off of fossil fuels, to focus on energy independence through renewables and sustainable development.

In fact it is counter productive because it just gives government more power. Fixing all the other problems reduces Governments power.

Nov 11, 2009
Historically 1-3 species goes extinct and 1-3 species evolves into something new every ten years

PS I don't know where you got this figure, but this is a completely absurd statistic, flat out wrong and a lie to perpetuate.

When you take into consideration deforestation in the tropics, and the intense biodiveristy of the rainforests (a single ancient tree can support dozens of unique species), it's estimated, though unknown exactly, that we lose something like 100 species a day, just there alone. We lose many 1000s of species every year. We gain 1000s of species every year as well.

AGW has nothing to do with overall biodiversity, other than it would just as likely increase it, for the very reason I mentioned above regarding the intense biodiversity of the tropics.

There are much much bigger threats to biodiversity such as urban sprawl, ecologically unsound management practices (such as over fishing/hunting, controlling wildfires and floods), actual pollution, the list goes on.

Nov 11, 2009
AGW has nothing to do with overall biodiversity, other than it would just as likely increase it, for the very reason I mentioned above regarding the intense biodiversity of the tropics.

I'd like to strike this from my last comment, I let my convictions runaway with my mind... :/

What I would rather have said is:

The AGW movement doesn't care about preserving species. Carbon legislation will do nothing to preserve biodiversity.

Nov 11, 2009
Sorry guys,

My comments are not being submitted due to "error on page" in the bottom of IE. I'm out.

Nov 11, 2009
I fear your rationale is based on religion, "god gave us the earth to do what we will". Well, if thats true he also gavev us freewill. We would have a responsibility not to destroy the great gift. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Running our economies on nonburning/renewables does not necessitate any loss of functionality or freedom and will cost less. Intelligent life need not destroy its environment, though impacts whther positive or negative are unavoidable yes. In fact, a destroyed environment will make the evolution of intelligent life impossible. On top of that, any species that destroys its environment(which is the ideal spot in the universe for that species since it evolve with the environment) ceases to truely be intelligent in the grand scheme of things.

Nov 11, 2009

Look, I wish I could just focus on the economic and technological benifits of switch fuel sources, but this is dangerous because it shift focus from the real problem not to mention it gives excuses to those powers to only switch 'where' we get the fuel.

No other source, even in the most extreme estimates emits the amount of CO2 on a continous basis as man.

I don't know why you think the powers that be are pushing it, it has been my experience that they are trying to supress it.

One of many simple experiments that anyone can do to prove that man is to blaim is the following. Drive, 200 miles north, south, east or west of any large city on a hot day and take a temperature reading. Drive back to the large city and take a temperature reading. Cities that are large poluters are, the majority of the time, at least 2deg hotter than surrounding areas becouse CO2 is denser around the cities, espeically during rush hour. Do you think volcanos are causing this?

Nov 11, 2009
Cities [are] least 2deg hotter than surrounding areas becouse CO2 is denser around the cities


You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. You don't think that gas laws apply around cities? You don't think concentrated, emitted CO2 is going to rapidly diffuse into the lower concentration of the atmosphere?!

Urban heat islands are caused from the materials man uses to build his infrastructure, materials which absorb infrared energy and of course re-radiate it. This is not debatable, this is a fact. You are SO brain washed. Please do some more reading on the reality behind AGW.

Nov 11, 2009

I experience it every time I drive to atlanta. It's actually a 4 deg rise between chattanooga and ATL. Yes, lmao, I do understand how gases work. But you have to acknowledge that every day after work there is, quite literally, a river of cars 50ft wide flowing very slowly all the way through the city and beyond, with shoot offs in every direction. You also have to acknowledge that smog does exist, right? Its not made up is it? lmao. well, all I am saying is there is a direct correlation between temperature and smog (some you see and some you don't)). Yes, the polution does linger and yes it does spread as well depending on wind patterns. Diffusion far away from the city without wind does occur, but not as fast as the day progresses and not nearly as fast as we produce it during rush hour.

Nov 11, 2009
Pollution and Green House Gases are two very different things. Pollution poisons life on this earth, Green House Gases make life on this earth possible.

Again, the urban heat island effect is caused by the re-radiation of infrared (thermal) energy absorbed by building materials. To a lesser extent it is also caused by waste heat from industry and machines. This is not up for debate. CO2 emissions factor this much: 0, into urban heat islands. Google it if you trust that, read a book if you don't.

Heat islands do worsen air quality, but poor air quality DOES NOT CAUSE HEAT ISLANDS. The more you insist that it does, the more obvious it becomes exactly how interested you are in the science, and truth, of it all.

Essentially what I'm saying is, even if we employ renewable energies for all energy on earth, tomorrow, there will still be urban heat islands.

Nov 11, 2009

I've watched our arguments evolve in this thread and others and I'm very happy our awareness of the "climate controversy" has penetrated the motivations of those behind its politics. You'll notice this awareness is spreading and using many of the same terms we have used here at Physorg.

The threat of malicious politicking by those seeking forms of power that oppose our liberty, our economic security, and our independence is a more clear and present danger than some ecological soothsayers and their junk media rabble-rousers.

The only way we'll gain mastery of this issue in the USA is for our homegrown Marxists and Charlatans to give up expectations of gain from this controversy. I suggest they focus their attentions on Europe, where their aims are more in line with command and control societies.

Nov 11, 2009

Agreed that industrial heat and the color associated with our infrastructure do contribute, but so do emissions (period). Either way, your previous justification claiming I don't understand gases is not just inaccurate, but hypocritical. We have our work cut out for us. We'll continue via email but, we need to stay on focus. I think the biggest issue that you disagree with is that man is causing this man made change in our environment. We need to discuss this primarily because it is by far the biggest issue. You will have your work cut out for you, as the cow fart arguement will not work on I hope to god that you also see the humor in that statement.

Nov 11, 2009
It's very hard to balance being a conservationist and an environmentalist, while arguing against AGW. Physorg has been invaluable in refining my arguments and views to a point where I feel very confident in my personal stance as one that achieves a message of the importance of the environment and energy independence while denouncing the politicial AGW movement.

It's unfortunate that I have to spend the majority of my time here denouncing AGW, but I am able to take my message to like minded people, to co-workers and friends, etc. in my everyday life that really aren't sure one way or the other about AGW (but are environmentalists) and show them that AGW is an extraneous part of the whole thing.

I'm not trying to prove that AGW is wrong or that I'm right even, I just see an America that daily relies more and more on it's government and increasingly thinks it's okay, even good for the People, that's really what I argue against, big government. That's what humanity needs to be afraid of.

Nov 11, 2009
Arkaleus, you scare me buddy. Which is more important to you, life or economy?

Nov 11, 2009
[big government. That's what humanity needs to be afraid of.]
-Agreed, but we also must be afraid of big business which dwarfs the US governement. Big Business, on the surface and underneath, primarily exist for profit. The US government on the surface stands for the people and by the people and underneath stands for big business. There is a fine balance that needs to be attained. And the pendulum will swing back, maybe to late.

I am not for cap and trade. It is an ineffective solution to a serious problem. But at least it is based on a valid principle that business will not voluntarily change unless it is significantly profitable. Nuclear is far more profitable than coal if we hold them both to the same level standards. However, the profit making playing field has been tilted towards coal unethically and dishonestly. More people die from coal byproducts than nuclear byproducts. I have no problem tilting it back unethically, its to important.

Nov 11, 2009
Just explain to me how the People and/or the Environment will benefit from AGW legislation that could not be achieved through any one of the other arguments for energy independence.

Let me save you some time. It cannot be done. AGW is completely extraneous. There's a dozen other goals that we NEED to shoot for directly, that if we achieve, will simultaneously eliminate AGW as a byproduct. It is not needed, it is only damaging to the People. It only gives the government more power, via economic oppression. It is political posturing and brain washing. I just try and get people to see the forest for the trees.

Nov 11, 2009

My hard line against political environmentalism comes from understanding that human life and human economics are the same activity. Regulating one is the same as regulating the other - Economic activity is the primary description of our daily lives in the United States.

Upon understanding this you must consider any attempt to take command of the economy also an attempt to command the processes of life. If these parasites manage to connive their schemes into the economic veins of the earth they will direct the lucre to god knows what further designs against the remaining treasuries of the West.

Even worse are green zealots who clearly aren't in it for the money and could care less about ideologies. They demand an arbitrary population maximum and impatiently chart a convenient date of doom. Perhaps they believe the earth needs less men altogether and have left their fraternal allegiances to accomplish it? What do you do with such men?

Nov 12, 2009

I disagree, there is an obvious link between human life and human economics, but they are not the same thing. It's like saying human life is the same thing as physics. No, its not, but it certain does depend on physical laws.

So, I dont understand what you are refering to. You don't think there should be any economic controls in the US? You don't think the US should build our road? You prefer paying a toll each time you drive to work? Perhaps have blackwater run our police force?

I think you are under the impression that we still live in a capitalist society. The more people we have, the more laws we need. The few and larger the corporations are, the more regulation we need.

Nov 12, 2009

I'm glad your still fighting, even though you don't beleive man is causing this. So, thats really all that matters to me. I think I must clarify my stance. I do not BELIEVE man is to blame, its just that, thats what all the evidence points to. Nothing else IDENTIFIED could be causing it. Remember the cow fart argument? thats the best they could come up with? We should proceed forward no matter what, at least we can agree on that. I cannot drop it from my argument, all the other arguments are pointless if AGW turns out to be accurate and the worst case scenario occurs. I love technology and the progression of man. Unfortunately, I have had to dedicate my life to help ensure the survival of man and not the evolution of man. Show me somoe evidence beside cow farts to convince me otherwise.

Nov 12, 2009

Assuming you are refering to an average yearly temperature increase, then I suspect you may be right. Hence the dangers of a runaway positive feedback effect, not just in regards to ocean temperatures, but also permafrost and other sources.

See this: http://www.esrl.n.../trends/

The majority of the scientific community agrees that 350ppm is the maximum safe levels of CO2. I personnally think the ideal level is lower.

Nov 12, 2009

You disagree human life and human economics are inseparable and should be considered the same thing? I encourage you to examine your daily life and rethink your objections. Unless you're a Monk, your interface with the world is primarily through economics. Your liberty is directly related to your economic conditions.

There used to be economic controls in USA designed to limit the power of financial institutions, but those were subverted when the legislature capitulated to an ill-fated adventure in voodoo (Keynesian) capitalism.

National infrastructure (roads, police) comes from taxes and bonds - part of the old idea that civil government should encourage and protect economic activity.

Greenism forces governments to corrupt their proper role by deindustrializing and restricting the economic liberty of the people through taxes and regulations. These funds would be directed to non-public entities. Such a government would no longer be just or valid in the USA.

Nov 12, 2009
man is causing this
thats what all the evidence points to

Man is causing what? It is impossible to determine that man is causing anything other than an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because we have no scientific "control" to observe, no idea what would be happening w/o mankind. Even given the +CO2, no predictions or models can be considered valid due to the tremendous incomplete understanding of the system and tremendous natural variability in climate, as is revealed more and more all the time. Such VAST uncertainty cannot justify swelling the government and economic oppression.

All of the evidence points to AGW, only if you look at only the evidence that has to do with AGW, which of course is what AGW does.

However, take a look at the proven links between solar activity and cloud cover and solar activity and global net irradiance and insolation and the proven link between geologic activity and climate, AGW is political bait and you swallowed it whole.


Nov 12, 2009
all the other arguments are pointless if AGW turns out to be accurate

You have it backwards, AGW is pointless to be concerned about if we don't fix the other problems (energy independence, out of control govt, economic oppression, etc.).

The global climate is not even in the top 100 biggest threats to mankind. Mankind has already proven this by enduring extremes far worse than AGW predicts (ice ages, desert populations).

"Fixing" AGW means shuffle the carbon. Which means absolutely nothing to any of the other dire problems on earth. It means economic oppression.

It sucks that you can't get past your own loathing of mankind, I imagine with time you will (like when you have a kid), but backing the AGW movement will not do anything in and of itself that will advance the cause of seeing nuclear or even renewables becoming commonplace.

Fighting for energy independence will achieve these things without economic oppression. Renewables will mean less control over the People by Govt.

Nov 12, 2009
I dont loath man kind, I loath the fact that the majority of man kind thinks of itself as more deserving than all other life. Now we are really getting into ideology, but you started

You referenced the following:
energy independence - if we focus on this, we will not stop burner only switching were the fuel comes from whether new oil fields in US teritories or new methods of natural gas extract or offshore drilling.
out of control govt - I agree, but this is not the fault of the people, it is the fault of big business which is the main cause of alout of our current problems.
economic oppression-What do you mean? You think your opressed economically? I guess I am, but this is due to massive student loans which, to me, makes a great arguement for "socialize" education to reduce my economic opression.

Nov 12, 2009
new oil fields in US

C'mon man, if you truly are a fossil fuels process engineer, you know damn well that the oil reserves of America would last us about a year, IF we could extract it all that fast, which obviously we cannot. Immediate energy independence would mean nuclear, if the People demanded this, it would happen. We don't need AGW to further the technology we need, AGW only furthers carbon sequestration.
this is not the fault of the people

Whaaa!? It is ENTIRELY the fault of the People (what % of US citizens vote again??). It is the apathy of the People, it is the laziness of the People. It is because the People don't want to take responsibility for their own lives, as you evidenced by trying to shift the blame to a construct of the people (i.e. still the People), that the government and their lobbies control our lives.

Thats what's wrong with America, pass the buck, litigate litigate litigate, path of least resistance. But thats entropy I guess.

to be cont'd :)

Nov 12, 2009
Yes I know traditional US oil reserves on land are limited. I am refering to new technologies primarily like oil sands, coal gasification and new methods of extracting natural gas not to mention off shore.

I disagree, it is not the fault of the people. People are inherently stupid and lazy. Yes, we do take responsibility for our ouwn lives, who else does, though that has nothing to do with anything. You cannot assume that everyone is smart when you know they are not, especially since we rank below any other comparable developed nation in education. The propaganda machine knows this and explodes it and, perhaps, promotes idiocracy in this country. Yes big business is a construct of the people, its the profit making construct as the government is the ruling construct. Both have serious issues today. Your laying the fault with the governemnt construct as I am laying it at the feet of the profit making construct. Both are to blaim, especially because they overlap these days. very bad.

Nov 12, 2009
economic oppression - having a central bank whose sole purpose it is to control inflation, through exorbitant reserve banking policies, so that the economy is planned to forever put economic freedom just out of the reach of the majority of your citizenry.

Fact: in pure (successful) market economics, the only purpose of inflation is to keep up with population growth, how much does America's inflation outpace our pop growth? Hint: it's A LOT.

economic oppression - using economic policy (taxes, subsidies, federal grants, etc.) to try and control societal characteristics

economic oppression - constructing the political machine so that "campaign contributions" and non-public political funding is allowed to occur, where it of course becomes more important than the Will of the People

The People can fix all of these things. They just have to realize that this is what's going on. But our society has conditioned them not to care, as long as you got the latest smart phone, you're good.

Nov 12, 2009
But the idea behind the constructs is key. The Republic was created so that the people could rule themselves and businesses are created solely for the purposes of making money. Sometimes business profit making aligns with the needs of the people and sometimes it does not. I have nothing against Motel 6. I do have serious issues with tobaco companies after the crap they pulled as well as oil companies and insurance companies. I do not, by any means feel that I am living in a capitalist society. I feel that I am living in a corporate socialist society. I would rather live in a government run country that takes eliments from all the previous traditional forms of government. No government can last if it solely relies on the ideologies of one 1 academic form of governement.

Nov 12, 2009
Do you realize that nothing you have said is an argument for AGW?

Give me your argument for AGW. Not why it exists.

Explain to me what you hope to achieve by backing AGW, what you KNOW will CONCRETELY be achieved, only because it is AGW that you backing. i.e. that backing nothing else could achieve this.

I can, and have, enumerated at length how AGW produces negative results. Give me the positive that cannot be achieved any other way.

Nov 12, 2009
economic oppression - using economic policy (taxes, subsidies, federal grants, etc.) to try and control societal characteristics

I have no problem with this.

economic oppression - constructing the political machine so that "campaign contributions" and non-public political funding is allowed to occur, where it of course becomes more important than the Will of the People

I do have a problem with this

The People can fix all of these things. They just have to realize that this is what's going on. But our society has conditioned them not to care, as long as you got the latest smart phone, you're good.

I agree completely. But who in this country dictates the conditioning? I think its far to say television is the primary source of modern conditioning. TV is controlled by people like rupert murdoc, a business man soley focused on profit and power and not the good of the people, obviously right?

Nov 12, 2009
To much evidence to layout here in 1000 words, so I'll address your other items. You can go ahead and watch al gores movie for a breif introduction. What do you think is causing the current effects we see and the predicted effects we might see?

You want to proceed ignoring mans effect and assume its just nature doing its thing even though we haven't addressed the other effects such as ocean acidification and acid rain and the fact that 90% of the ocean biomass has disappeared since the industrial revolution (Do you think man is to blaim for this or just earth cycles?).

You ask why don't I just drop that arguement and proceed forward, accomplishing the same thing for a different reason....

Well, the solution is not new. We have had it for 50 years. Yet we still do nothing. Like I said earlier, companies won't change unless there is more power and money to be made by it. I suspect they, as you, are in denial. As a result, there is nothing to be gained by them.

Nov 12, 2009
You failed to answer my challenge. I will take that to mean you know there is nothing AGW is guaranteed to accomplish that cannot be accomplished through another means, another means which will not grow the government and raise the cost of living from the ground up. Now if you could only see the conclusion you've already arrived at.
We have had it for 50 years.

We've already established it is ultimately the government (i.e. the failure of the People to be worth a crap) preventing these things, and here you are advocating AGW which gives the government more power and removes responsibility from the People. Power which they use to introduce new economically oppressive policies, not advance energy independence. And responsibility of the People which is the MOST IMPORTANT thing in the success of the US.

I don't ignore man's effects, I just refuse to put the cart before the horse. That's what AGW does, it places the payoff in front of what will get the payoff to be realized.

Nov 12, 2009
People are not in charge of our governement, business is. I could care less about energy independance. Hell, Greenland runs its entire country off geothermal and uses less than 1% of that capacity. I would be perfectly fine with transportingg that energy here if it were possible, but of course that is impracticle. I would be 100% fine with buying uranium from russia or where ever. The "energy crisis" results are only an added benefit. I am not saying that AGW is definite, I am saying thats were the evidence points and, either way, we have a great solution on hand. Why risk it? Who is has the most to gain from that gamble? oil barons

You do believe that AGW is possible right? No, I do not think you will accomplish the fuel switch by focusing on other benefits as you do not think I will accomplish by focusing on the dangers to life. Hell, the reality of the situation is that it will probably never get done until its to late, both for our economy and the health of our biodiverse planet

Nov 12, 2009
check this out, interesting:

Are you against this legislation occuring?

Nov 12, 2009
One of many simple experiments that anyone can do to prove that man is to blaim is the following. Drive, 200 miles north, south, east or west of any large city on a hot day and take a temperature reading. Drive back to the large city and take a temperature reading. Cities that are large poluters are, the majority of the time, at least 2deg hotter than surrounding areas becouse CO2 is denser around the cities, espeically during rush hour. Do you think volcanos are causing this?

I'm loathe to ever reference wikipedia for many reasons, but consdering their slant on AGW you'll probably accept it as a suitable source. I suggest reading the wiki on UHI, even they don't claim CO2 causes the UHI. Apologies again for refferencing wikipedia. Slingor used "An inconvenient Truth" for a source, but thats still no excuse for me stooping so low >8)

Nov 12, 2009
Read what I said. Colors and large scale industrial heating does effect city temperature increase, as does the constituents of the atmophere.

And no, I am not referencing Wikipedia though I do support that project.

Nov 12, 2009
People however should be in control of the government, and can be, but it requires individuals, people with lives and jobs and worries, it requires The People to care, to pick up a phone and call a legislator, to talk to their friends about these things, to DO SOMETHING.

That's why I do what I do here on Physorg, it's another forum where I can try and raise awareness, where I can try to make People give a damn, beyond doing what I do to be politically and environmentally proactive in my life, it's all that I can do and I do it, everyday. Because it is the most important thing in the world. Education. I don't care if you agree with me, I just want you to think about it and care enough to DO SOMETHING towards the way you feel.
You do believe that AGW is possible right?

I know the physics, I know man is emitting CO2, I am educated in ecology, do I think a warming globe, from whatever reason, will cause disaster? Not a chance. That view is anthropocentric as any anti-AGW christian.

Nov 12, 2009
Well, the first two paragraphs are why I truely respect you and I hope you have the same respect for me. Your right, most people dont give a crap.

But you do know that CO2 aborbs more IR radiation than air, you also know man is emitting CO2, you do not know if the CO2 will cause the warming becuase you feel it is insiginificant and you also feel a warming planet will not spell disater.

I recommend you look at it from a limit perspective. 1st, how much CO2 would it really take to truely have a negative effect on the planet, whether from man or natural sources. Then how many people would it take to create this level assuming average consumption stays the same. you have to admit that at some point, man cannot keep increasing its numbers on this planet.

I am not just concerned with global warming, but also deforestation, deserification, acidification and all the many other environmental effects that are destroying the planet. Global Warming is an inappropriate name to begin with.

Nov 12, 2009
global warming, global cooling, runaway effects and inability to adapt to such a fast and drastic change as predicted is what I am concerned with. you can't ignore these risks. Im not saying AGW is accurate, but thats where the evidence points irrefutably. Why take the risk? Who has the most to gain from this gamble? It aint the US governement, it the oil men.

I am concerned about destroying our own gift, by any means. If an comet hits earth and destroys the planet, then so be it; at least we didn't do it to ourselves. Hell, nuclear war may be the destructor.

Nov 12, 2009
The earth and life on earth has endured much greater changes in climate in a much shorter time span (K-T extinction) probably more than 1.

Can clmt chng cause mass extinction? It has before, many times. Life comes back more diverse. Can it greatly inconvenience man? Sure. It however is simply no threat at all to there being life on earth.

What IS a threat to the presence, AND reemergence, of life on earth is actual pollution and trends mentioned (overpopulation etc.) as well as cataclysmic holocaust type events such as nuclear war or an earth-breaker type comet.

Obviously Im not saying this is free reign for us to do whatever we want. But what I am saying is that man's existence is much more fragile than life on earth for no reason relating to climate, and I frankly think we're much much closer to man made holocaust from out-of-control politics than environmental. Much closer. AGW has ppl believing CO2 is the worst plague ever. Absurd. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Nov 12, 2009
But you do know that CO2 aborbs more IR radiation than air, you also know man is emitting CO2, you do not know if the CO2 will cause the warming becuase you feel it is insiginificant and you also feel a warming planet will not spell disater.

Ok so I secretly do love wikipedia:


When you say CO2 absorbs more than air, I believe you mean more than O2. "Air" is obviously made up of more than O2 and CO2 (Nitrogen is the most prevalent) Notice that water vapor by far absorbs more IR energy than any other trace gas. Thats why a lot of people dont buy into the idea that CO2 will cause drastic change, they believe that at some point increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in diminishing amounts of IR absorption because CO2 absorbs in such narrow bands that H2O doesnt already. I'm not drawing conclusions as you can't argue belief, I'm just showing you a bit of the other side.

Nov 13, 2009

I suspect your right. Our action will not result in total loss of life on earth, but we can definitely set evolution back millions of years in just a few hundred years. What kind of life would remain under the worst scenarios? If you like rats and roachs your good to go. I guess birds seem to servive okay around man as well.

I think we have had an exceptional period of stability on this planet recently. I just don't want man to be responsibile for tipping this delicate balance.

Anyway, these arguements are moot points. We all agree that we should be switch fuel sources for what ever reasons, so I have no beef. Lets move forward for whatever reasons and ideology we each have.

Non-burning fuel or hydrogen, thats all I care about at the moment. The air pollution is our biggest problem.

Nope, I meant air. O2 is only a small portion of the "norm".

Nov 13, 2009
set evolution back millions of years
What kind of life would remain under the worst scenarios?

Evolution has no agenda, you're imposing some schedule onto something that just is. Just like man just is, but man has the very worthy agenda of getting off this rock, presumably. We have to deal with the reality of both those facts.

My personal thoughts on what "would remain" even under worst case warming scenarios are the majority of the species which currently reside between the arctic circle and the equator, they would be redistributed, sure. But it's not gonna be just rats and roaches, that's just hyperbole and wholly academically disingenuous, sorry for this but it's also rather stupid.

Considering the expansion of the tropics, the biodiversity of life could conceivably ultimately benefit from warming. Much of the megafauna we know and love would persist.

As stated above, what would kill most species are ecological threats completely unrelated to man-made climate change.

Nov 13, 2009
In case there are a few who still don't understand what this is leading to, here is a little premonition:


It doesn't matter if it gets warmer or if it cools down. The object of this exercise has nothing to do with ecology.

Nov 13, 2009
Wow, thanks for providing that Ark, talk about economic oppression. I would like to believe that we could never see something like this implemented in America, but this is exactly where the politics of AGW leads.

Nov 14, 2009
At present, the only way to serve both green as in money and green in environment seems to go nuclear, its got the favourable cost / emission profile that could satisfy the agenda of the stereotype selfcentered "feed me" consumer (read republikan) that as well as the treehugging stoner socialist (read democrat) offcoase i mean this all in good fun, but those are the words that frequently fly over the fence...A government has to strike a delicate balance, let the market completely have its own way is like a car with a great engine but no breaks (like we saw in the financial crisis), but too government regulation/taxing etc is like a car with good brakes but no engine

Nov 15, 2009
If you can sit inside a closed garage and kill yourself with the emissions from your car! then having hundreds of millions of those cars emit the same thing into the atmosphere just can't be good, whether for the world or our health, so either way we need to move away from it.

Nov 15, 2009
Its a shame that still people ignore the climat change and give the process of nature the error. We must realize that if we act like we are doing now. Is not enough to stop the climat change. Stop cutting the forests and plant trees on large scale. Put down aggressively the CO2 emissions by 90% before 2050 and so on... Millions of lives will be destroid in the poor country's and for the rich countrys they will pay more for the food and basic needs like water.

Nov 15, 2009
The proof is in the Ice core samples of 5200 years ago, and thruout the planets history. We will have another ice age soon so all you treehuggers souldn't worry. Either the solar radaition will decrease, or another massive eruption will cloud the skies...which can easily be facilitated by drilling Yellowstone sooner and letting it loose. And yes, I've planted 197,000 douglas fir on my farm back in Oregon- how many of you can say that. Do your best not to contaminate the envrionment in your profession, and somthing to help it. Examine the evidence: Glaciers are melting, but the guy that got popsicled 5200 years ago was probalby thought that it was nice and warm up there too
What was his name.. Al Gore?

Nov 15, 2009
First question the source of the information.

My understanding is that the C02 loading is what is affecting the ocean's pH and temp. The point being that we will apparently reach a 'runaway' condition in the oceans, very soon, if we keep this extreme Co2 and (other contaminants) behavior going the way it is.

It is seemingly true that we've reached a solar minimum via walking through the plane of the galaxy, and running into all the electrical charge issues and dust. This seems to be exciting the sun and causing the solar damping AND potential for extreme flares. The solar conditions RULE as compared to what we can do to the earth with C02, etc, so this needs to be calculated into a given person's understanding of the issue of human contamination and activity on this globe.

This does not mean that the contamination should be excused, or lessened, but that we need to look at both situations before attempting to draw a line of logic through noted phenomena.

Nov 15, 2009
Quick question: if "it rests solely on measurements and statistical data" - why is CONTROVERSIAL!??!! Only pseudo-science Left-wing drivel never seems to be controversial. Tired of it, tired of the bias.

Nov 16, 2009
I can't imagine why you guys care so much about this shit. You are all going to die anyway. No? What do you care if the earth is still here for your dumb offspring, they probably won't deserve it anyway. Humans suck, they are all parasites. They definitely aren't intelligent enough to solve this one so go have a brew and jerk off. It'll make you feel better.

Nov 16, 2009
No further intelligence is required. We have all we need. the question isn't "can humans do this" but "are people really so stupid as to put the entire planet in danger for the fat pockets of a few". Its not a difficult problem. It would be just as hard to solve as distributing the internet, building roads, cell phone infrastructure, etc, all of which only took a couple of decades to complete. David King, I agree that your assesments of the human race may turn out to be accurate precisely for failing to meet these goal, but there is always hope. Lead follow or get out the way.

Nov 16, 2009

Two quick points.

Never assume you have all the intelligence/information...thats both arrogant, and potentially misleading.

Secondly, if man has enough sway over the environment as you suggest, then we also have the ability to send it cascading in the opposite direction, especially with a knee jerk reaction.

In the meantime, its alot less expensive to buy everyone a couple of box fans to stay cool. :)

Nov 16, 2009

Anything in excess can kill you. Excessive consumption of water can lead to drowning, much like a CO filled garage is concentrated enough to kill you.

But CO in an open area, is not concentrated enough to have any effect.

Nov 16, 2009
CO2 in an open area can have an effect, we know this. Just look at Venus which is significantly hotter than it would be if its atmosphere didn't have so much carbon. You don't think CO2 would have any effect what so ever if it was 50% of the atmosphere?

Nov 16, 2009

I'm not being arrogant but probably should have been more specific. We have all the tools, technology and knowledge necessary to change our fuel sources to non-burning and renewables. Nothing more is needed. I'm trying to get people out of this mindset that "its too hard" or "people will never change". Hell, the internet sure changed people, this is nothing different and would probably have less effect on life. I am primarily concerned with the air, once we fix this we should address the other issues such as garbage and water pollution. But the air is critical. We have everything we need to solve that problem and the resulting system will be better than what we currently have in just about every way. There is nothing more to research.

Nov 16, 2009

Engineering and Science should always be looking foward into researching better and different ways of approaching environmental processes. We should not stop, simply because we have some tools already. To assume that knowledge is capped out, stiffles progress.

One area of research needed in your plan, esp if man is a dominant factor on climate, is what are the effects if we do "fix" the air? Will we just cascade into cooling right to a man made ice age?

We in reality know little, and making big adjustments on little knowledge, is very very risky.

Nov 16, 2009
But the air is critical.

I'm interested in exactly what you know, and think you know, about emission controls and regulations, gunslingor, and your perception of the state of air quality as an environmental "frontier".

I suspect you may know something about flares, scrubbers, catalysts, and all that good (engineering) stuff. But from our past discussions, I get the impression you're pretty fresh out of your academic education, if not still in it, and still have something to learn about reality.

In your above dialogue, it sounds like you think there is quite a bit of ground to be made on air quality. While this is absolutely true in regards to vehicles, in industry there is not really anything more out there that can reasonably be done, assuming that pending Hg legislation moves forward, as it sounds like it will.

With your answer, please bare in mind that CO2 and methane are not air quality concerns, i.e. they are not toxic, and pose no threat to health in the outdoors.

Nov 16, 2009
There is a ton of ground to be made in air quality; however, it can only be achieved by not allowing burning for energy production. It is impractical to try and 'clean up' the flue gas. It is impossible to regulate volatile organic compounds because there are an infinite number of possible compounds. I'm not saying that we can progress with coal; I have continually said coal is obsolete and destructive. Mercury is very difficult to monitor in the gas stream, trust me on this, and even more difficult to mitigate. As an example, we worked on a mercury reduction system via activated carbon for southern company. It was a five year project which resulted in supposed 10% drop in mercury but significantly added operational costs.

By the way, CO2 does not affect 'quality' of air; but it can affect the oceans and forests by increasing the acidity of rain which can weaken plants and animals not to mention potential warming effects. I have even heard the accusation that acid rain

Nov 16, 2009
is to blame for the pines immune deficiencies in the south, resulting in an easier target for the pine beetles.

Nov 16, 2009
it can only be achieved by not allowing burning for energy production

Can't argue with this. However, due to our massive supplies and the infrastructure being so ingrained into the function of society, we're going to be burning fossils for a long time.

As for the pine trees, I'm not too familiar with what the south is experiencing, but I know in the Rockies, their problems stem from ecologically unsound management practices, primarily the unilateral control of wildfire.

Water is the "next big thing", and soils since water is literally intertwined with that. I hope people think about that Texas sized patch of plastic floating in the Pacific everytime they buy bottled water, individually packaged food items, or use plastic sacks at a store.

Nov 16, 2009
Sorry, correction. CO2 isn't to blaim for this, but other polutants are. Reasonable amounts of CO2 do not directly affect air quality.

Nov 16, 2009
"However, due to our massive supplies and the infrastructure being so ingrained into the function of society, we're going to be burning fossils for a long time."

Well, lets hope not.

Besides, most our coal plants are old rushy piles of junk that need to be replaced. They should be replaced with nuclear, not new coal.

I can't argue with the "massive supply" statement, but must note the same situation is there for nuclear. In fact, nuclear maximum capabilities far outpace coal when you start to consider reuse of nuclear waste. I don't see what you mean by "infrastructure being so ingrained into the function of society". Society doesn't care what produces the power so long as they get it without serious side effects.

I agree that cars are the primary problem. Problem is, we cannot run our cars on hydrogen or electricy generated by fossil plants. That would be ludicrise.

Water is the next big issue, followed by ground and soil, followed closely by recycling.

Nov 16, 2009
"infrastructure being so ingrained into the function of society"

This perplexes me. Why doesn't this apply to everything else we have upgraded in society? People were not used to paying with credit cards at one point, but that has become part of the culture. Hell, there was even a time when the old timer, much like your statement, refused to accept mail deliveries at home as USPS fanned out. Things change constantely in society, some for the better and some for the worst. Whenever I hear someone say we won't go for the better option because its to hard makes me sick. This is one of the worst quality of man.

Its a big flaw in the recent mind set of Americans. "if it aint broke, don't fix it" and "if it is broke, fix it with duck tape and super glue". In the long run, I suspect this will be the downfall of America unless corrected. It wasn't always this way in this country. If we put 1/3 of the yearly military budget and effort into this climite I could only imagin.

Nov 16, 2009
That's fine gun, I'd have no problem with nuclear reactors myself. But as youve noticed politics has little to do with the actual reality of what is or is not beneficial. If you can talk the anti nuclear crown into investing their money in it, I think most of America is fine with it.

If you put 1/3rd of the military budget into this, you will still have no progress and most likely will be conquered by some other nation...

But if you are going to spend billions of money you dont have, you might as well invest it in longer term energy nuclear.

Nov 16, 2009
This perplexes me.

This is just referring to the fact that everything is there that we need to use fossils and people are familiar with it and it works therefore it is by default cheaper and will be used. Not to mention energy infrastructure is more fundamental and integrated than any of the changes you equated it too.

It doesnt matter how hard or easy transitioning is (except as that relates to cost), what matters is theres no transition needed. Thats market economics.

I never said that we wont go for the better option. I have every belief that the transition will happen, but it will occur first in the places where it can be added and integrated into existing infrastructure (homes with PV, wind turbines out in the middle of nowhere) at a rate such is appropriate to it's market economics. Cars going electric would require massive infrastructure changes, and ppl being onboard w/ it.

You make it sound like we can just ignore the cost of transition, thats not how economies work.

Nov 16, 2009
Cost of transition is not a technical issue, its a political issue. Technically, the added profit from the transition will off set the transition costs. The powers that be are aware of this. We started to make the change in the 70s and everything was going fine until TMI. Nothing significant happened at TMI. The plant is still operational. It was intentionally hyped in the media to demote the power source. Now, as a result of further propaganda against nuclear, people think a nuclear plant can produce an atomic explosion. I even saw a documentary, PRODUCED BY PBS FOR GOD SAKE, that claimed a the core of a nuclear reactor could melt through the earth and cause a nuclear volcano. Thats just rediculous.

Nov 16, 2009

If you put 1/3rd of the military budget into this, you will still have no progress and most likely will be conquered by some other nation...

I doubt that. We spend far far more than any other nation on military, most of which disappears down a dark hole. In addition, we currently have roughly 500 nuclear submarines each with 16 rockets, each rocket has 14 war heads each with a power double that of hiroshima. It would only take 10 nuclear subs to explode every inch of the land on the planet. No one is stupid enough to F**K with that, except of course crazy people like the taliban who know that nuclear retaliation is not possible due to there distribution. Point is, no one who is actually capable will try to invade while we have this stock pile.

Nov 16, 2009
its a political issue


We come back to the one thing we always come back to. It is politics that stand in the way. What allows politics to stand in the way? Big Government.

What is big government? The result of a nation Peopled by generations so fattened by cheap energy and resources and the exploitation of foreign economies that It can't, and doesn't want to, lift a hand in defense of Itself.

With the hyper-inflation, and lost economic dominance, that America has coming we are going to see tremendous changes in the structure of society and then politics which, if we don't get a handle on NOW, is going to result in a nation where the majority of it's People are impoverished, due to a skyrocketing cost of living while earning remains stagnant for most, and They will be unable to do anything BUT depend on the Government and I don't know how familiar you are with how Socialism has worked out historically but I can tell you that most of the People aren't going to like it.

Nov 16, 2009
Wonderful contribution, otto, please do elucidate for those of us who aren't conspiracy theorists, as to whom the People in Charge are.

Oh and can you do that without the genocide bit? I think that just muddies the waters.

Nov 17, 2009

Just beyond your seditious loathing of the republic I see a heavy green curtain falling across the land of our distant relatives across the Atlantic, smothering any hope of a truly free Europe.

It matters a great deal who rules and how; I'd like to hear how loudly you cheer when the People In Charge incarcerate their "subjects" into cities rendered into panopticon serfdoms.

Your admirable faith in the intentions of the People In Charge to accomplish stability and progress is not substantiated by any sensible review of the past few generations of human history. What can be accurately said of the P.I.C. is that they have turned their hand against their own people in order to enrich themselves.

The green panic will fail once the need to sustain itself by devouring its own faithful becomes too outlandish to conceal, at last discarded as the latest attempt to gain durable mastery of a world enriched by modern wealth but still clinging to human liberty. We aim to keep it.

Nov 17, 2009
Get off the big governement argument, it has nothing to do with it. This is a perfect example of how people inject politics into a non-political issue. Politicians, though out to serve them selves, really serve there contributors who are rarely the people. I don't care how it gets done or who does it so long as it happens. Problem is, we should have begun the fuel switch 50 years ago. In the last 50 yearsr, whats always been the best option? Electric motors and/or hydrogen hybride technology+heat recycling. Nothing has changed here. Nothing will change unless your holding out for that mirical flying car solution. We have the tools and the technical will, we have for almost half a century. During the majority of this time, we have left it up to the big business (not the remnants of any truely free market). They have failed, intentionally in my opinion. Either way, we don't need them and if they don't want to change, fine, we wont force them. But we will not be held up them anylonger.

Nov 17, 2009
My point Gun, is that money isnt the issue. It is mostly the political segment. It is also demand.

Until car companies sell the eletric/hybrid cars at much better cost comparison, hardly anyone gives a flip.

The tv was invented right around the time of the radio, but the radio was the better form of entertainment. Far less expensive, more programs.

There is nothing wrong with big business, or being wealthy. But there is a problem when either business or the government attempts to manipulate the market. There is a problem when they gamble..and then that gambling habit is supported upon failure.

If you want to change the mindset, you either elect new leaders, or produce a product that everyone wants. Gloom and doom projections on the environment, have rarely swayed anyone though.

Nov 17, 2009
Hey yellowdart,
Thats actually the first comment out of the 120 comments that I actually agree with 100% percent. A few comments/clarifications though:

money isnt the issue. It is mostly the political segment.

Agreed, but the political segment is an artificial problem created to manipulate the science, primary for the purposes of a very small but power segment of the economy, fossil fuels.
example: http://oversight....?ID=1162

Until car companies sell the eletric/hybrid cars

Cost savings are already there when considering fuel costs, yet, why aren't all hybrids plugins? Such a simple cheap chargin circuit with much advantage, why is this still in the 'research' phase. costs nothing in omparison to the car.

The tv was ..
Agreed, but it didnt take long to switch(10-20y), as it shouldnt here.

There is nothing wrong with big business..

Agreed, I have nothing against motel 6, but tobaco and fossil are evil, regulatn req.

Nov 17, 2009
LOL! Interesting, otto, how you have just substituted the mysticism of faith and spirituality with a mysticism and faith in an all powerful group of humans. Can you even recognize that this is exactly what you've done? While I'm sure it does nothing to alleviate your fear of death, it no doubt allows you to tell yourself that it's okay that you don't have any control over your life. Let me know how that works out for you.
Doesn't matter who's in charge.

Spoken like someone who doesn't have any answers so they must fabricate their reality. Of course it matters who.

If you believe that a group could be large enough and powerful enough, but still have a unanimous vision on why, how and what should be done with the entirety of humanity, then you have to be able to have a reasonable conjecture, otherwise it's no etter than religion and just demonstrates the complete and irreparable fallacy of your juvenile conspiracies.

Nov 17, 2009
that link was removed, heres the story:

Nov 17, 2009

You sound very strongly like someone who has never experienced the forms of rule you seem willing to submit to. Are you certain this is what you want? Are you openly declaring your obedience to a nationless, nameless, faceless authority structure that claims to dictate the fate of humanity?

I think you may have drunk a little too deeply from the well of discontent. I must remind you that your present bodily comforts are available because people still reasonably expect to make a profit from their free agency. If you think these people will afford you the same abundance as slaves to the powers you describe, you are deluding yourself with strong drink.

You completely misunderstand human behavior and overestimate the ability of any power structure to maintain itself longer than one or two generations. Systems based on corruption disintegrate rapidly, like dead matter on a beach.

Nov 17, 2009
gunslingor originally said:
its a political issue

gunslingor also wants to say:
people inject politics into a non-political issue

C'mon, gunslingor, you just WISH it wasn't political.
You can't talk out both sides of your mouth at the same time and say different things.
Cost savings are already there

That long-term savings are there yet is debatable for PV, for EV cars, it has nothing to do with the longterm savings yet because of the initial capital needed to establish the infrastructure to make them workable. The transition to presently available technology (which is lacking) is all economics gunslingor, the technology will improve and eventually it will become economically viable, then it will happen.

We have two arguments going on here: AGW=political, transition=economic. You're trying to conflate them into one, when they are wholly separate issues. Until you realize this, you will fail to successfully push your agenda, which appears to be renewables.

Nov 17, 2009
its a political issue

Clarifying: Its a technical issue that has been solved long ago.

people inject politics into a non-political issue

Clarifying: It is a technical issue that has been solved, so the politics involved now is to mitigate any chance of the solution being implemented subpression and diversion.

You were talking about:
We come back to the one thing we always come back to. It is politics that stand in the way. What allows politics to stand in the way? Big Government.

I agree, its politics, but this is completely dictated by the power of big business. I don't get how you can support big business and not support big government. I don't personnal care the size of either, so long as the system works, but it doesn't and I don't think you can blaim government without blaiming the ones responsible for the campaign contributions. Smaller gov at this point only means more control for big business.

Nov 17, 2009
Doesnt mean I'm not right.

Thats not what you tell the religious. Nice to know you're a hypocrite as well as a conspiracy theorist.
I see Them as the Salvation that only Reason can provide.

You and most of the fearful masses, sadly.

Its only a matter of time before People realize that allowance for personal liberty, combined with a small government, dedicated to national defense, and a free market can achieve the same thing (Stability and Progress), without the whole social and economic domination of individuals part of your Salvation.

You can continue to follow, that's your right and your lot in life if it is your will, I even hope it brings you happiness and inner peace though I don't believe it can, but if it takes nothing less than cultural revolution, than cultural revolution is what We need to shoot for, if it takes nothing less than evolution than evolution is what humanity will wait for, but it will happen. Either that or We wipe Ourselves off the face of Earth.

Nov 17, 2009 big business

Define Big Business, corporations are a part of market economy. IMO, Big Business is when the government and business interests (money) become intertwined and government is corrupted as a result. I do not support big business.
you can{'t} blaim government without blaiming... campaign contributions

I agree, I don't think campaigns should be able to receive monetary support of any kind other than public (taxes) and personal funding, which that should be limited. This is for the same reasons we separate church and state. Separate business and state. I know you have a problem with this, please explain.
Smaller gov at this point only means more control for big business.

Absolutely not if we disallow business to have direct monetary influence on politics.

We need to get our government and economy back to their pure forms and implement changes to prevent what corrupted it last time. It's really not that hard, not all that many strokes of a pen.

Nov 17, 2009
What you feel when you say 'liberty'

Ah, so you're a mind reader too? Too bad you're prohibitively myopic. When I say liberty, I am talking of a very concrete principle. I have no faith and am not spiritual, I only know the very limited experience of what I know.
So far weve had overall Stability

So far, being the operative words here of course. It's not been that long since man has had the ability to exert the levels of control we see these days, and even a shorter time since man has had the ability to wipe civilization off the face of the planet.

'Never make a politician / grant you a favour
They will always want / to control you forever, yeh!'

there's some Bob Marley Revolution for ya, hippy!

Any way, it sounds like we're mostly on the same page, you've just lost your will to fight.

Nov 17, 2009
Otto and Gunslingor1:

Unfortunately the distance between our worlds is so vast, communication is becoming difficult.

Apparently on your world hope is abandoned; only death, deserts, and the Ultimate Rulers exist. Everything else is a dark shade of sad. Why debate here if the future of your world is so bleak and your powers as individuals so impotent? Shouldn't you just surrender your will altogether instead of proselytizing the doctrines of the dark side?

It seems your aim is to make our world more like the one you describe, complete with its invincible puppet masters and traumatized populations of unthinking consumer-bots.

Do you hate your species so much that you would openly betray us and clap your hands for the incarceration of planet earth?

How long did the carceral states of the 20th century endure? Did their theories of social control and political dominance produce the utopia their delusions predicted? How much more will this one?

Nov 17, 2009

My rejection of your plan is the natural consequence of understanding the failed human trait that keeps expressing itself among the maleficent rich. This trait causes one to think he is going to somehow rule as tyrant over the entire rational population of the United States.

Rich men are clever and attempt to steal nearly the same prize by distributing regional powers in secret among a hidden elect, unified by a transnational body that elects its own.

They are heavily involved with their clubmates in central governments and love the corrupt arrangements that result in private profits. Their aim is to control both the risks of power by controlling the movements and potency of the other humans, and the profits reaped by urbanely incarcerated populations held at gunpoint to pay taxes and submit their liberties to a continual "climate emergency." Any analysis of the "new" world economy would guide your mind a little closer to its senses. Are you their willing toad?

Nov 17, 2009
Furthermore, Otto, you need to understand the as-yet unclaimed "official" transfer of power that human vanity cannot avoid. To wit, Tony Blair startled the world by publicly craving the EU presidency, giving us a glimpse at what kind of prize he felt this new game offered. Such are crafty enough to keep their scheme with enough discipline to avoid detection by the public, but the aphorism is their successors will not be able to do so.

The commotion and insurrection presented by the "green" front is but the convergence of compatible manifestos from simple charlatans like Gore and sophisticated population control blueprints for states ruled by incumbent robber-king internationalists. In doing so, human activities that until now have been completely liberated will become objects of state domination.

This is done to dismantle the strength of the legal republic and bind its citizens for a more complete subjection. Do you think they will get away with it with their lives?

Nov 18, 2009
Rich men are clever and attempt to steal nearly the same prize by distributing regional powers in secret among a hidden elect, unified by a transnational body that elects its own

I somewhat agree with some of this, but they aren't stupid, they have learned from mistakes in the throughout history. Evil begetsw evil, its very harde to get the corrupt out once they have a foot hold.

I don't even understand the point you are trying to make. Yes, I do feel hope is almost lost, but there always will be hope, so I fight for what remains. This conversion has scattered and has barely and vaguely touched on a lot of very important subjects. I could care less about the politics or the business ethics so long as we do what we all know needs to be done. I am 100% fine with regulting green house gases from stationary sources, but not mobile. Only other option is to outlaw burning fossil all together, which I feel is ideal; GHG regulation is the compromise. see this:

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more