BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
Page 1 ... 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 ... 184

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
A study by Jacobs Engineering Group found that emissions from oil-sand crude are just 12 percent higher than from regular crude. A study for the EU by Stanford University academic Adam Brandt found that oil-sand crude was as much as 22 percent more carbon intensive. Oil sands requires additional energy for steam injection and refining.

[Barbara Lewis, David Ljunggren and Jeffrey Jones (10 May 2012). "Canada's Tar Sands Battle With Europe". Reuters.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The same thing that happened to Detroit is now happening to dozens of other communities across the United States.

From coast to coast there are formerly great manufacturing cities that have turned into rotting, post-industrial war zones. In particular, in America's "rust belt" you can drive through town after town after town that resemble little more than post-apocalyptic wastelands.

In many U.S. cities, the "real" rate of unemployment is over 30 percent. There are some communities that will start depressing you almost the moment you drive into them. It is almost as if all of the hope has been sucked right out of those communities.

Meanwhile, the economic downturn has been incredibly hard on the finances of state and local governments across the United States. Unlike the federal government, state and local governments cannot use the Federal Reserve to play games with their exploding debt burdens. Facing horrific budget deficits, many communities have begun adopting "austerity measures" in an attempt to slow the flow of red ink. All over the nation, deep budget cuts are slashing police departments, fire departments and other basic social services, but it seems like no matter what many of these communities try the debt just keeps growing.

So when you combine economic hopelessness with drastic budget cuts, what you get are hordes of communities from coast to coast that are becoming just like Detroit. In the city of Detroit today, there are over 33,000 abandoned houses, 44 schools have been permanently closed down, the mayor wants to bulldoze one-fourth of the city and you can literally buy a house for one dollar in the worst areas. Many Americans thought that it was funny to make fun of Detroit, but little did they know that what happened there would soon start happening everywhere.

Unfortunately, things are going to get even worse. Thousands more factories and millions more jobs will be sent overseas. The debt loads of our state and local governments will continue to skyrocket. The truth is that city after city after city is going to start looking like something out of a third world country.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...2?op=1#ixzz2nDNyHWaB

Millions of acres of once prime farm land now lost, and no attempt at reclamation.

It's easy to see why Americans point fingers and try to deflect attention elsewhere.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
You guys have some Very Deep Thoughts...

Anyone catch the debate on Aljazeera about the Keystone pipeline? Saw this video on there, found it relevant to this discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...re=player_detailpage


Big Grin


Recycling & Green Fuels Research: www.altfuelsgroup.org
Ozone Eating Toys For Big Boys !!: www.suncoastexotics.com
Carefully Maintaining A Carbon Neutral Footprint...
 
Location: Southeastern Ohio | Registered: January 10, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Guilt-tripping and hyperbole won't work anymore. After the alarmist temperature predictions in Gore's docudrama didn't happen, the public realized it was a scam, and they don't believe the AGW zealots anymore. Trying to sidestep it by calling it 'climate change' won't work either, credibility is lost in the eyes of the public. Most of the public don't have computers, they don't browse greenie blogs, and they don't buy into the AGW fantasy.

Why don't greenies focus on stopping toxic pollution. Nobody will argue that humans aren't causing it. Get some credibility stopping toxic pollution and we might begin to believe you.

These poor disillusioned anti-oilsand "environmental activists" deserve our pity. It was so easy for organizations funded by Big Coal and OPEC to take advantage of their naivete and manipulate them to do their 'dirty work'. I fault our dysfunctional education system for creating so many over-educated kids who lack any real world common sense.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Carbon dioxide’s effect on global warming ‘understimated’ - See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2013/12/12....z4dI5bvO.dpuf

By Alex Kirby

You may think the prospect of climate change is alarming, a call to action to slow down our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

You’re almost certainly right. But some scientists are now suggesting you should be much more concerned than you are, because they think we may be seriously underestimating the problem.

The Geological Society of London (GSL) says the sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to CO2 could be double earlier estimates.

The Society has published an addition to a report by a GSL working party in 2010, which was entitled Climate change: Evidence from the Geological Record.

The addition says many climate models typically look at short term, rapid factors when calculating the Earth’s climate sensitivity, which is defined as the average global temperature increase brought about by a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Scientists agree that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels could result in temperature increases of between 1.5 and 4.5°C, caused by rapid changes such as snow and ice melt, and the behaviour of clouds and water vapour.

But what the GSL now says is that geological evidence from palaeoclimatology (studies of past climate change) suggests that if longer-term factors are taken into account, such as the decay of large ice sheets, the Earth’s sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 could itself be double that predicted by most climate models.

CO2′s significance

Dr Colin Summerhayes, who led the statement’s working group, says: “The climate sensitivity suggested by modern climate models may be fine for the short term, but does not encompass the full range of change expected in the long term…”

But he cautions that there are really two “sensitivities” involved: “Climate sensitivity is what happens in the short term in response to a doubling of CO2. But the Earth system sensitivity is what happens in the longer time frame as ice sheets slowly melt, and as sea level slowly rises.

“…The IPCC focuses on… the climate sensitivity – what will happen in the next 100 years. Earth system sensitivity tells you what happens in the next couple of hundred years after that.”

The GSL’s addition also reports new data showing that temperature and CO2 levels recorded in Antarctic ice cores increase at the same time. This, says Summerhayes, “makes the role of CO2 in changing Ice Age climate highly significant.”

Atmospheric carbon levels are currently just below 400 parts per million (ppm) – a figure last seen between 5.3 and 2.6 million years ago. Global temperatures were then 2-3°C higher than today, and sea levels were several metres higher, due to partial melting of the Antarctic ice sheet.

If the current rate of increase (2 ppm per year) continues, CO2 levels could reach 600 ppm by the end of this century; levels which, says Summerhayes, “have not been seen for 24 million years”.

Models match palaeoclimate

The new GSL statement outlines evidence that a relatively modest rise in atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature leads to significant sea level rise, with oceans more acidic and less oxygenated. Previous such events caused marine crises and extinctions, with the Earth system taking around 100,000 years to recover.

Dr Summerhayes said: “We now have even more confidence from the geological record that the only plausible explanation for current warming is the unprecedented exponential rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

“Recent compilations of past climate data, along with astronomical calculations, show that changes in the Earth’s orbit and axis cooled the world over the past 10,000 years. This cooling would normally be expected to continue for at least another 1,000 years.

“And yet Arctic palaeoclimate records show that the period 1950-2000 was the warmest 50 year interval for 2,000 years. We should be cool, but we’re not.”

He told Climate News Network: “The main implication from my perspective is that the geological record tells us that increasing CO2 increases temperature, melts ice, and raises sea level. This we know independently of any fancy numerical model run by climate scientists.

“However, those climate scientists’ models happen to come up with about the same answer as we get from the geological record, which suggests that the modellers are likely to be on the right track.”
- See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2013/12/12...sthash.z4dI5bvO.dpuf


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Climate alarmists' search for proof going cold

Even China’s coal-burning is offered to explain lack of global warming.

http://www.ocregister.com/arti...bal-temperature.html

By MARK LANDSBAUM / Register columnist
Published: Dec. 13, 2013 Updated: 3:39 p.m.

Recall global warming hysteria’s halcyon days? Just 13 years ago, Dr. David Viner, senior scientist at Britain’s University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit, confidently predicted that, within a few years, winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event.”

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Of course, that doesn’t mesh with what happened. This past October, the UK Express headlined, “Worst winter for decades: Record-breaking snow predicted for November.”

By the end of November, Brits were shivering, “as Britain faces snow, ice and plummeting temperatures,” reported the Mirror newspaper. “Most of Scotland has been issued severe weather warnings for ice, and temperatures are expected to remain low, causing problems with snow and ice across the country.” Winter yet lay ahead.

We shouldn’t pick on Great Britain. There is plenty of global warming foolishness here at home. Recall James Hansen, global warming guru whose alarmist campaign was underwritten by his NASA paycheck. By the 2020s, Hansen predicted in 1986, the U.S. average annual temperature would rise 9 degrees Fahrenheit, or more, and up to 3 degrees by the 2010s.

A funny thing happened on the way to the 2010s and 2020s. It didn’t get so hot. In fact, depending on which data set you use, it probably has cooled down for 17 years.

A recent explanation for this pause (if not reversal), was offered in a scientific paper blaming the El Niño Pacific Ocean warming in 1997-98 for triggering the hiatus.

As the theory goes, El Niño caused a large heat transfer from deep in the ocean to the surface, which cooled the waters below. Since then, according to the theory, heat has been reabsorbed from the upper ocean, in turn cooling the atmosphere. Maybe. Maybe not.

There’s no shortage of inventive excuses for why things aren’t so hot, including, incredibly, China’s increased use of coal, even though “dirty” fossil fuel is supposed to increase, not decrease temperatures.

Implicit in this “where-did-the-heat-go” shell game is an inconvenient reality.

Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr., University of Colorado, Boulder, professor emeritus of Atmospheric Science, says, if correct, the ocean paper means, “the end of surface temperature trends as the icon of global warming.”

If so, that’s a game changer for the climate wars.

If surface temperatures lose their credibility (and we side with those who long have said that’s the case), where will alarmists point to prove their point?

There always have been problems relying on land-based thermometers. For instance, where should thermometers be placed? How high off the ground? There are no worldwide uniform standards.

While airports, concrete and asphalt represent a scant percentage of Earth’s surface, they are home to a disproportionate percentage of ground measuring stations. Does this matter? Consider the common sense knowledge that standing in a grassy field is cooler than standing on an asphalt runway. Not only are such locales hotter, they get hotter faster and hold their temperatures disproportionately longer.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
If we follow the theory that global warming is real, at least partially caused by humans, and must be addressed soon as possible to avoid major climate changes that might wipe out millions, but then it turns out people like John were correct 20 yrs down the road. What damage was done by taking action, and how does this leave our planet for our grandkids?

Now lets imagine we listen to those who claim all this global warming is BS, not related to humans, and isn't going to have any negative impact on our future as humans living on this rock. Then 20 years from now, we discover they were dead wrong. What we gonna do then??? Nothing cause we're screwed, with no recourse besides inventing a time machine so we can come back to 2013 and knock off all those people who claimed this is a bunch of BS...

I tend to prefer the first choice, cause if we are wrong, we can easily revert back to trashing the place a heck of a lot easier than attempting to invent time travel within a couple of years of our certain doom. Less stressful, and those who cried BS, all get to live so they can say I told ya so..


Recycling & Green Fuels Research: www.altfuelsgroup.org
Ozone Eating Toys For Big Boys !!: www.suncoastexotics.com
Carefully Maintaining A Carbon Neutral Footprint...
 
Location: Southeastern Ohio | Registered: January 10, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post







There were about 70,000 humans surviving the last glacial cycle.

In 10,000 years almost 7 billion humans.

The biggest problem facing humanity is not if we might be making it warm up faster than it did before.

It's the population explosion.




 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ronny:
You have left out the most important chart



I like it and it's probably more valid than the preceding


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Cliff Harris, climatologist good joke.

I guess he can call himself anything he wants, it's just not the truth. I don't think anyone is going to fall for a self taught climatologist. Maybe a top ten joke but that's about it. using the bible to predict climate is a new tactic but I'm pretty sure it's not an accepted procedure

Funny graph though


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
What damage was done by taking action, and how does this leave our planet for our grandkids?

That question is far more complicated then it sounds when you look at the big picture.
Here in Ontario the green energy initiative has done irreversible damage to our economy, we went from from having the cheapest power in north America to the most expensive in just a few years. This is driving industry out of Ontario in waves and it has only just begun. Just last week our retarded provincial guberment proudly announced that our hydro rates will only go up by 42% in the next 5 years, of course their cost estimates can typically be quadrupled in order to get close to the ball park.
The "green incentives" are also allowing hydro electric dams to be installed on small rivers as the incentives (money) offered from the guberment for "green power" makes these small run of river dams make financial sense. In the meantime it is destroying several small rivers and ecosystems that may never recover, never-mind the stinking algae blooms caused by the reduced and "peaked" flow needed to generate the power...
I want my grandkids to have jobs, be able to afford electricity and be able to visit their grandparents and enjoy the beautiful Vermilion river they live on (that is currently about to be dammed for a pittance of "green energy").
The way I see it there was once far greater C02 levels on earth and there was once a rainforest above the arctic circle. If you ask me some warming is long overdue!
Cheers,
Jon
 
Location: Wellington County, Ontario Canada | Registered: February 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
A Swedish study found that the planet was warmer in ancient Roman times and the Middle Ages than today, challenging the mainstream idea that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main drivers of global warming.

The study, by scientist Leif Kullman, analyzed 455 “radiocarbon-dated mega-fossils” in the Scandes mountains and found that tree lines for different species of trees were higher during the Roman and Medieval times than they are today. Not only that, but the temperatures were higher as well.

“Historical tree line positions are viewed in relation to early 21st century equivalents, and indicate that tree line elevations attained during the past century and in association with modern climate warming are highly unusual, but not unique, phenomena from the perspective of the past 4,800 years,” Kullman found. “Prior to that, the pine tree line (and summer temperatures) was consistently higher than present, as it was also during the Roman and Medieval periods.”

Kullman also wrote that “summer temperatures during the early Holocene thermal optimum may have been 2.3°C higher than present.” The “Holocene thermal optimum was a warm period that occurred between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago. This warm period was followed by a gradual cooling period.”

According to Kullman, the temperature spikes were during the Roman and Medieval warming periods “were succeeded by a distinct tree line/temperature dip, broadly corresponding to the Little Ice Age.”

For many years now, there was an alleged scientific consensus that the Earth was warming due to humans releasing greenhouse gases into the air — primarily through burning fossil fuels. However, temperatures stopped rising after 1998, leaving scientists scrambling to find an explanation to the hiatus in warming.

Increasingly, scientists are looking away from human causes and looking at solar activity and natural climate variability for explanations of why the planet warms and cools.

“All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet,” Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told the Los Angeles Times. “However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact.”

The Kullman study points to mounting evidence that climate is largely out of human control, as humans were not burning large amounts fossil fuels during Roman and Medieval times.

Some scientists have pointed to solar activity as the predictor of where global temperatures are headed. Researchers have pointed to falling sunspot activity as evidence that the planet will cool off in the coming decades.

“By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, [Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University] has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years,” the BBC reports. “Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.”

Others have looked to natural climate systems for explanations for answers to the 15-year pause in global warming.

A study by Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama, Huntsville found that about half the warming that occurred since the 1970s can be attributed to El Niño weather events, which had a warming effect on the planet.

The Pacific Ocean’s natural warming and cooling cycles last about 30 years, with La Niña cooling being dominant from the 1950s to the 1970s and El Niño warming events dominating late 1970s to the late 1990s. Spencer suggests that the world may be in a La Niña cooling period.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12...times/#ixzz2np6kReti



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
Revoke tenure for every professor who refuses to participate and put them on a 5 year moratorium to prevent then from receiving any state research dollars for any reason.
 
Location: Southern WI, USA | Registered: May 18, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
The last thing you want are University professors who refuse to do research because of political reasons or because they are afraid the outcome might not be what they expect!

THAT'S NOT HONEST SCIENCE!

A professor who refuses to do research for those reasons has no right to be a professor.
 
Location: Southern WI, USA | Registered: May 18, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Good models attempt to separate the signal from the noise; maximize negative entropy. The research community are being asked restrict the range of variables and a priori hypotheses even if the fit of the models is poor...ranking models known to fit poorly is very bad science when there is a body of best evidence already available to formulate meaningful hypotheses.
 
Location: SW Oregon | Registered: December 15, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Good models attempt to separate the signal from the noise; maximize negative entropy. The research community are being asked restrict the range of variables and a priori hypotheses even if the fit of the models is poor...ranking models known to fit poorly is very bad science when there is a body of best evidence already available to formulate meaningful hypotheses.

Thats an oxymoron, the hypotheses will not be meaningful if computer models of climate are used to form it. Plain and simple and proven repeatedly...
Cheers,
Jon
 
Location: Wellington County, Ontario Canada | Registered: February 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 ... 184 
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014