backtop


Print 239 comment(s) - last by gorbush.. on Jul 3 at 3:40 AM


Arizona may become the first state to ban costly legislation based on climate change theory.
One state looks to ensure its citizens do not have to pay for climate change efforts

Climate change is a controversial topic.  Some believe man is causing the world to warm.  Others point out that the Earth has undergone solar warming and cooling for millions of years and that current temperatures are well within historic levels.  A recent report challenging AGW theory showed significant support with 31,478 U.S. researchers and scientists, many of whom hold Ph.D's, signing a statement that they believe that man has not played a part in the current warming trend.

Arizona is now close to becoming the first state to outlaw climate change legislation.  The state Senate voted Monday, 19-10 to approve a bill banning the Department of Environmental Quality from enacting or enforcing measures with language pertaining to climate change.  The bill is now awaiting House approval.

The bill will likely pass and be signed into law thanks to a switch in power.  Formerly, Janet Napolitano (D) was governor of the state, but she left to join Barack Obama's Cabinet.  Napolitano was replaced by Jan Brewer (R), who has not indicated a strong desire to support AGW theorists.

If Senate Bill 1147 passes it will block rules passed by the DEQ that set harsher emission standards.  The proposed increases were hastily pushed through by the former governor, despite complaints from industry leaders.  It would also end work on "cap and trade" carbon legislation, which has been opposed by the utility industry.  Such a scheme could help to raise power prices for the state's citizens significantly.

A passage could also give the state means to challenge the federal government in court over the proposed Waxman-Markey bill, which would put over $1,600 in yearly costs on American citizens to cut carbon emissions.  The legislation, which has also received criticism for potentially hurting farmers, is currently making its way through a Democrat controlled House and Senate, awaiting Barack Obama's approval.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Michael Andrews
By Bonrock on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Andrews
By mandrews on 6/24/2009 5:56:24 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, I am not an editor, but rather a blogger and occasional columnist for DailyTech. I am also in no way affiliated with Fox News, if that needs to be said, though I think there would be nothing wrong if I was.

Did you have some issue with the content of the article itself, which you would like to discuss?


RE: Michael Andrews
By GeorgeOu on 6/24/2009 6:04:24 PM , Rating: 3
Not even worth answering that troll. Those people have no way to rebut the content so they're going to attack the author.


RE: Michael Andrews
By Hvordan on 6/24/2009 6:14:10 PM , Rating: 1
The $1600 I'm assuming is the number from the CBO analysis which was not analysing the Waxman-Markey bill. The Waxman-Markey estimate was significantly lower (although I can't remember the number off the top of my head).


RE: Michael Andrews
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 9:32:29 AM , Rating: 2
What the estimate from those trying to pass the bill was lower than the budget office? No....


RE: Michael Andrews
By Bonrock on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Andrews
By mandrews on 6/24/2009 6:39:10 PM , Rating: 5
You can think whatever you will of me, but I believe the facts on this topic speak for themselves.

If you can not find a specific statement that you believe to be erroneous, then there's really nothing more to say on the topic.


RE: Michael Andrews
By Lifted on 6/24/2009 9:00:21 PM , Rating: 1
Do you have any relation to Michael Asher? Did you take over the environmental articles since that appears to be all you "blog" on?


RE: Michael Andrews
By Hvordan on 6/25/2009 5:22:09 AM , Rating: 3
1. The report by the NIPCC is a rehash of talking points relating to AGW. A report is a good start for a rebuttal of AGW, some published science to back it up would be better.

2. The same sentence is also misleading. 31k sciententists have not endorsed the report (which is pointed out in the report itself), but rather a statement claiming that proposed limits on greenhouse gases is bad for the environment, AGW is bunk, and more CO2 is good for plants and animals.

3. $1,600 for Waxman-Markey is another weasly statement. This is the CBO estimate for a %15 carbon emission by 2020. It does not relate to Waxman-Markey specifically. The CBO estimate of W-M was $175 per year, a far cry from the $1,600.


RE: Michael Andrews
By autoboy on 6/24/2009 6:45:20 PM , Rating: 3
Bonrock, maybe you should do your part to reduce carbon emissions and just roll over and die. Apparently, a dissenting opinion is not valued by you. If you actually did any research on your own about Anthropogenic Global Warming, and actually discussed dissenting opinions instead of writing them off as mentally disabled, then you would see that there are valid arguments from both sides, and as such AGW needs to be debated, instead of just pushed through claiming "consensus".

Or maybe you are just too dense to hold a job and don't pay any taxes while you waste away in your parents basement oblivious to increases in the price of food, goods, and energy.


RE: Michael Andrews
By Bonrock on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Andrews
By omnicronx on 6/24/2009 6:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yet you still have not cited what you consider questionable. Whats the point of calling out the author if all you can say is 'so many questionable figures'. Give us some links that justify your claims. Otherwise your claims mean absolutely nothing. (thus the troll comment)


RE: Michael Andrews
By KaTaR on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Andrews
By Emma on 6/30/2009 10:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I can't believe this article uses the Heartland Institute as a credible source.
It has previously received funding from the tobacco industry to oppose restrictions on smoking and criticising the science behind the harm of second-hand smoke.
It also received $560,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.
It even has a 'global warming expert', Gerd-Rainer Weber, from the German Coal Mining Association. No conflict there!


RE: Michael Andrews
By KCjoker on 6/24/2009 6:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
Since you don't like this sites info why don't you do us all a favor and stop coming here. Go read info from MSNBC because we all know they aren't bias. /sarcasm off


RE: Michael Andrews
By omnicronx on 6/24/2009 6:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
Haven't you heard? Bashing DT writers is the new thing!

Personally I find it hilarious that someone would stop and take the time to make such a comment. If you don't like what DT has to offer, then why are you reading their articles?


RE: Michael Andrews
By KaTaR on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Andrews
By FaaR on 6/24/2009 11:35:03 PM , Rating: 1
The man merely reports the news, he doesn't make it up, dude.

If you don't like that there's different opinions on various matters out there, I'd suggest putting a brown paper bag over your head and not leaving your home again, ever. ;)


Selfish
By matt0401 on 6/24/2009 11:03:02 PM , Rating: 2
"One state looks to ensure its citizens do not have to pay for climate change efforts"

Doesn't this seem a little selfish? It's like a kindergartner rebelliously claiming that he didn't make the mess and he won't do his share come cleanup time.




RE: Selfish
By Boze on 6/25/2009 12:01:55 AM , Rating: 2
How is it selfish? Is it not more childish to simply stand around with your fingers in your ears, yelling, "I'm not listening!" to anyone who has something to say that you don't like hearing? Isn't it even more childish to just take someone's word at face value and not ensure that they're absolutely correct before you go off on whatever half-baked path they want to put you on?


RE: Selfish
By matt0401 on 6/25/2009 12:12:46 AM , Rating: 4
Yes. This is why it's generally accepted that humans have contributed to climate change. It's been put through the scientific method and pretty much proven. So, short answer, yes it is indeed childish to "stand around with your fingers in your ears, yelling, I'm not listening!" to those devoted to science who are studying climate change.

I'm sure when the Earth was discovered to be round there were dissenters. It seems people need something to rebel against. Perhaps they should try something where they aren't stacked up against 99% of the world's scientific community.


RE: Selfish
By Boze on 6/25/2009 12:33:22 AM , Rating: 2
Where are you getting this 99% figure? The last time I had seen a conclusive and exhaustive study done detailed around a 58% agreement on the theory of AGW, and a 39% disagreement, with a 3% margin of error. You need around a 95% confidence interval to be absolutely sure something's occuring. The last time I read about this was in late 2003 I believe, but it might have been early 2004.

I doubt in the last five to six years there's been enough work done, enough advancement of science, and enough increase in computing power to push the confidence interval to 95%.

When 95% of scientists are in agreement, then I'll be happy to back up measures to fix the problem; until then, we need more compelling evidence.


RE: Selfish
By matt0401 on 6/25/2009 2:02:05 AM , Rating: 5
The 99% was intended to be a quick way of me saying the vast majority". But if you want to play with words, why not? Here's a quick link I pulled from Google in about 5 seconds:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-01-30-ip...

And inside the article...

"The gold-standard Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report represents "a real convergence happening here, a consensus that this is a total global no-brainer," says U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, former director of the federal government's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey.
...
Mahlman, who crafted the IPCC language used to define levels of scientific certainty, says the new report will lay the blame at the feet of fossil fuels with "virtual certainty," meaning 99% sure. That's a significant jump from "likely," or 66% sure, in the group's last report in 2001, Mahlman says. His role in this year's effort involved spending two months reviewing the more than 1,600 pages of research that went into the new assessment."

Therefore, 99% .
:)


RE: Selfish
By gorbush on 6/25/2009 8:27:26 AM , Rating: 2
I wish that Mythbuster take some effort and try assert Global Warming.

Without them I would have hard time convincing people that US realy land on moon ;). For real.


RE: Selfish
By matt0401 on 6/26/2009 4:20:45 AM , Rating: 2
You know what I actually used to think it was faked as well. Just the thought of 60's computer technology (or lack of?) pulling it off seemed far fetched. But Mythbusters' debunking of the conspiracy theories was SOLID! They did an amazing job with that.

You mention them doing global warming... I think they did. They tested the theory that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere by placing snowmen or something inside mini tarp greenhouses and pumping in gases... CO2, etc. And it was confirmed...


RE: Selfish
By gorbush on 6/26/2009 5:47:26 AM , Rating: 2
OK, thank for info. I'm pretty sure that I didn't see that episode. Now I will try to find it. Probably it is titled: "Snowman extermination" ;).


RE: Selfish
By gorbush on 6/26/2009 6:17:54 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't find before mentioned Mythbuster episode but I encountered some imitation ;):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A9Ldh1ISPw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xujkE9jJBIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r8P_N8MN4k

Quite good arguments (most of them I had known) but his knowledge isn't even full. CO2 isn't stored in oceans in dissolved form but absorbed in other forms.
quote:
Carbon dioxide, like other gases, obeys Henry’s law, which means that an increase in the atmospheric level of CO2
increases the concentration of CO2 in the surface oceans.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a chemically
unreactive gas but, when dissolved in seawater, becomes
more reactive and takes part in several chemical, physical,
biological and geological reactions, many of which are
complex.

Source: "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide" by Royal Society publishing House. Link: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk

But I read about this in some other source.


RE: Selfish
By MrPoletski on 6/30/2009 8:50:16 AM , Rating: 2
A bunch of scientists being 99% sure of something is not the same as 99% of scientists supporting the findings they are 99% sure of.

A more interesting statistic is how many of these for-AGW scientists and against-AGW scientists are actually meteorologists and climate specialists rather than physicists, chemists, marine biologists etc..

Because that is what matters... you don't send in a biologist to fix a nuclear reactor any more than you would send a dentist in to perform brain surgery.

IMHO, I think the protagonists have all the climate specialists and the doubters have everything the corporate interests that stand to loose loads (oil) could convince to jump on their band wagon.


Dumbed Downed Left Trash
By IQDOC on 6/29/2009 4:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
One doesn't need to go far before one runs into a dumbed down whacked out leftist. They open their mouth and insert their fodder and think that it's intelligence. I agree with this article and its contents, since it's been verified by scientist and not WANNABE scientist from the left. Look at the list of supposed eco-scientist and you'll find more blowhards than anybody else. Am I a Republican? NO! I'm a political Atheist, and not fooled by idiotic trash -- just a provable thesis.




RE: Dumbed Downed Left Trash
By gorbush on 6/30/2009 11:28:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm a political Atheist, and not fooled by idiotic trash

But you are both.
Can you explain why there is so many carbon burned under the surface of earth contained in coal and crude oil?
For people to main it and burn?
I don't think so.
Maybe you are an Creationist or really something else ;)?


RE: Dumbed Downed Left Trash
By General Disturbance on 7/2/2009 1:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One doesn't need to go far before one runs into a dumbed down whacked out leftist. They open their mouth and insert their fodder and think that it's intelligence. - IQDOC


RE: Dumbed Downed Left Trash
By gorbush on 7/2/2009 3:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you quote something that isn't even remotely connected with me ? I'm not leftist and I never was.

Besides don't let other think for you. Think out yourself.

Do you sincerely believe that rising CO2 concentration isn't harmful for anyone (anything)?


By General Disturbance on 7/2/2009 3:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
I absolutely do not think that the observed or predicted changes in CO2 will have a net deleterious affect on the biosphere. It will likely be globally neutral or even beneficial.


RE: Dumbed Downed Left Trash
By gorbush on 7/2/2009 3:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
And I've got something especially for you from Albert Einstein:
quote:
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.


Ummm...guys?
By MouseBTFH on 6/30/2009 11:57:17 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vie...

I'm really not sure "global warming" is as settled an issue as people might think.




RE: Ummm...guys?
By gorbush on 6/30/2009 12:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
Do you think that any "scientist" can publish any finding he could "produce" for example in Nature ? No. Why. Because his work is assessed by other experts in his field. It is called Peer Review.

I suppose that he wasn't allowed to publish his "finding" under EPA name or mention any affiliation whith them.

If you could only imagine what blasphemy can publish wrongfully managed national institutes (I refer to Institute of National Remembrance publishing about Lech Walensa).
Then you will know that similar action sometimes are necessary.


RE: Ummm...guys?
By MouseBTFH on 6/30/2009 5:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
I have no idea what you're talking about. It just seems all very closed-minded to me. I don't know much about the subject (and I don't enjoy being painted in an "extremist" light, thank you very much), but it seems like there's the politically acceptable view and then there's the politically unacceptable view.

Even the people on here seem to have got quite the knack of demonizing their opponents, too.


RE: Ummm...guys?
By gorbush on 6/30/2009 6:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
I must admit that even I myself I have a problem with understanding what I wrote above ;(.

In addition, there were references that are not interesting or even possible to understand by a foreigner who you are to me ;).

I myself am not entirely convinced of the validity of the models to simulate global warming, but there is another concern to me. Namely continuous, fierce acceleration and increase of the CO2 concentration. What could have negative effects not only on the questioned global warming, but also may lead to increase the acidity of the oceans.


RE: Ummm...guys?
By gorbush on 6/30/2009 12:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
O and there is another thing.
Do you know where can I order:
"GREEN WITH ENVY: Exposing radical environmentalists' assault on Western civilization" ?
I would love to read it if it isn't to pricey ;).

Or maybe I should order instead:
"HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming" for only 7,5$.
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=1...

And there was someone in this tread who said that IPCC are bunch of people wanting to capitalize on Global Warming ;).


Not news
By Spelley on 6/24/2009 8:26:06 PM , Rating: 5
I come to Anandtech to get news. This is propaganda disguised as news, and poorly written at that.

Since you elected not to get a journalism degree (though you decry the mainstream media) let me tell you how to write news.

1) Throw out your first paragraph.

2) Tell us what AGW stands for. Or better yet, don't use it. A quick search on the internet shows that AGW is a term used by opponents of global warming. In other words, Riefenstahl, you just gave yourself away.

3) If there was any doubt of your bias till now, your last two paragraphs absolutely seal the deal. You use words like "hastily" and "scheme", and then you talk about all the bad legislation out there that this Arizona bill will oppose. How do we know it's bad? Because "industry leaders" oppose it! "Utility industries" oppose it! It will hurt the "American Citizen", the "farmers", oh no!

But what about who that "bad" legislation might help, or what it's trying to do (whether it actually will or not, but in the interests of balanced journalism)? You don't seem to have anything to say about that. NOT ONE THING.

You can write whatever you want in your crappy opinion piece. You can blame the whole whole global warming mania on liberals, UFOs, or dirty underwear. I don't care. But stay away from writing news. You aren't good at it. I've wasted enough of my time creating an account just to respond to you. Please don't waste anyone else's time.




RE: Not news
By matt0401 on 6/25/2009 12:30:41 AM , Rating: 1
Already posted so I can't vote.
+1 to this.


RE: Not news
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 9:35:23 AM , Rating: 3
Many American's oppose it. Even the one's who were dumb enough to vote for Obama and his ilk.


I Am Canadian
By deputc26 on 6/24/2009 6:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
I minored in meteorology and global warming is considered a farce by most meteorologists. The earth's temperature has always fluctuated and while I am all for not polluting and being sustainable it should be the consumer powering this movement not the government. If only we were capable of warming the earth!

I'd buy a hummer and leave the lights on to give Canada more arable land!




RE: I Am Canadian
By Boze on 6/25/2009 12:20:28 AM , Rating: 1
You know, its funny you mentioned meteorologists, because you are not the first person related to or in that field that I have heard say that. In fact, most every time a meteorologist hears about global warming, they point to an interesting chart detailing solar activity and rises and falls in Earth's temperatures.

And guess what alarmists, false do-gooders, and politically-motivated liars... when solar activity increases, so do temperatures... when solar activity decreases, so do temperatures. Who would have thought the largest source of energy in our solar system might actually have some effect on our planet?

But I get it,... I really do... for some people, this false crisis is a chance to grab at dollars from people too scared, too stupid, too lazy, or a combination of those three to actually question the science - or lack thereof. Others want to feel important... 'empowered'. Please don't make me vomit. 90% of us could drop dead tomorrow and in a 100 years no one will remember our names. The sad truth is, most of humanity isn't empowered, isn't going to change the world, isn't going to be remembered. I can live with this and move on with my life. If I'm forgotten a century after I die, my species is still gonna move forward, Earth is still gonna rotate, and the sun will still shine.

In other words people, you can't do anything about it (yet), so sit back, relax, and roll with the punches. Maybe in a couple millennia, we'll have a Dyson sphere around the sun and we'll be suckin' down its energy and we can actually have some control over global warming and cooling trends. Until that day comes, stop worrying about things you have no control over.


RE: I Am Canadian
By SpaceJumper on 6/25/2009 8:47:53 AM , Rating: 5
It is OK. Canada is going to be like Florida in the future but the rest of the US will be like Arizona and full of Hurricanes except Alaska. Enjoy.


The simplest reason
By mayorpufnstuf on 6/25/2009 6:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
The simplest reason for how everyone can recognize that GW is a phony "threat" is;
You know about it, and from governmental bodies at that. If GW were a real threat, and we "only have 10 years before the 'tipping point'," you would have never heard of such a thing as GW. You'd know about it when the ocean comes through your front door.

If an asteroid were spotted in deep space, and calculated to be on a collision course with Earth ten years from today, do you think the UN, or any governmental body, would be shouting from the rooftops that we need to do something today or we're all doomed in ten years time? Not!
You'd know about that asteroid when on June 25, 2019 you look up in the sky and see a fireball streaking across.




RE: The simplest reason
By adiposity on 6/29/2009 2:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
I see, that's an interesting logical approach.

I guess we can safely say that Iraq was not a threat. That Korea is not a threat. That Iran is not a threat. That pornography is not a threat. That drugs are not a threat. That terrorists are not a threat.

How do we know all this? The government has warned us of these things, so therefore, they must not be real threats. Whew, I can sleep better now.

-Dan


RE: The simplest reason
By General Disturbance on 7/2/2009 1:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
lol you bonehead...

Iraq WASN'T a threat. Korea ISN'T a threat. Iran ISN'T a threat. "Terrorists" kill less people than the common cold.
And drugs and porn are something bonehead parent's should be keeping their kids away from themselves. Raise sh*tty kids over-mediated to the "glamour" of drugs and porn, there's your drugs and porn problem.


RE: The simplest reason
By gorbush on 7/2/2009 3:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
For the firs time I admit that I agree with you on this subject ;(.


Statistics and precaution
By bernardl on 6/25/2009 9:03:24 AM , Rating: 2
Can we be 100% sure that man causes climat change? No.

It is likely enough that we ought to take measures? Yes.

Cheers,
Bernard




By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 1:12:02 PM , Rating: 4
Manbearpig.


Bad bad hybrids
By JEEPMON on 6/26/2009 2:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, since water vapor is the DOMINANT greenhouse 'gas' then all the hybrid and hydrogen powered vehicles that produce water (and water vapor) as an emission are contributing more to the greenhouse effect and global warming then a dirty diesel or gasoline powered bus or truck!




RE: Bad bad hybrids
By gorbush on 6/26/2009 2:49:05 AM , Rating: 2
Besides the fact that only hydrogen powered cars produce water vapor which is dominant greenhouse gas there isn't any study which I know that would even try to estimate how much of it is human doing.


RE: Bad bad hybrids
By PitViper007 on 6/30/2009 12:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the good ol' gasoline internal combustion engine produces water vapor as a byproduct of burning its fuel. It doesn't produce near the amount as a hydrogen fueled engine would certainly, but it does produce it.


conclave
By nathanvaneps on 6/24/2009 7:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
I wish all the climatologists would get together in a giant conclave and come to some consensus. Lock them all in a room and have them logic each other to death. Then I wouldn't have to try to read all these reports. Then I could just trust the consensus. Then I wouldn't have to worry about people with agendas. :(




RE: conclave
By kyleb2112 on 6/24/2009 8:13:56 PM , Rating: 3
There would be no consensus and you'd be a fool to trust it if there was.


I agree with them but for different reasons
By AEvangel on 6/24/2009 5:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think this is a good move and I hope other states enact it. The only one truly benefiting from legislation aimed at fighting Global Warming or Climate change whatever they are calling it now is big business. They are the major lobbies for this type of legislation.

Don't get me wrong I do think we can all do something to reduce are carbon footprint as it were, but I think allot of this legislation being pushed through under the guise of save the planet is silly and unproven to have any real benefit other then lining the pockets of big business and costing the tax payer money.




By gorbush on 6/27/2009 6:40:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't get me wrong I do think we can all do something to reduce are carbon footprint as it were, but I think allot of this legislation being pushed through under the guise of save the planet is silly and unproven to have any real benefit other then lining the pockets of big business and costing the tax payer money.

But will you for example lower your electrical power consumption by say 25% ?
I don't think so.

Everything is in human nature. Only a minority will respect the rules if there are no clear and inevitable punishment.


those who do not know history...
By deadrats on 6/24/2009 7:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
...are doomed to repeat it.

this quote from this article:

quote:
Climate change is a controversial topic. Some believe man is causing the world to warm. Others point out that the Earth has undergone solar warming and cooling for millions of years and that current temperatures are well within historic levels. A recent report challenging AGW theory showed significant support with 31,478 U.S. researchers and scientists, many of whom hold Ph.D's, signing a statement that they believe that man has not played a part in the current warming trend.


reminds me of this:

http://ecohearth.com/component/content/article/474...

i think we all know who turned out to be right.




RE: those who do not know history...
By walk2k on 6/24/2009 8:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
Water vapor
By jimbojimbo on 6/25/2009 2:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
Funny how everyone that thinks man is creating global warming loves talking about carbon and greenhouse gasses but they never bring up the fact that water vapor is the most abundant and most affecting greenhouse gas there is. Oh yeah, it's a lot harder to blame people for water vapor and thusly tax the hell out of them.




RE: Water vapor
By gorbush on 6/25/2009 5:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
No one never bring up the fact that water vapor is the most abundant and most affecting greenhouse gas there is because it is almost impossible to determine human impact on creating it. But there is some: tower coolers, sulphur oxides removal installation, hot baths, heated swimming pools, grass sprinklers? and so long.

And besides do you know what kind of gas is labeled as "SF6". This is approximately 24000 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. In 2006 it's production worldwide where about 6kT which roughly translates to 144 mmt of CO2 if it would be released to atmosphere.


Arizona global warming
By zottelig88 on 7/2/2009 1:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well it is nice to see my state take the front in not going along with this fake global warming scandle going around. Dont you people realize this is all a political scheme. The idea that humans carbon is changing the climate is rediculousw research yourself if you dont believe me or the other 31,ooo + scientist. here is a link watch and research http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog...




RE: Arizona global warming
By gorbush on 7/2/2009 3:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
I would be glad if you could pay more attention and a least try to read and think trough some of my post in this tread rather than put a link to some film with wrongful facts. I couldn't watch it for even 5 minutes to not laugh.


I'm moving
By Bull Dog on 6/24/2009 9:41:36 PM , Rating: 3
If this goes through I'm moving to Arizona.




thank you arizona
By johnsonx on 6/25/2009 5:17:04 AM , Rating: 3
Perhaps this will be remembered as a major turning point in the fight against the Church of Global Warming. There will be many more setbacks, but hopefully this tiny victory will be the first of many.

Thank you Arizona!




Awesome!
By General Disturbance on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome!
By gorbush on 6/27/2009 6:31:22 AM , Rating: 2
My ultimate summary of this tread:
Even if AGW is mountain of horse crap, there are some hard data which indicates human impact on nature. But people who has have the most to lose and the most to do aren’t willing to do almost anything with this situation and are searching for something (someone) to dump the blame on.

quote:

Global Warming is occurring but happens in cycles. The sun is the cause of global warming.. not man.


Wrong.
As I recall NASA didn't found any evident connection between sun cycles and GW.
quote:

In any case, I don't like being taxed because of some theory.


CO2 concentration rising isn't theoretical. It's happening and there is no apparent solution to stop it in the future especially when the biggest contributor doesn't want to lower his share.

Besides AGW there is at least one more negative aspect of high CO2 concentration:
"Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide"
Literature:
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=1331...

Rising CO2 concentration is human fault in 100%.

Proofs from DOE 2004 rapport:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/05730...

Table 1 . Very interesting part.
World Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Region, 1990-2002 (excerpt)
US from 5,778 to 6,696 mmt = 15,9% increase !
Western Europe from 3,413 to 3,549 mmt = 4% increase .
Former Soviet Union from 3,798 to 2,399 mmt = 36,7% decrease !
Eastern Europe from 1,095 to 726 mmt = 33% decrease .
I shouldn't even show emerging Asia but there are mostly production facilities for western countries.
Emerging Asia (China, India,...) from 3,890 to 6,205 mmt = 59,5% increase !

Table 3. "Current" (1990s) data for GLOBAL CO2 emission:
nature produce : 770 mmt annually
man-made: 23.1 mmt annually
a bsorption by nature: 781.4 mmt annually.

Increase of CO2 gas: 11.7 mmt .
Human fault: 100%.


By vectrav2 on 6/24/2009 7:25:22 PM , Rating: 3
I think Arizona is great in illegal immigration but out of its mind on global warming.
There is essentially no disagreement in the scientific community that the biggest cause of global warming is mans burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

In this I guess they are only listening to the crowd who think the earth is flat and only 6000 years old.

What a bunch of @#$%&*




Global Warming
By btc909 on 6/24/2009 8:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
So if I agree to pay extra in a numerous number of ways to fight global warming & it turns out to be a bunch of bunk I get a refund right?




Threatcore showing this article
By JimboK29 on 6/24/2009 8:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
Threatcore has this story on the top of their page and another global warming story from dailytech. Biased?




By SublimeSimplicity on 6/24/2009 8:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
If they're right and MMGW is a bunch of bunk, think of all the money they'll have saved. They may come out as the richest state in the "union".

If they're wrong and made the situation worse, they'll simply melt when summer highs go from 120 degrees to 200 degrees. No long term suffering, and well before anyone could say, "I told you so".




By NovaCain820 on 6/25/2009 8:45:23 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone always seems to get so bent out of shape when this comes up. So as something of a reference, take a look at this paper.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/p...

Unfortunatly, this is along the lines of an extremist paper, which makes the author's overall opinion slightly less relevant, however; the documents referenced are real scientific evidence that should be considered. (specifically pg 16-30) My point in showing this is that, no one source should ultimately be believed to be truth. Speaking of a global consensus among scientists, is along lines of believing every thing you see on TV. Wash away preconceptions and always be inquisitive even if its not always something pleasant to hear. The truth is both groups are working towards an end and they have backers that pay them to be scientists and write papers, in the same way lobbyist follow politicians. As to my opinion, renew-ability and safety of our progeny is the end goal, but inducing panic and fear (into consuming more arable land, and buying into more cash cows) is something we must strive to avoid.

For reference the author is a bit outlandish on some of his views and is exceedingly right wing, however his solution for renewable energy was quoted as "work towards reversing 20Th century deforestation and go nuclear for power" frankly with new reactors such as the following, that's not such a bad idea.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uot... (short article)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleUR... (full paper on new reactor, thank you Daily Tech for the link)




I blame Al Gore!
By chunkymonster on 6/25/2009 11:15:31 AM , Rating: 2
First, this article is about AZ passing a law; which I thought was an interesting approach to save the people of AZ from having to foot the bill for implemeting solutions to an unproven and controversial "science". More States should follow AZ's example.

But to join in the fray, the infamous hockey stick graph is all the rage and I personally blame Al Gore! If it wasn't for that BS movie "An Inconvenient Truth" and Al's political agenda and need to latch onto a hot button topic like this to further his own political career, the majority of the folks posting to this thread that support man made global warming would still be blissfully ignorant of the world around them and would have latched onto some other hot button topic to give their life meaning. Much like Al's political career, the topic of global warming and/or climate change will fall by the wayside once another popular political figure decides to make a stink about the next hot button issue. Let's just hope there isn't a BS self aggrandizing movie to go along with it.

I still can't believe they gave Al a Nobel Prize for his so called work on global warming...but hey, if that's what it takes to push these self promoting politicos and their agendas out of the public spotlight, I'm all for it!




By jimbojimbo on 6/25/2009 2:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
It amazes me how AGW proponents completely ignore the sun. Their science comprises completely of Earth and its atmosphere with no thought that anything else could affect the planet. They probably believe the entire universe revolves around the Earth as well and this planet solely influences everything about it.

Wake up, people. The tiny little Earth revolves around the giganticly powerful sun that completely determines whether Earth can sustain life or not. The S-U-N.

Carbon taxes are just an excuse to tax the hell out of everybody under the pretext that they're trying to save us. That way the taxes are for good right? Arizona is waking up, I hope the rest of the world does.




Great News!
By EricMartello on 6/25/2009 4:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
I am happy to see that real action is being taken against these global warming/climate change fanatics. The last thing I want to be is forced into this new religion. People used to get all swept away by priests who were vessels for god...and now the priests are liberal scientists on an ego trip.

The real problem is that sheeple are too stupid to understand REAL science, but the pseudo science that is the new bible is dumbed down enough to make sense to the typical idiot. Real science is understood; pseudo science is believed.




Follow the money...
By mayorpufnstuf on 6/25/2009 5:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
Here is the reason not to trust the data coming from the IPCC;

The primary purpose of the IPCC is to supply data to the UNFCCC. It is the UNFCCC that produced the framework for mitigating AGW.
What is the framework for mitigating AGW? Pray tell, all the AGW supporters... It's the so-called Cap and Trade. It's the puchasing of carbon credits. Nothing more than a wealth transfer scheme.
So, the UNFCCC cooked up a scheme to put a price tag on GW, and the IPCC, another UN body, supplies the data to "prove" that GW is actually AGW. Because you can't send Mother Nature a bill.
Are these bodies charged with actually doing anything? No. They're not charged with facilitating R&D work. Or helping to bring "green technologies" to market. Or even using some of these carbon credit funds to facilitate those things. Oh, but they're soooo concerned with the state of the planet.
All they've done is cooked up the scheme for the movement of money.




By vectrav2 on 6/25/2009 8:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
Boze,

I do not know of a single Independent Peer Reviewed scientific paper that significantly disagrees with my comment.
If you know of one I would be pleased to read it.




By Karlzbad on 6/25/2009 8:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
Let's have global warming deniers swear to live in the Southwest for the next 50 years.




Does anyone care about Facts?
By RealMoney on 6/30/2009 3:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
More to the point in this whole discussion is this report from the EPA NCEE questioning the government and IPCC consensus, the data and the conclusions:

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004...

OUr own government is questioning the validity of the data and hence the current debate. We're moving to spend trillions, lose jobs and for what? A guess? It would be nice if the pro-AGW scientists and supporters would actually have a scientific debate instead of science by majority rule.




Arizona
By wallijonn on 7/1/2009 1:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
I just wish that AZ would institute heavy fines for obvious polluters and make it mandatory for yearly emissions testing. Part of our problem is that we get snow birds from the West who come here for the winter and their cars may not meet emissions standards. Anyone coming over the border from another state should have to submit to an emissions test. If they fail it then they can't drive it.

Add in the fact that there are a few states without any emissions testing or standards whatsoever and it is easy to see that if all the states accepted the California CARB standards the air would probably be much cleaner in the States.

Coal burning electrical plants are another problem altogether and will probably need much technology to be politically viable to the coal producing states.

Those who have a problem with AZ trying to curb electrical company profits should first move here. Chances are your bills will be four times higher than what you are paying now. Now imagine paying 10 times higher than you are paying now. We don't do much in the way of home heating oil but we do a lot in the way of electrical power for running our air conditioners.

It's a shame that AZ, the Sunshine State, doesn't employ solar panels or drive the technology like Germany does. To build that infrastructure will take billions, which will most probably be palmed off to the end customer in the way of higher electricity bills by the electricity companies. That's what AZ is fighting against. We had our solar panel bills in the past and it was an abject failure due to corruption. We don't want to repeat the same mistake twice. Nor do we want what California went through. So we're overly cautious.




Arizona
By ZachDontScare on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
By Spuke on 6/24/2009 6:10:56 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The IPCC says global warming is happening
I keep seeing "reports" that the IPCC says one thing then someone else posts that the IPCC says something else entirely. I have given up on getting any real, factual information on Global Warming/Climate Change and, quite frankly, I don't care anymore. It's turned into a religious/political BS debate instead of what should be a discussion of and clarification of scientific studies, facts, and processes. I will no longer participate in these discussions because they're just ridiculous. I feel dumber for even posting this. Good luck and may God have mercy on your souls.


By KaTaR on 6/24/2009 6:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
By Oregonian2 on 6/24/2009 9:00:50 PM , Rating: 4
The report linked to, as well as others I've read say that by far and away the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor and further that humans affect the amount of it in the atmosphere very very little (graphs show how people affect the minor gasses a lot, but I've never (so far) seen a nice color chart showing how those human-affected greenhouse gasses are a subportion of the overall amount -- including the water vapor huge amount).

Now, they do seem to try and make seemingly catch-22 arguments that if people can affect weather change and make things warmer, then that'll increase water vapor which in turn will create the warmer weather that "we" did in the first place. Not sure I understand those seemingly circular arguments.


By bdot on 6/25/2009 12:53:41 PM , Rating: 4
Wikipidia article on global warming... you should stop now.


By gorbush on 6/25/2009 8:08:29 AM , Rating: 2
Define very little.
Water vapor is dominant only in lower atmosphere. In higher parts air is almost dry.

I'm not sure but I really didn't see any study about human impact on water vapor concentration. But I suppose that it is growing more and more. Why?. I've got some data about new installation removing sulphur oxides from coal power plant fumes. Those are becoming more common in UE (that is for environment protection).

For about 330MW output power "IOS" (I don't know how it is called in English) use about 100t of water per hour (1GWh ~ 300 ton of water).There are some IOS that don't use water but they are less efficient. In Poland there is 32GW of power available but mean use is about 15GW and almost every GWh comes from coal. By extrapolating 15GW*24hours*365days*300t equals 39Gt annually (much more then CO2 production). And it is only for small country with about 3000MWh/month per household power needs. I'm almost sure that also in US power is mainly generated from coal and I suppose there is many IOS installation.

I'm not GW advocate or even believer but I can't stand people stating false or selective argument. Besides it is better be careful than sorry.
Where I live there is almost non natural disasters and temperature is quite low ;) but if I would have some property in Florida I would consider moving out. Why? If there is more energy (temperature) in atmosphere then there would be more dangerous disasters cause by weather.

And pleas vote down post from General Disturbance becouse his arguments where proof wrong in 1940 ;).


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 12:39:53 PM , Rating: 3
I believe I am referencing a common tag line found at the bottom of D-T posts:

quote:
If you rate me down I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine


haha! Who that belongs to is just on the tip of my tongue...can't quite remember it. Anyone?


By gorbush on 6/25/2009 3:21:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I believe I am referencing a common tag line found at the bottom of D-T posts:

I'm not new comer to DT and I assume that quote would be from Masher ;).
But that proofs completely nothing.
I'm not an scientist (so aren't you) especially not climatologist. I'm only interested in GW theories because I want best possible future for my children (and grandchildren) and if that mean that I must restrain my natural resources consumption then let it be.

I must say that it is first time that I ever heard about “spectral saturation” of CO2. After reading some more on this subject (research done almost 100 years ago) I'm almost convinced that if it would be true then that argument would be used to fight Kyoto agreement. And as far as I know it isn't. From this I suppose that if that argument would be made in more scientific community than DT readers (no offence) then it would be laughed at.


By gorbush on 6/25/2009 4:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
As you probably know I can't rate you down because I post in this thread but I would otherwise.
But I challenge you to be more insightful than I can possibly imagine. Wright know you aren't even close ;).

I "fought" many verbal skirmish with speculation theories (not every one won). There were times that I believed some for example Anti Global Worming, US never landed on moon and some more. Partially because GW would be beneficial for me ;) and I live close to old Soviet Union. Common denominator: personal interest. Therefore I'm not surprised that some US citizens fight so furiously GW theory but not GW itself :( especially if I take into account that approximately 3% world population use up to 25% of global resources. But I'm not entirely sure if this percentage didn't go down because of China.


By borismkv on 6/25/2009 4:35:19 PM , Rating: 3
Remember. Two wrongs don't make a right. But two Wrights did make an airplane.


By gorbush on 6/25/2009 4:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yes you are right. But also wrong argument isn't argument at all. Like "spectral saturation" of CO2 or "32000 leading scientist" opposing AGW.

Quote: "As for the new claim of 32,000 leading scientists who are skeptics, unless you are using some very broad measure of what a scientist is, that is impossible. What I mean is that there aren't enough climate scientists in the world for that to be even remotely true. Not when about 99% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC. What are they including as scientists, doctors, engineers, psychologists? They couldn't possibly be climate scientists, other than a handful. The numbers just don't add up. The claim is rediculous. This claim includes the numbers from the Oregon Petition. By the way, Robinson and his son are the source of the phony Wall St. Journal article as well. Neither one is a climate scientist."

Source: "http://energysolutionswecanbelievein.blogspot.com/..."


By TSS on 6/24/2009 9:21:36 PM , Rating: 5
the reason for not trusting the IPCC is very simple and explained on their own website.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

"The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters."

"The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals"

ANYTHING for "the promotion of the United Nations human development goals" you can bet your ass it's political in nature, not objectiveness. maybe the reports it recieves aren't political. but the reports it publishes are.

but that's not the point of the previous 2 posters. the point is, even if global warming was disproved unanimously by the entire population of the earth, that would not stop governments or current ecological groups to change their stance and find something new to impose fear upon us all again. or plain ignore evidence alltogether, they've done it in the past. (did you know 3 decades ago the biggest fear was global cooling?)

it's tiresome. and not the biggest of worries right now, nor will it be for the next 100 years if temperature continues to rise at the current rate. and even THAT's debated, both ways.

in my oppinion, this isn't the digital age. this isn't the atomic age. nor is it the robotics age. it's the age of uncertainty. and that's what people are getting tired of.

so to hell with global warming, cooling, whatever! we've had that scare for a good decade or 3 now, time for a new waste of money.


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 1:10:29 AM , Rating: 4
Wow.

"Scientific body" is NOT synonymous with:

"The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters."

"The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals"

That would be a political body with the aim of promoting their politics. It is a big difference. And yes it is an important difference...

quote:
Yea, their goal is to promote human development.


You are either a shril, or haven't yet realized that "human development" is a nice way of saying "population regulation and reduction".

IPCC != Scientific body. That's just a nice thing they like to say about themselves. But it's a mockery of real science.


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 1:26:53 AM , Rating: 3
And yes I have read BOTH the latest report from the IPCC and also the recent NIPCC report, plus a boat load of other papers from both sides.

Have you read them both?

The IPCC has been clearly shown to be vacuous, their claims literally based on fantasy.

I can discuss some of the physics with you if you like.

For example the concept of spectral saturation: spectral saturation happens when all of the available radiation at a specific wavelength gets absorbed by a molecule, so that adding more of that molecule makes no difference in how much radiation is being absorbed because all of the light is already being absorbed.
There are feedback effects indeed due to re-radiation and re-capture, but that effect has an exponentially decreasing effect with molecular concentration. For CO2, spectral saturation in the Earth's atmosphere happens at around 50ppm.
Additions of CO2 above that concentration have a growing neglible capacity to hold any more heat. Going from 280ppm to 370ppm makes little difference.
Add the fact that the water vapour absorption spectrum allready occupies (and thus blocks out) 50%-75% of the CO2 spectrum, and CO2's effect is even more diminished.


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 2:35:51 AM , Rating: 5
You really need to learn to distinguish between science and politics.
The IPCC selectively takes the papers they like (and also use falsified data at that! no shit they use fake data...) and spin their conclusions to sound as they want them to.

Various contributors' data has been shown to be misrepresented, and many scientists have protested the use of their papers when the IPCC makes unsubstantiated and alarmist claims that the scientists do not support.

The people at all those places are indeed intelligent. The alarmist claims the IPCC fabricates, however, are not.


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 2:54:44 AM , Rating: 4
So, you don't want to discuss the physics then?

I did lots of spectroscopic astrophysics early in my career, but if you can explain to me how the spectral suturation/H20 overlap of atmospheric CO2 DOESN'T mean that it isn't possible for CO2 to any longer be a relevant GHG, then please educate me.

Also, please crtitique the numbers in this paper

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/IPCC_deception.pdf
(source links included)

which show human CO2 emmission is dwarfed, and largely soon absorbed, by natural processes.

Seriously, let's put aside the ad hominem attacks, the appeals to consensus, etc, and let's you and I right here discuss the science and the physics. If you're not comfortable doing this because you don't have the scientific training I have (PhD astrophysics), what GOD DAMNED right do you have to beleive in AGW in the first place?


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 12:08:00 PM , Rating: 5
I only browbeat members when they clearly have an unsubstantiated faith.

My bad though, that's what faith is all about.

The point is: you can not go around touting AGW theory and then refuse to discuss the science because you claim you are not qualified, which is what many people do.

If you're not qualified to discuss the science because it's too complicated for you, then what the hell makes you think you should take a side in the debate? You should be an AGW agnostic if you don't understand the science! But people need their faith and their delusions of saving the planet I suppose...

If people want to appeal to consensus for psychological safety, then don't you want to side with the larger consensus? Last time I checked 32000 > 2000.

My last statement above stands as strong as ever.


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 4:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes...let's do away with requiring people to have "knowledge" before they make decisions about anything.

What kind of idiot thinks having expertise or advanced knowledge in something makes them qualified to discuss or decide on issues in the thing they have expertise in?

Idiots, I know!


By gorbush on 6/25/2009 4:00:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If people want to appeal to consensus for psychological safety, then don't you want to side with the larger consensus? Last time I checked 32000 > 2000.


I'm not entirely sure what that numbers means but where I live (UE) most people are convinced that humans has impact on climate and nature.
Quote: "89 percent of the EU population believes that the community should urgently introduce new legislation to combat the greenhouse effect.". Source : http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=pl&sl=pl&...


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 4:17:11 PM , Rating: 4
32000 is the number of qualified American scientists who disagree with AGW theory and oppose any legislative action designed to "combat" it.

2000 is the number of scientists that the IPCC claims support their AGW alarmism.

You clearly betray yourself as uninformed...sorry to dig on you but I had to say it.

quote:
"89 percent of the EU population believes...


89% of the population once believed in: eugenics, the earth was flat; the earth was 6000 years old; continents didn't move; etc etc ad infinitum
What the general population thinks is hardly relevant.


By gorbush on 6/25/2009 4:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
Are you entierely sure that those 32000 aren't wrong ;).
(Where can I find source of that claim)

And besides I'm not completly convinced myself that GW is even happening or is our fault. But human impact on enviroment is evident and I always ask to be more careful with our own freedom of choises and try to think a little bit about future.


By ayat101 on 6/25/2009 7:44:08 AM , Rating: 2
So you did a project in say second year physics, 50 years ago in some no-name uni, and claim to be an expert? Your reply is more NONSENSE from the anti global warming luddites and flat earthers.

The saturation argument is *100* year OLD science that has already been refuted. A simple google search can find good explanations, for example:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_01...

... follow the link and do a text search for "saturated". It is explained why the saturation argument is INCORRECT. The link is from the AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS, a rather more respectable source than some flat earther org (yes, they really do still exist, and so do Scientologists, and Mashers and Mandrews, etc).

Out of curiosity, if you ever truely did an astrophysics degree, how come are you spouting old science and misinformation on a basic concept?


By ayat101 on 6/25/2009 8:07:22 AM , Rating: 2
In summary from one of the links in reply to you:

So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, here's all you need to say: (a) You'd still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it's the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It's not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn't overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there's little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 12:31:44 PM , Rating: 3
Okay here we go:

quote:
(a) You'd still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it's the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts


This is only how they form their models. Observations show there is NO heating in the thin upper atmosphere. Problem? Yes, theory doesn't match observations. Strike one.

quote:
(b) It's not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2


I didn't ever state it was FULLY saturated...that's a straw man. Saturation decreases logarithmically, and CO2 saturation and concentration is well into the vastly diminishing cross section range. It is difficult to get really fully saturated, just more and more close to being so. Strike two.

quote:
(c) Water vapor doesn't overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there's little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2


In addition to water vapour being highly rarefied at high altitude, so is CO2, and so it too has a greatly diminished capacity to block radiation. Also refer to (a) - no observed heating in the upper atmosphere. Strike 3.

quote:
(d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models


Maybe they should update their understanding? Their model predictions are not observed in the real world. Strike 4.
True this is relatively simply physics, but what's NOT simple is the myriad of known and unknown and unaccounted for negative feedback processes, of which we know there must be many. We know this because in the past CO2 has been much higher in concentration, and the temperature of the earth the same as it is today, or cooler, or warmer, depending where you want to look in geologic history. The fact that it can be colder, the same, or warmer than today's climate with more CO2 in the past indicates that there is a very weak correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

In fact the correlation is that solar influenced heating of the earth causes a warming planet causes oceans to give off CO2 because warm water can't hold as much CO2. Hence why we see temperature changes always precede changes in CO2.

Well that was easy.


By Grabo on 6/25/2009 1:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
Why should we believe you if NASA and many others say different?
Why would it seem reasonable to any objective observer that you, with a number of 'strikes' of your own home-cooked physical points would totally own anything any serious climate scientist had said?

This is typical though. It's always 'simple' for those who talk about 'AGW religion is spreading..' to prove any real scientist dead wrong, always without a reference, or with a really odd reference (aka Slant's way).

Your science is odd too.
quote:
The fact that it can be colder, the same, or warmer than today's climate with more CO2 in the past indicates that there is a very weak correlation between CO2 and global temperature. In fact the correlation is that solar influenced heating of the earth causes a warming planet causes oceans to give off CO2 because warm water can't hold as much CO2. Hence why we see temperature changes always precede changes in CO2.


Contradiction. How can it be warmer and colder and the same temps regardless of atmospheric co2 levels if at the same time 'temperature changes always precede changes in co2'?

Unsubstantiated weird point. When was it colder while the atmosphere had less co2? (Don't bother with the lag: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004... :>
"This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no."

I'd love to see you argue with the people behind RealClimate, or the NSIDC,or NASA, or IPCC for that matter. I'd live to see Slant do that too..


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 1:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How can it be warmer and colder and the same temps regardless of atmospheric co2 levels if at the same time 'temperature changes always precede changes in co2'?


Because there are many other substantial factors that affect how much CO2 is in the atmosphere than just temperature.

I've extensively read the link (and studied other relevant papers) you cited on the issue of the lag.

quote:
These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.


Well then the AGW side shouldn't be using THIS as example to demonstrate how CO2 changes correlate with temperature changes in a causative fashion. It was the AGW side who said this correlation show that CO2 change cause temperature change in the first place, and now they're admitting that it is inappropriate to use it because of the interglacials and the direction of causality! Now they DON'T want to use that data because it doesn't fit with their theory? Come off it!

quote:
Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.


Then show us the data that shows it DOES cause global warming, and the historical evidence that shows it ever actually has!

The people behind RealClimate are a bunch on novices, obviously. The IPCC and other alarmist claims have been refuted by people much more qualified than I...I need not bother.


By Grabo on 6/25/2009 3:00:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Because there are many other substantial factors that affect how much CO2 is in the atmosphere than just temperature. I've extensively read the link (and studied other relevant papers) you cited on the issue of the lag.


= "I've read all of that already, in fact I've read everything any scientist has ever written on the subject, therefore, it stands to reason that I'm the end of this argument". Like arguing with a catfish.

quote:
Well then the AGW side shouldn't be using THIS as example to demonstrate how CO2 changes correlate with temperature changes in a causative fashion. It was the AGW side who said this correlation show that CO2 change cause temperature change in the first place, and now they're admitting that it is inappropriate to use it because of the interglacials and the direction of causality! Now they DON'T want to use that data because it doesn't fit with their theory? Come off it!


Sigh, which shows you didn't read the article I linked to, but..my mistake, that's clearly impossible, seeing as how you've already read the Entire Subject.

And, your tone sounds mighty pissed. I would say 'chill', but you clearly don't believe in warming anyway .. ;)

quote:
Then show us the data that shows it DOES cause global warming, and the historical evidence that shows it ever actually has!


Are we discussing that atmospheric co2 is a heat-trapping gas? "Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

* The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."
(But hey, NASA are idiots, I forgot)

Yes, there has been more co2 in the atmosphere before (more than 650k years ago anyway), but it was also alot warmer then as far as anyone can tell.

quote:
The people behind RealClimate are a bunch on novices, obviously. The IPCC and other alarmist claims have been refuted by people much more qualified than I...I need not bother.


Yes, a bunch of novices compared to someone who has read everything indeed, but pretty substantial perhaps compared to a normal hothead:
"
Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York

Dr. Michael E. Mann is a member of the Penn State University faculty, holding joint positions in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences, and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (ESSI). He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC).

Caspar Ammann is a climate scientist working at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

Eric Steig is an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle." etc, but whatver, as already mentioned they don't hold a candle to you.


By Hawkido on 6/26/2009 5:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd love to see you argue with the people behind RealClimate, or the NSIDC,or NASA, or IPCC for that matter.


All of us Conservatives and Anti-GW people would too... but I don't know if you have realized it yet... They will not allow us to debate them!

If you will check you will see that some AGW nutbags in congress tried to start a bill that made it illegal to oppose AGW rehetoric. Until someone gently reminded them of this little important fact:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS CANNOT BE SCREWED WITH BY FREAKIN' RETARDED ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER!

The First Amendment Is the most precious right, however precious things have to have security systems, because filthy people try to steal precious things. Thus, the Second Amendment is the Most Important right, as it is the only thing protecting the most precious right.


By JediJeb on 6/25/2009 2:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
I agree here. I have looked at many of the graphs that the AGW proponents use, and sure they show temps rising along with CO2 levels, but once you zoom in on the graphs you definately see that temps rise first, follow by CO2 levels, then temps fall first, followed by CO2 levels. Anyone who has had a class in either science or math would know that when that happens then CO2 become the dependent in the process. That means that Temperature change is what drives CO2 level change and not the other way around. Seems so many lack basic understanding of inter-relational dependencies.

I first noticed this on a show about AGW that appeared on the Discovery Channel. The PHd researcher showed a closeup of his graph, which clearly showed temperature rising first, then boldly stated "see as CO2 levels rise, temperature rises". At first I though maybe he just had the axes wrong on his graph, so I began to do my own research and most of the data I found indicated his graph was correct, but his interpretation of the data was not correct. I also found graphs that said as temperature rose the levels of CO2 in the oceans dropped, but if you think about it, if rising CO2 levels cause temperature to rise, then there should have been a period where the levels rose in the oceans first then temperature rise lagging slightly behind because of the equilibrium between the higher levels in the air and those in the water before warming occured.


By gorbush on 6/25/2009 3:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
Could you point to some respectable research confirming your claims (upper atmosphere not heating)?
As I told before. I knew few persons who doesn't believe that people ever landed on moon. And without Mythbuster episode I wouldn’t be able to convince them otherwise ;).

On the site note I’m not entirely convinced that CO2 concentration has any connection with temperature but you didn’t answered to referenced article “Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide”.


By ayat101 on 6/26/2009 12:49:21 AM , Rating: 2
Bull crap.

All proven details. READ the journal papers. Nough said.


By Hvordan on 6/25/2009 1:49:09 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.heritage.org/About/upload/AnnualReport0...

Search for Altria (i.e. Philip Morris), Exxon, or Reynolds Tobacco.

The contribution for those memberships are small in the grand scheme of things, but they do provide funding for them.


By KaTaR on 6/25/2009 2:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartla...

You got your names backwards. The Heartland Institue (not the Heritage foundation) is the organization Exxon and Tobacco fund - which oddly spends all its time aruging second hand smoke is ok and global warming is a hoax. This blogger uses their report (NIPCC) as a source of fact on global warming. Thats what I took issue with - using paid for research by corporations designed to confuse the public as a source of 'news' over and over and over. Look at his blogs, its pretty much his favorite if not only source of information.

The Heritage foundation is the Reublican think tank that puts out stuff pro-republican / anti-liberal. They are funded by all republicans and not specifically Exxon, etc. They argued for the invasion of Iraq among other things. They will basically put out something on every partisan issue supporting the Republican view. They are the ones who said it would cost $1900 per family per year - which this blogger portrays as fact. It's not. I pay $12 per month extra right now to be 100% carbon neutral on my electriciy (all from wind). See my post below how you can call Excel energy and hear it from them yourself.


By jhb116 on 6/24/2009 10:01:34 PM , Rating: 2
And your quote states what? As the previous posters mentioned - where is the science behind this? I don't care how smart the people are - just stating that "most of the warming trends over the last 50 yrs is LIKELY due to anthropogenic green house gases" is not a statement of fact. The problem behind their/your science is that is is all circumstantial at best - ie the Earth has been warming, CO2 is a green house gas (among others) CO2 has been rising over the last 50 years, human activity has substantially increased over the last 50yrs therefore CO2 generated by humans is causing global warming. This completely discounts the fact that the Earth's climate has been "changing" since it was created. It also discounts changes in sun activity, changes in the Earth's orbit because we always assume those are constant. It also completely discounts the fact that EVERY human activity creates some form of waste in the form of heat (which I personally believe is the greater human contribution to the problem.)

The major problem with your argument and people like you is that you don't question the other possible variables and don't stop to ask the question of "What if it isn't CO2?" Because if it isn't - all your hard earned efforts to control it will still lead to human oblivion. Just because we or another group disagrees with you doesn't mean that we or they are stupid as you insinuate in your posts.....

What we really need is a multi-prong approach to the problem - more investigation into the other major variables in the equation, curb CO2 in intelligent ways, becoming more efficient as a civilization, look into alternative solutions for cooling the globe (like simulating a major volcanic eruption by throwing vast amounts of dust into the upper atmosphere) and (most importantly) start preparing to "weather" the storm if there is nothing that humans can do to prevent the warming trend.

Insisting on your ONE solution is zealous, won't be received by the community at large very well and will likely doom our race to destruction.


By KaTaR on 6/25/2009 1:06:58 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, the research is not 100% conclusive so they use the term 'likely'. Likely that this is happening and will have serious negative implications down the road unless we do something to mitigate. But I guess you argument is: we dont know 100% for sure so we should do nothing? Right?

It's funny you say that because it is exact same arugument the Heartland Institute is currently making against second hand smoke. We dont know the effect for sure, down to the tee in terms of how much second hand smoke causes what health effects. So dont do anything about it.

Same kind of arguments WR Grace made against the ill effects of asbestos (until people started dropping like flies of couse).

We get your point. Do nothing until the house is burning down, or throw dust in the air to simulate a volcano. Have a nice day.


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 1:12:36 AM , Rating: 4
You know that's the exact same argument Bush used to go to war in Iraq?

I have a suspision you didn't agree with such ridiculous reasoning on that point, did you...


By KaTaR on 6/25/2009 2:04:28 AM , Rating: 1
Which intergovermental UN report came out saying that it was likely they had WMD and were connected to Al Qaida?

I cant seem to remember...

Oh yea, there wasn't one. Bush decided alone to do this even though the UN inspectors said it was unlikely they had anything of the sort.

Bad argument man.


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 2:26:41 AM , Rating: 5
The point is that it is logically the same argument, and it is bad to base policy and especially scientific conclusions upon such.
Just because it comes from one authority (whom you happen to approve of) rather than another authority (who you don't approve of), is inconsequential.

Either of those autrhoties had and have political goals.


By therealnickdanger on 6/25/2009 6:49:32 AM , Rating: 2
Everybody hates #1.


By idboracle on 6/25/2009 8:44:29 AM , Rating: 2
Nothing to do with hate, its just fact.


By XtremeM3 on 6/25/2009 2:42:24 AM , Rating: 3
- We knew they had WMDs. We sold them to 'em.

Get over it hippie, whether global warming happening or not the article is about a bill proposed by Az. You wanna debate and chase down every article the guy writes...cool. Send him an email, knock on his door as you wait in the bushes watching for him to put up another article and confront him. But why don't you keep complaints on an article to...I dunno...the actual article you're commenting on.

One sentence about what likely(oh man, that word is great - no responsibility to be correct when using it)spun up the bill followed by multiple informative paragraphs about the bill itself. That along with the title, I'd say the article is to inform readers that Az is trying to pass a bill, and I think that message came across just fine. Nothing about global warming is happening or not, and it's not his job to try and show all sides of an issue anyway. The article would be pages long.

You're not even complaining about what the article is about..,so attacking his credibility is nothing more than a personal attack, and thus I'm pretty sure most people will see your comments as just that and hold little credibility to you because of it. Why not just stay on topic?


By kfonda on 6/25/2009 3:39:44 AM , Rating: 2
My research has shown that it is "likely" that idiots will cause the extinction of the human race and the earth will continue along just fine without us.


By clovell on 6/25/2009 12:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
They use the term 'likely' because they lack the standard level of evidence to claim 'statistical significance' that every other scientist on the planet must meet. Take your fearmongering somewhere else, dude.


By Hawkido on 6/26/2009 4:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
Hi! Reality here just checking in.

Uh I didn't see any facts in that report.

Just for clarity you don't use vague words when you state a fact.

Example: That is North.
See? No quibbling. No one can dispute it without a broken compass, in which case they are wrong in soo many ways.

From your quote:
quote:
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations

12. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”.

Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns


See? Now if the report didn't use these ambigious words the report would have far more impact. As it is now, these words would not hold up in court. At least not without supporting evidence, like say, a human finger print on the global warming switch...

Until it is scientific fact, do not act...

Or else you guys can try out my theory of no-gravity and jump off a cliff... I am sure I can get a bunch of hack scientists that no one but the government would pay to sign off on it.
"But it's got 55,000 scientist behind it! I'm going to jump!"


By knutjb on 6/24/2009 10:20:38 PM , Rating: 3
Your blind trust of scientist is truly disturbing. They have political opinions and motives as do the countries funding them. They are conducting research and much of the GW research is flawed. To knock all research from corporations as automatically flawed and anything from the UN as credible makes you very gullible.

Anytime any organization touts a consensus on any subject I am very skeptical as to their motives. Kudos to Arizona for the legislation. If we unilaterally wipe out our economy under the guise of global warming and other countries are not taking similar actions you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Kyoto proclaimed a consensus and do this now or else the world will end, Europe found they could not meet the standards and that it destroyed their economy with no measurable benefit. Germany is building NEW COAL POWER PLANTS, hmmm not very green eh?

I'm all for clean air but be sensible in implementing policies. Clinton's EPA forced power plants wanting to upgrade to replace ALL components at one time, since they couldn't afford that they chose not to upgrade at all. Under Bush they allowed piecemeal upgrading so companies started to upgrade what they could afford to. Remember their prices, hence profits, are tightly regulated by the government. So, politics aside, which method was more effective in providing cleaner air?

Stop drinking the Kool Aid. I'm not saying it's a giant conspiracy, just be skeptical of ulterior motives in play.


By FaaR on 6/24/2009 11:23:25 PM , Rating: 2
Blind trust of science is truly disturbing you say, but knee-jerk disbelief such as what you offer instead is not? A very strange dichotomy you present there, considering science is what birthed our present society in the first place. What else are scientists unable to properly explain in your opinion, quantum mechanics perhaps?

And what could possibly be the ulterior motives you're talking about? Why would the EU and other countries want to 'destroy their own economies' (your claim; not backed up by fact)? It makes no sense.

FACT is: taking anti-GW steps does NOT "destroy" a country's economy. Talk about over-exaggerating matters.

While GW theories could indeed be a giant crock of sh*t, considering the world-wide pollution caused by fossile fuel use we'd all be MUCH better off if we did follow through with GW emission reductions regardless of if it actually reduces temperatures or not. Besides, oil is much too valuable a resource to simply burn it up.

Then again, if GW theories are indeed correct, compare the cost of the damages we'll cause ourselves in the future when oceans rise and shifting temperature zones knock out farming etc, compared to costs in the here and now trying to prevent the above from happening in the first place.

But if you simply don't want to see the problem then there's never any chance of fixing it either, is there?


By knutjb on 6/26/2009 12:23:54 AM , Rating: 2
No, I implied that blindly trusting a movement can have deleterious affects, nowhere did I imply disbelief. When scientist THEORIZE it means they think that's what happening but have yet to prove it, doesn't make them right or wrong. I personally like what they have discovered at either end of the temperature spectrum, atoms behave very much alike, defying previously held beliefs.

If you are going to be so adamant about a subject look at ALL data and look at the sources history and accuracy, i.e. the UN a couple years ago they implied the seas could rise by 20 feet, in the fine print it said that is highly improbable. Al Gore took that number and ran with it as the gospel truth and that would happen. The last UN sea rise estimate was, worst case, maybe a foot, likely an inch or less. Why, because with further study the ice caps are much thicker than previously thought.

Ulterior motives: World Politics, every country looks out for it's best interest, not the best interest of other nations. Well no country has been more generous than the US, but that's a different thread...

Your economic "fact" is unsupported. When you force a radical change to industry on a guess causing dramatic increases in energy costs, that cost will be passed to the end user reducing their ability to purchase other products, slowing the economy.

I'm sure you'll tell me the dust bowl in the 30's was entirely man made too.

How a "problem" is perceived has a lot to do with whether it needs to or can be fixed at all.

Go do some history on Galileo, Newton and the like. You'll find that scientific consensus is frequently wrong. While your at it look up water vapor tracking instruments.


By KaTaR on 6/25/2009 1:45:18 AM , Rating: 2
All the countries in the UN may have different motives but that includes the motives of all the oil-producing nations in the world. It also includes our current position against it. So I dont see how you can conclude that the UN has a single 'motive' on climate change.

I didnt knock all reasearch from corporations, pay attention man. I knocked the anti-global warming report funded by Exxon and other oil companies. It's the crack dealer telling you its not bad for you - maybe you can understand that analogy?

'Unilaterally wipe out the economy' and 'destroyed Europe's economy' - seriously man are your parents cousins or something?

Any coal plants Germany may be building are to replace older ones that are more inefficient and emmit more co2. It's actually an upgrade to reduce emissions. I met with the CEO of RWE (the largest utility in Germany) and E.ON (seond largest) three monts ago and we talked about this, and it's the truth. Look up coal as a % of German (or any EU coutry's) electricity generation and you will see that it has been declining and is expected to continue declining. They are not building any green field coal plants, its all brownfield (replacing existing ones).

Economy destroyed? LOL. You seriously need to check your facts. Their unemployment is lower than ours. The GDP contraction is more or less the same as ours. They are faring no worse, if not better that we in this recession.
So what the hell are you talking about?

Germany and the rest of Europe (excluding the UK) have actually been doing great on carbon reduction. Germany for example gets 8% of its electricity from Wind - and their electricty prices are LOWER than California (the USA is currenlty 2.0% wind). So they are doing it and its not killing their prices. No Measurable benefit you say? Talk to the several hundred thousand people building those wind turbines and running those wind farms. Germany less dependent on Russian Gas because of it. We on the other hand are more dependent than ever or middle eastern oil.

Denmark gets over 20% of its electricy from wind. Iceland is 100% carbon neutral. Did you know those two countries are the happiest in the world (according to the university of Michigan 2008 annual rankings). Their unemployment is lower, their life expectancy is longer, their infant mortality is lower, they aren't fighting wars in the middle east for oil. Maybe they are doing something right and we could learn from them?

Stop drinking the Kool Aid? Why dont you pull your head out of your ass.


By nuarbnellaffej on 6/25/2009 2:55:41 AM , Rating: 2
You compared the energy prices to California!!? Cali's energy prices are among the highest in the nation, thanks to bologna regulations you seem hell bent on supporting... Not to mention you spoke of Iceland, their country is located on a treasure trove of easily harvested thermal power, do you think we could power our country 100% or any high % for that matter with thermal?

quote:
Germany and the rest of Europe (excluding the UK) have actually been doing great on carbon reduction. Germany for example gets 8% of its electricity from Wind - and their electricty prices are LOWER than California (the USA is currenlty 2.0% wind). So they are doing it and its not killing their prices. No Measurable benefit you say? Talk to the several hundred thousand people building those wind turbines and running those wind farms. Germany less dependent on Russian Gas because of it. We on the other hand are more dependent than ever or middle eastern oil.


You dimwit, the hundreds of thousands you speak of, are ONLY there because of GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES, payed for by their ridiculously high taxes...


By KaTaR on 6/25/2009 12:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
We dont have much thermal but The United States has some of the best wind resources in the world. Most of it in the mid-west where there is an abundance of cheap open land and very strong winds. There is enough wind here to theoretically power 100% of our electricity needs. So again, pull your head out of your ass and look around. Thermal is only one of the many ways to mitigate carbon.

The wind we have in the midwest is so good that unsubsidized generation costs are between 6c - 8c per kWh (you can check this by looking up the 20-year power purchase agreemes signed and adding back the 1c - 2c subsidy). Compare that to the national average retail price of 11c per kWh. The cheapest states get no lower than 7c - 8c. So are whining like a baby about paying zero - 2c extra per kWh (depending on how much the utility wants to profit from you). That translates to an extra $0 - $20 per month per household to switch from coal to wind.

Apart from the carbon reduction, there are a ton of other benefits which I am sure you have no clue about. That includes 1. handing over less money to the middle east (energy secutiry) 2. jobs being created in the USA to harnes our wind resource 3. No more mercury and other harmful particles being emitted from the coal plants 4. The millions of gallons of water coal plants use every day would no longer be needed (used for agriculture) 5. farmers and land owners get a more stable income (leasing land for wind farms is very profitable). I can go on and one.

For most people, paying a bit more for those benefits is a no-brainer. You can also save that much off your monthly bill now by changin all your lightbulbs to compact fluorscent, adding a bit more insulation in your roof, or sealing up the air leaks around your doors / fans. If harnessing more domestic wind resources helps us stay our of the middle east it would be a net savings (we pay $55 per month per US citizen to run the Iraq war).


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 1:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad carbon isn't a pollutant.

Do you know that CO2 is the basis of ALL life? Atmospheric CO2 is the ONLY way carbon enters the biosphere, thus allowing the ENTIRE biosphere to exist.

Do you know that we are MADE of carbon, and so are trees and plants and ALL other life? And that that carbon we are made of comes from atmospheric CO2?

Did you know that more CO2 means more plant food means more plants means more life and more biodiversity?

I'm doing my part to save the planet. I burn as much clean energy as possible, producing as much CO2 as possible. The cleanest source of energy is methane because all you get is CO2 (good for all life) and water vapour. I burn methane just for fun when I'm bored, it's a great way to do your part! There are lots of creative ways to burn methane.

Seriously though: I agree with you 100% that efficiency is a good thing that it should be promoted and more research done in that regard. Renewable energy is great too, why the heck not - the future needs MORE energy, not less.

Clean coal that emits only CO2, with the other nasty true pollutants like sulphurs and other oxides scrubbed out is ALSO a great way to go for making our environment cleaner. And of course methane as I mentioned above. Solar isn't really that great because it takes SO much energy to produce the panels, plus the panels are made with toxic metals and materials orders of magnitude more worrisome and unhealthy for the environment.


By gorbush on 6/25/2009 3:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Too bad carbon isn't a pollutant.

Do you know that there are some substances that in low concentration are healthy for you and in large quantities deadly (e.g. qxygen). I suppoues not.


By gorbush on 6/25/2009 3:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Too bad carbon isn't a pollutant.

Do you know that there are some substances that in low concentration are healthy for you and in large quantities deadly (e.g. oxygen). I supposes not.


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 4:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you know that there are some substances that in low concentration are healthy for you and in large quantities deadly (e.g. oxygen).


I did not know that, thanks.

Good thing we would have to burn all known reserves of fossil fuels hundreds of times over before we made the atmosphere poisonous to us though.


By gorbush on 6/26/2009 2:39:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good thing we would have to burn all known reserves of fossil fuels hundreds of times over before we made the atmosphere poisonous to us though.

In you biased mind maybe.
Sorry but I had to say this. Because you consciously avoiding inconvenient subject like: "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide"
(Source: http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=1331...
and using some 100 years old arguments about "spectral saturation" of CO2 which I never heard before from any minimally credible source.

I shouldn't even recall Alan Sidons twisted logic (your source: http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/IPCC_deception.pdf... when he climes that people contribute to increase of CO2 concentration only in 0,04% when in fact it is 100%. (Such creative accounting would allow Enron to exist for many more years) Why ? Because nature produce 97% CO2 and is able to absorb 98,5% but anything above is human fault and I don't see in foreseeable future how we can reverse this trend.


By Grabo on 6/26/2009 4:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
Another solid point.

Seriously, do you think perhaps other problems might appear before the actual air we breathe became unbreathable?

You thought of providing a link for a pretty outrageous comment? Nope.

You think anyone thinks carbon dioxide is a 'pollutant'? It's all about balance man. If you have read everything, then surely you've read about the carbon cycle?


By pequin06 on 6/25/2009 5:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
Hey Mr. Wizard,
Did you know that there are some substances that in low concentration are healthy for you and anything in large quantities deadly (e.g. oxygen, water, caffeine, salt, sun, heat, wine, beer, milk, etc...). I suppose not.


By knutjb on 6/25/2009 11:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
You are using the standard GW tripe with personal attacks at such a level I really doubt that you met with the CEO of RWE. You missed, or ignored, the Kyoto Treaty requirements and coal power plants were supposed to go away completely so they could meet those standards. Just because they are building on brown sites doesn't mean they aren't building higher capacity plants, besides it's where the infrastructure is. Europe as a whole is dangerously beholden to Russia for natural gas and that is why those plants aren't going away as required under Kyoto. Just ask the Ukraine. The last number I heard of German use of Russian natural gas was over 45%. Reagan warned them many years ago not to use more than 25% and find other sources of energy.

As for unemployment, you are just looking at today's snafu, look at it for a longer period of time and you will find otherwise. Try looking at productivity over the last decade.

As for our oil use, most of it comes from Canada, Mexico and Hugo Chavez, not the middle east. The sad part is we have new, previously not accounted for, oil in Montana, North and South Dakota. Oil naturally seeps up through the ground in Santa Clara. In fact if they would start drilling a few new wells off Santa Barbra it would reduce coastal oil pollution off Ca by 80% or so. Really.

Have you been to Denmark, beautiful country nice people, same for Iceland, if you like ice and rocks. As to your syllogism of wind power and carbon neutral equating to happiness and life expectancy, it's quite amusing.

And this constant focus on carbon, wow, who'da thought one and only one little kind of molecule could cause so much trouble. And only oil companies are bad and mischievous?

You need not use slanderous insults as they only emphasize your lack of confidence with your argument. The Kool-Aid reference is about blindly following a movement without being the slightest bit skeptical as to its conclusion, not a personal insult.

Are you a sophomore in college?


By Chaotic42 on 6/24/2009 6:57:01 PM , Rating: 4
I love the graph on page 9 (FAQ 2.1). Notice that with a baseline of 250 ppm, the jump to 380 looks tremendous. Set the baseline at 0 and it looks a lot less scary. It could be an accident, but it's really easy to overinflate fears with graphs like that.

I'm not refuting the science, I'm too ignorant of the subject. I just love seeing scary graphs like that.


By Keeir on 6/24/2009 8:59:06 PM , Rating: 5
Whoa

Slow down there

250-280 ppm is the estimated level as of 1750.

It is in no way shape or form the "neutral state" of the earth. The amount of C02 in the atmosphere has varied between <150 ppm to well over 1000 ppm (seen estimates as high as 5000 ppm or greater). All of these levels produced an earth capable of sustaining high amounts of plant and animal life. All of these levels would have been habitiable (though not ideal perhaps) for humans.


By FaaR on 6/24/2009 11:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
One could argue the definition of "neutral state" until the cows come home of course for all the good it'd do us, but as we live in the present, the HERE AND NOW, CO2 levels say, 200 million years ago hardly matters and are not applicable in any way.

All vegetation etc alive today are used to today's 'neutral state', not any past state of 1000-5000ppm or such.

What you offer is thus a strawman argument, and thus, useless.


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 1:02:05 AM , Rating: 3
The neutral state is constant change, and today's plants and animals are used to millions of years of such neutral constant change. Past changes are well known to be much more severe in degree and rate than the last century's warming, cooling, warming, and current cooling.

Thus your's is a strawman argument, and useless.

There's your definition.


By foolsgambit11 on 6/25/2009 9:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
No, your argument is the straw man, I'm afraid. When you're talking about huge expanses of time, I think we can all agree the Earth fluctuates massively. But nobody thinks public policy should be based on a million-year outlook, nor should it count on massive geologic events that can't be predicted with *any* degree of certainty, but result in huge increases in CO2 (up to levels like the 1000 you quoted, and even higher).

But when you look back at the past 100,000 years (even up to about 800,000 years ago) and see that CO2 levels have generally been between 200-280 ppm (occasionally as high as 300 and as low as 180), averaging around 250 ppm, you can safely call that a baseline.

Of course life can survive if CO2 concentrations reach 500+ ppm, and it can survive dramatic swings in climate. The concern isn't that the Earth becomes a lifeless, barren desert. The concern is that the Earth will be less habitable, resulting in, if not the destruction of modern civilization, at least mass death and a substantial drop in the standards of living for the rest. And that unlike previous climatic shifts, this one (even if it isn't as dramatic as some) is the result of human activity, and thus potentially preventable.

Of course, it could just be a coincidence, and the world was due for a shift in climate at exactly the same moment that we're pouring CO2 into the atmosphere. It could be that the vast majority of scientists are wrong. But your argument is in no way helpful, since it gives no evidence that increased CO2 levels will leave civilization unaffected, while a large majority of people who study this for a living put forth long, reasoned arguments, backed by data, why increased CO2 levels will negatively impact civilization, as well as demonstrating that those increased CO2 levels are the result of human activity.


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 10:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
Don't take my words out of context. I was clearly, if you actually read the thread, refering to the comment that:

quote:
"All vegetation etc alive today are used to today's 'neutral state', not any past state of 1000-5000ppm or such."


which is false. The vegetation around today has been around for millions of years, and has survived ice ages and warmer times than today.

In fact, greenhouse food producers increase CO2 concentration to levels of 1000ppm or higher in order to improve food yeild and growth time, and with less water at that.

quote:
But nobody thinks public policy should be based on a million-year outlook


And I don't think public policy and taxation should be levied against humans over natural and unstoppable geologic and climate processes in the short term either!

quote:
But when you look back at the past 100,000 years (even up to about 800,000 years ago) and see that CO2 levels have generally been between 200-280 ppm (occasionally as high as 300 and as low as 180), averaging around 250 ppm, you can safely call that a baseline.


And this is a relevant average baseline why? As I said above, the plants and animals alive today have been around for millions of years and have suffered much much worse than the warming, cooling, warming, and current cooling seen in the last century and today. And as we know from horticultury, more CO2 = good for plants = more food with less water and energy.

quote:
The concern is that the Earth will be less habitable, resulting in, if not the destruction of modern civilization, at least mass death and a substantial drop in the standards of living for the rest. And that unlike previous climatic shifts, this one (even if it isn't as dramatic as some) is the result of human activity, and thus potentially preventable.


I don't know who've you've been talking to, but the fact is that more CO2 will let more plant life grow in traditionally arid regions because plants grow with less water when CO2 increases. Plus plants grow faster and have higher food yeild in traditional crop areas. These effects will greatly overwhelm any possible local drought conditions caused by warming.
Warming is not a bad thing at all. Global cooling, which has been hapenning since ~2001, is REALLY what will create the alarming scenarios you describe. Any farmer knows that an ice age means you can't grow food, AT ALL. Or that cool summer means less food yeild, and that hotter sunnier summers means more food yeild.
I personally haven't been able to get organic BC peaches for two years straight now due to the cooling trend! Back around 2000 when we had better weather and more sun, those peaches were coming in the truck load and were huge and delicious. This cooling sucks!

In regards to your last sentence in the quote above about humans causing the current climate shift...tell me how exactly we are causing the world to cool for the last 10 years?

quote:
Of course, it could just be a coincidence, and the world was due for a shift in climate at exactly the same moment that we're pouring CO2 into the atmosphere.


No there is no coincidence at all my friend. The climate is ALWAYS shifting! It had been on a warming trend since the year 1850. Then it cooled from 1940-70. Then it warmed from 1970-2000 and has been cooling since then. No coincidences anywhere. Strange coincidence indeed that as we continually put more CO2 into the air, the climate cools.

quote:
But your argument is in no way helpful, since it gives no evidence that increased CO2 levels will leave civilization unaffected, while a large majority of people who study this for a living put forth long, reasoned arguments, backed by data, why increased CO2 levels will negatively impact civilization, as well as demonstrating that those increased CO2 levels are the result of human activity.


Well I hope I've helped here. There is a myriad of good science being done by people concerned only with the truth, not political agendas, that show CO2 emmision is good for the planet as a whole generally and locally.

The fact that scientists are coming to exactly diametrically opposite conclusions on the issue indicates at the least that the issue isn't settled.

We better get it right, because if it turns out that the existence of humanity is a net benefit to the planet earth - through our CO2 emmision from energy generation and human activity thereby promoting the growth of plant life and the base of the food chain for all life - then we will have a totally revolutionary perspective on ourselves that sees us as a positive and joyful part of the ecosystem of the planet earth. And we won't have to think of ourselves as a virus anymore, but as intelligent participants in the geologic history and future of the planet.


By clovell on 6/25/2009 12:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
No dude. The point is that there is no nuetral state. It amazes me how reactionary AGW advocates truly are. Things change. Deal.


By TheHarb on 6/24/2009 11:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
250-280 ppm is the estimated level as of 1750


Hey hold on a sec! I've got an HP1012 and it only puts out 20-25 ppm in b&w. If the 1750 series is that much faster, then I'm upgrading! Dont worry though, I'll recycle the old printer. Don't want to be responsible for burning down the earth that Al Gore made.


By mmatis on 6/24/2009 8:25:00 PM , Rating: 1
Please stop quoting the IPCC as credible scientific evidence. The bullshit you're citing is the executive summary, and bears little resemblance to the full IPCC report. In addition, the bastards on the IPCC are paid by the filthy maggots trying to ram carbon credits up our butts. I trust those filthy bastards a WHOLE lot less than I trust the tobacco and oil industries. At least neither tobacco nor oil forced the financial institutions to lend to people who had no capability to pay back their loans. Unlike Barney Frank and Chris Dodd...


By Wightout on 6/25/2009 4:00:22 AM , Rating: 2
I dont understand whats wrong with arguing against anti-smoking legislation.

Who cares who they are paid for by, I want to know if their "facts" check out.


By KaTaR on 6/25/2009 7:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
Great!

You, Michael Andrews, and all the other people here who think the Heartland Institute is legit can head over to the forum next door. A new report just came out about second hand smoke and brain damage (in the news section). Your buddies at big tobacco need you to go spread as much disinformation as possible to stall any more legislative changed. I'm sure we will see you here again every time a new piece of information comes out supporting GW.


By SSDMaster on 6/25/2009 8:12:33 AM , Rating: 2
Why don't we just agree that the Earth is getting hotter, and that its mostly a bad thing. Then figure out if humans CAN make a difference by regulating emissions, inefficient solar panels, et cetera. Who cares if its caused by humans or not. Just try to fix the problem.


By clovell on 6/25/2009 11:59:20 AM , Rating: 3
A far more what note? Did you just spend 3 paragraphs lecturing this man on facts to then claim the IPCC's findings are unassailable fact? Do you honestly think it is qualified, competent, and free of any conflict of interest? Do you seriously think there is a single action that doesn't have negative consequences?

Wake the eff up, dude. Garbage is coming from all angles on this issue.


By Rhaido on 6/25/2009 12:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
6/25/2009 Wall Street Journal
The Cap and Tax Fiction
Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781...

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.


By KaTaR on 6/25/2009 1:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
Simply not true and ignores the facts. We can settle this whole 'big tax increase' issue once and for all by checking what it will actually cost you right now to go carbon netutral (electricity). I'm going to use Colorao as a location to do this reality check.

1. Call Excel energy 1-800-895-1999 and ask to speak to a cust serive representative.
2. Ask to speak to somebody familiar with their 'Wind Source Program'
3. Ask them how much more it will cost you per month right now go to 100% wind if you use 1100 kWh per month (big house and the amount I use).

- I already swithced a while ago but made the call again just for this posts sake. The answer: I pay an extra $11 per month to be 100% carbon neutral on my electricity at this moment. It gets better. I am locked in on my rate (wind doesn't have any input cost like natual gas or coal) so when the price of oil and gas goes up as the economy recovers, my rate will stay flat while everybody elses goes up. I will end up paying less than others when natural gas gets back to $5 - $6.

So back to your assertion about the tax increase. I am there now and it's only costing me $11 per month extra (or $2.5 per person in the house). Our cost of the war in Iraq alone is $50 per month per person.


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 1:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
Whaaaaaaa?????

What's happening to you individually, now, before these laws are passed, has nothing to do with what will happen on a massive scale later under a different system of regulation.

Temporal causality much?


By KaTaR on 6/25/2009 2:44:25 PM , Rating: 1
You prefer theory and speculation over reality?

Just call the fucking number and ask them how much it will cost you to get all your electricity from wind now. It will cost you 12$ more per month. That is the reality not theory.

The regulation being proposed will not increase your electricity bill because you are using clean energy like wind beacuse and because your price is fixed (you dont bear the impact of higher coal and gas prices). So the $12 is what it is and what it will be for electricity.

Natural gas does emmit carbon so that price may go up if they put a price on carbon in the US. At $10 to $15 per ton it adds maybe a few % to your nat gas bill. It all depends where you live, how much you use, etc. But you are still looking at a number of $0 - $15 per month extra. Any impact will be completely dwarfed by the price changes you get from higher or lower natural gas prices. If Nat gas doubles from $4 back to $8 then your bill doubles. There is no way around regulation or no regulation.


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 3:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to pay more for electricity BE MY GUEST. I am more than happy to support you in that and wish you the best of luck. After all, the future needs more energy.

But I have absolutely zero prerogative to pay 1c more for electricity, because it just isn't necessary. Methane and clean coal electricity is as green as can be and contributes greenness to the planet through CO2 which feeds the plants and all life.

We can make methane and clean coal cheaper by investing in efficiency infrastructure, which will also lighten our demand while being truly green and life promoting through CO2. Isn't it better to use an energy source which contributes to plant life? Thermal and wind do nothing for promoting biodiversity and life.

As an environmentalist, I prefer to live in such a way that promotes biodiversity and the plant life it all depends on.


By KaTaR on 6/25/2009 4:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you havent figured out that 'clean coal' costs a hell of a lot more than old dirty coal. You see the equipment costs a lot more, there is a lot more of it, and if you are talking about pumping the CO2 into the ground it adds yet a nother big cost.

Add that all up and you will be paying more no matter which way you look at it. You know why utilities havent started pumping CO2 into the ground on any scale so far? Because it ends up costing more than building new wind or nat gas.

It's pretty obivouls you are one of those people who will never change their mind. You havent really looked into this yet are determined that coal is the way for you nomatter what. I just hope you stick with your principles when it gets more expensive to use dirty fuel, and pay the extra cost.


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 4:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
No no no, I don't want to pump the CO2 underground!! I want to pump it into the atmosphere!! It does no good to plant life pumping the CO2 underground man!
By clean coal I mean coal that's scrubbed and processed for pollutants like sulphurs and such and burned hot enough such as to not produce ozone and nitrous oxides and all that nasty stuff. I think you can get methane out of coal too, which is perfectly clean. We know how to do this already and it is easy to industrialize.
With coal being so plentiful and readily available it would still be cheaper making it clean. But we can wait on adding more coal energy generation, making it cleaner and in the mean time burn perfectly clean methane.

But as I said, if you want to buy wind energy I think that's great! I just prefer to buy methane electricity because it is good for the environment.


By JediJeb on 6/25/2009 3:14:14 PM , Rating: 3
If the wind stops blowing, does your electricity get cut off?

If not, then you are not 100% on wind power.


By KaTaR on 6/25/2009 4:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously didnt take the time to call ask or look into the matter again.

It's pooled and balanced so that the amount of electricity used by people in the scheme and the amount of wind power going into the pool are balanced out over a month. Every time the get a certain amount of new subscibers they add a new turbine up in Wyoming. If too many people want to sign up at once, they have to wait until the new turbines are in place and running.

So yes, 100% of the electricity I use - or take from the grid - is replaced by wind electricity feeding into the grid on a monthly basis.


By nct on 6/26/2009 4:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
You really think a technology with a capacity factor of 25-40% can produce 100% of the electricity you use? Then again, maybe it can in your area, fueled by all the hot air spewing out of your mouth. Everywhere else, it has to be supplemented by a more reliable form of power generation...like coal, or nuclear.


By Rhaido on 6/26/2009 10:52:49 AM , Rating: 2
6/26/2009 WSJ
The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449...


By Crassus on 6/25/2009 4:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
And something on top of that:

You can't "outlaw" "legislation" by a legislative act. If I understand your writing correctly, you're actually talking about rulemaking, which isn't legislation at all.

And it's not "outlawed" either. Where do you get your vocabulary? News Of The World? Do you spend ANY time on research before you write?!

If my writing was like your writing, I would have had lost my job many years ago.


By Karlzbad on 6/25/2009 8:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah the Heritage Foundation is a strictly ultra right wing political PR firm who's only priority is the interests of the wealthiest 1%.


By Regs on 6/26/2009 8:52:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
These guys are are not funded by any corporations or special interst groups. They are not paid to take a particulr view and are trying to get to the bottom of the matter because it could actually screw us up big time if we dont do something


They get paid by government in grants. Some people and their respected committees that fund the IPCC in government happen to be liberal . Not saying the NIPCC should be a credited source or even ranked in the same class as the IPCC, but don't get brainwashed into thinking the IPCC hold no bias either. If they were getting paid to disprove global warming, they all would of lost their jobs awhile ago from the lack of public interest.


By callmeroy on 6/26/2009 8:59:08 AM , Rating: 2
You know each to their own believes and things they want to rant on about -- I do my share in fact....but it is a funny observation in posts like this where one person is calling out another over stuff they read to be true -vs- stuff the other guy read to be true.

Its like -- your links are stupid, my sources are the real deal however..... Just interesting to me how we spin about things like this pitting what you find on the internet to what I find on the internet.....if someone's information is railed against as being wrong, what's to say the source of the other guy's point isn't wrong either?

Its the Internet --- when it comes to controversial topics like Global Warming...you can't convince me that ANY source out there doesn't have their own agenda. Its just about how they spin it to suit the invidivual's own views.


By gorbush on 6/26/2009 10:11:39 AM , Rating: 2
There is some merit with what you are saying, but if I know source of controversial information I may try to judge it's value and/or try to find some other opinion on that subject.

Try this: http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/IPCC_deception.pdf
and think for yourself if it is logical to account only 0,04% of OC2 concentration increase to human doing or rather 100% ? Hint: He calculate: 97% + 3% - 98,5% = 1,5% but by proportion (1,5%/97%)*3%=0,04%. There is only primary school math but no sense.

And this argument was given by General Disturbance our great thinker ;).


By General Disturbance on 6/26/2009 10:40:40 AM , Rating: 2
You REALLY didn't read the report did you, or clearly have a difficult time reading english. The numbers you're listing there are not at all what the author of that report did to calculate his result.

quote:
And this argument was given by General Disturbance our great thinker ;)


I did not write that report. But it is really flattering that you think I am a great thinker! :) Thanks for the nice compliment gorbush, I hope you have a really great day and nice weekend.


By gorbush on 6/26/2009 11:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
Yes you are right I'm not native speaker but it isn't any excuse. My passive English skills are far better than average foreigner.

I said many times that I couldn't understand Alan Siddons calculation but after second look I know why ;). His assumption are wrong.

For the last hour I was trying to logically explain what is wrong with his thinking but it wasn’t going well ;). Then I decided to incorporate your strategy: “rule of 3 strikes”.
First:
quote:
Reports by the US Dept of Energy (DOE) indicate that 97% of the annual carbon dioxide emissions come
from Nature itself. The report also indicates that more than 98% of all the carbon dioxide emissions are
absorbed again by Nature.

True but you must remember that it is only true for 10 year period, his conclusion:
quote:
It means that since the start of the Industrial Revolution the increase in carbon dioxide levels of about 103ppmv are 97% due to Nature itself, that is to say that only about 3ppmv of that increase is due to man-made emissions.

Completely wrong. There is no evident data supporting this claim. I mean his concluded division (of OC2 increase) between human and nature.
Second:
quote:
(...)Nature is perfectly capable of dealing with those emissions, both natural and man-made.

Complete wrong second time, there was 11.7 mmt increase of CO2 in "US" atmosphere annually.
Third:
quote:
UN IPCC is shown to have grossly overestimated the amount of man-made carbon dioxide in our atmosphere

You didn't even do that.

My "wrongful" opinion came from referenced material: Table 3. There is written in black & white that in 1990s US emitted CO2 annually 793.1 mmt (million metric ton) where "made" by nature: 770 mmt and by man: 23.1 mmt and natural absorption were 781.4 mmt.

I don't even know how mr. Alan Siddons could calculate human participation in CO2 increase since the industrial era there is no proof of that in that paper (data only include ten year period).
And his assumption that what is left in atmosphere shoud be divided between nature and human is radiculus because of simple fact: as for now people don't absorb CO2.

Besides that I think it is more important to base you opinion on actual emission than in 200 year period.

"Current" (1990s) data for US CO2 emission:
nature produce : 793.1 mmt annually
man-made: 23.1 mmt annually
absorbtion by nature: 781.4 mmt annually.

Increase of CO2 gas: 11.7 mmt.
Human flault 100%.

Or beg you differ ?


By gorbush on 6/26/2009 12:40:15 PM , Rating: 2
Not US only but global data was placed in Table 3 from DOE. Sorry for my? mistake but there where some other text indicating otherwise. I suppose if it where only from US then man-made emmision and increase of CO2 gas in mmt would be much higher.

"Current" (1990s) data for GLOBAL CO2 emission:
nature produce : 793.1 mmt annually
man-made: 23.1 mmt annually
absorbtion by nature: 781.4 mmt annually.

Increase of CO2 gas: 11.7 mmt.
Human flault: 100%.

Or beg anyone of us differ ?


By gorbush on 6/26/2009 12:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
I should swear where is edit button but I can't blame anyone for my mistakes ;).

"Current" (1990s) data for GLOBAL CO2 emission:
nature produce : 770 mmt annually
man-made: 23.1 mmt annually
absorbtion by nature: 781.4 mmt annually.

Increase of CO2 gas: 11.7 mmt.
Human flault: 100%.

Or beg anyone of us differ now?


By Hawkido on 6/26/2009 4:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
Uh dude!?!

You subject title discounts you horribly:

quote:
Another piece of BS from Michael Andrews purported to be news


Michael Andrews didn't make this up...
This is happening in Arizona... FACT
This is News... FACT
This is on topic for a Science/Tech Site... FACT
Any liberal would vomit when they see free speech taking hold in this counrty once again... Well we see your post and can make up our own mind.


By roninmd on 6/27/2009 1:08:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
mankind is partially responsible


if water vapor is the most predominant greenhouse gas

It should say humans account for a small fraction.

Global Warming is occuring but happens in cycles. The sun is the cause of global warming.. not man.

In any case, I don't like being taxed because of some theory.


By gorbush on 6/27/2009 3:15:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Global Warming is occurring but happens in cycles. The sun is the cause of global warming.. not man.

Wrong.
As I recall NASA didn't found any evident connection between sun cycles and GW.

quote:
In any case, I don't like being taxed because of some theory.

CO2 concentration rising isn't theoretical. It's happening and there is no apparent solution to stop it in the future especially when the biggest contributor doesn't want to lower his share.

Besides AGW there is at least one more negative aspect of high CO2 concentration:
"Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide"
Literature:
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=1331...

CO2 concentration rising is fault human in 100%.
Proofs from DOE 2004 rapport:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/05730...

Table 1. Very interesting.
World Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Region, 1990-2002
US from 5,778 to 6,696 mmt = 15,9% increase !
Western Europe from 3,413 to 3,549 mmt = 4% increase.
Former Soviet Union from 3,798 to 2,399 mmt = 36,7% decrease !
Eastern Europe from 1,095 to 726 mmt = 33% decrease.
I shouldn't even show emerging Asia but there is most of production facilities for western countries.
Emerging Asia (China, India,...) from 3,890 to 6,205 mmt = 59,5% increase !

Table 3. "Current" (1990s) data for GLOBAL CO2 emission:
nature produce : 770 mmt annually
man-made: 23.1 mmt annually
absorption by nature: 781.4 mmt annually.

Increase of CO2 gas: 11.7 mmt.
Human fault: 100%.


By sandyshores on 6/27/2009 9:23:16 AM , Rating: 2
I cannot believe how easy it is to hypnotize the American people. Time and time again I see people who have been manipulated by the media and the politicians who have invested in this farce that will certainly hurt the people of the USA and take food out of the mouth of its children. The democrats will not be happy until there is no middle class in this country and they can rachet this country into generational theft that will be unpayable.
http://www.huliq.com/41129/john-coleman-says-globa...
Founder of the Weather Channel, Meteorologist John Coleman: Global Warming is the Greatest Scam in History.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

It’s what conservative bloggers are buzzing about: the financial relationship between Do-Nothing Nancy Pelosi and Big Wind pusher T. Boone Pickens.

#dontgo reports that according to disclosure statements, “in May 2007 she invested in T. Boone Picken’s clean energy fuels corp., CLNE, which is the sole sponsor of a proposal in California to funnel $5 billion in state funds and $5 billion in Federal funs to this corporation which will indirectly help them create a giant wind farm in the Texas panhandle.”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/11/bosom-buddies...
Are you so hypnotized that you cannot ever see the facts?


By gorbush on 6/27/2009 11:07:05 AM , Rating: 2
Everywhere you can find people who are willing to earn on popular trends. But that does not mean that those moves are wrong.


By mandrews on 6/24/2009 5:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Exactly. This is hardly something to celebrate. Any shred of doubt that man is not causing warming is eroding day by day as more studies, and more scientists concede that warming is real and happening now.


Does an open discussion on scientific theory worry you?

quote:

Arizona, New Mexico, and California will be the states worst effect by the ensuing droughts and soaring temperatures. At least California is doing its part to stop this.


Nonsense. The only thing they are doing is burdening their citizens with costs for fighting phantom unproven theories.

quote:
And Mike, $1,600 per citizen? That pales in comparison to how much extra costs global warming will incur on citizens. Nice try, but most understand this.


Again, this is alarmism at its finest. If anything mild climate change will improve agriculture in the U.S. by lengthening the growing season across much of the country. Reports of droughts are exaggerations based on unproven theoretical models.

quote:
And Mike, $1,600 per citizen? That pales in comparison to how much extra costs global warming will incur on citizens. Nice try, but most understand this.


I have spoken to a number of researchers who work at the NOAA or NASA, or formerly worked there. They operate under a climate of fear and prejudice. Legitimate researchers who challenge the status quo and suggest alternative climate theory lose their funding and are dismissed as crackpots. Meanwhile researchers like James Hansen who purposefully falsify data are promoted and rewarded. Its no wonder there's a so-called "consensus", Jason.


By General Disturbance on 6/24/2009 6:19:00 PM , Rating: 5
You are a troll, or your head really is that far in the sand (or some other dark place)...

quote:
why don't they publish actual studies offering alternative theories? - Jason Mick


You must wilfully be ignoring the papers, because they are all out there easy to find. Did you even read the NIPCC report Jason? It is a nice collection. Just say yes or no without the ad-hominem follow up. If you don't like the NIPCC then go look other places, it is easy.

Why doesn't it matter to you that the so-called "scientists" who promote AGW at the IPCC are PAID TO DO SO. That's what we call a conflict of interest - you don't seem familiar with the concept or only think it matters on one side. In which case you have no credibility as a journalist whatsoever and should be barred from writing anything for anybody until you go back to school.

And Jason, seriously, the argument to consensus has been destroyed so many times in so many places, I can't believe you even think it is appropriate to reference it to support your side. And if you really love your idiotic consensus so much, 31000 scientists disagree with AGW, while only the small hand full PAID to support AGW say they support it. Where's your idiotic consensus now?


By nuarbnellaffej on 6/25/2009 3:00:09 AM , Rating: 2
+1


By talfin on 6/24/2009 6:20:18 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I would hardly call scientific consensus a phantom theory, no matter what you say.


I would hardly call what exists out there as a scientific consensus. All those that support the current Global Warming theory along with the Media simply ignore all the scientists that don't agree with the theory, thus creating this "consensus"

The current conditions on Earth are well within the historical pattern of it's Warming and Cooling trends. A lot of facts are now showing up that is starting to open holes in the current theory. CO2 emissions has still gone up for the past 8 years, however, the Earth has been slightly cooling over the same period of time. How can this be?? The only answer will be that CO2 is not what is driving the global warming of the Earth. Instead, they should start looking at the radiation output from the Sun, which seems to be showing the same temperature curves as Earth's Warming and Cooling patterns for the past several decades.


By rcc on 6/24/2009 7:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All those that support the current Global Warming theory along with the Media simply ignore all the scientists that don't agree with the theory, thus creating this "consensus"


Isn't that the way all religions work?


By EglsFly on 6/24/2009 9:17:50 PM , Rating: 3
No “Global Warming” in Arizona - Coldest June on Record Since 1913 http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/19/...
quote:
Thursday, however, was the 14th consecutive day to stay below 100 degrees. That's the longest stretch of its kind in any June since 1913.


By mandrews on 6/24/2009 6:36:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
And I don't know who your NASA or NOAA friends are, but most researchers I have talked to believe global warming does exist and man is causing it. If your friends don't believe in it, why don't they publish actual studies offering alternative theories??


Perhaps like these?
(all of these studies contain observations or conclusions that help dispel the supposed "facts" of global warming)
http://www.nipccreport.org/
Journal Papers:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.0581
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/wais?cc=SH22B
http://fossil.earthsci.carleton.ca/~tpatters/pubs2...
http://www.springerlink.com/index/G87327815XG2U1H2...
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf
http://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents...
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/wais?jj=GC42A
http://bellwether.metapress.com/index/6024H28209L4...

There are many more, that's just a handful. Of course you'll never see those get much attention in the mainstream media; the alarmists have had their way for the last decade.

If you welcome an open discussion, you're conceding that the topic is open to debate. And if a theory is debatable do you really think that is a sound basis for legislation, Jason?


By ClownPuncher on 6/24/2009 7:54:33 PM , Rating: 1
Having read alot of those links, I can say they wont get media coverage because the majority of them are crap.

I am definitely not convinced of man made global warming, but when your sources say things like "US forests have increased 40% in 50 years" and are written by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons...you are not doing anything to help your cause.


By Duwelon on 6/24/2009 8:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
That made no logical sense what-so-ever. Mindless sheep alert ^^


By ClownPuncher on 6/24/2009 9:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
Let me clarify for you. One article states forests in the US have increased in area 40% since 1959. Forests in America have NOT increased 40% in 50 years. One report was written by doctors, the "my tummy hurts" kind. Scientific articles on global warming written by Physicians and Surgeons have no credible scientific background to be writing scientific studies on global warming.

These things you would understand had you read the links he posted, as I have. Do yourself a favor, click the links, read up, come back when you have formulated an informed opinion.

How am I a sheep? I remain unconvinced that man plays a major role in global warming. But I can also smell BS when it is posted.


By Keeir on 6/24/2009 9:21:39 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I am definitely not convinced of man made global warming, but when your sources say things like "US forests have increased 40% in 50 years" and are written by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons...you are not doing anything to help your cause.


I am confused.

Are you saying US Forests have -not- increased by 40% from 1950 levels? Or that a source that talks about Foresty levels in the United States can not also talk about the effects/caused of Climate Change/Global Warming?

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc241.pdf
US Timber reserves increased 39% between 1953-2002 according to US Foresty Service. Its important to note, this is due to maturing of replanted areas as Total forest area has risen much less.

I agree with the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons... although I feel compelled to point out the Young of Engineering Young Modulus was a medical doctor and his initial papers on his Modulus were published in medical journals.