Global Warming

“LOL.”

“Tech, I live in the middle of the Mojave desert where the sun is king, but can drive for miles without seeing any PVs. Even with 345 days min. sunny days a year it still isn't happening.”

“For the general population, once prices drop to $1 a watt, it will. Right now its around $4 per watt. We'll need either a major tech advance or the kind of back-door financial support that the oil companies currently get from Congress.”

“(or airstrikes against Iran...)”

“(drum and rim shot)”

“LOL...the whole thing is that ALGORE is spreading a line of crap. Its bogus. Its like me asking for a Resolution on negativity in FUEGO (by the way only Stovie and I had the courage to sign up for that). It allows me (if I wanted to) to claim "I signed an antinegativity resolution" while still being as negative as I wanted.

I have a friend who installed a windmill on his property. Many times of the year he can actually sell elecricity back to the power company. He is a die hard recycler, and does a lot of neat stuff to conserve. BUT he does not ever want it forced on others.”

“"......only Stovie and I had the courage...."
XL

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!!!!!!

You guys are a couple of oxy-morons!!
Thanks for the laugh!!

Now its about "forcing it on others"....hahahahaha!!”

“WHOOPS..speaking of MARKY MARK morons...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

To quote
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

So marky mark we get back to my original quesiton. We take the damaging actions to destroy the success that is America, we ruin lives and devestate the economy then we learn...WE WERE WRONG!!!!!

What do we do? How do we treat the Scientist/Consensusbuilers who made this line up?
last edited: 3/06/07 12:41:31 PM”

“So XL, you going to fess up that your rant yesterday against green electric was wrong? Or just hope it blows over like you always do?

Forcing it on others? Huh, I guess we shouldn't force fire safety on others, now should we?”

“"We take the damaging actions to destroy the success that is America, we ruin lives and devestate the economy then we learn..."
XL

You are a freaking loon!

I want to destroy "the success that is America", because..............what......why????
I live here and so does my family and neighbors.
We are all about success and having a future.......a sustainable future.

Oh yeah, I guess if that's what Oxy Limbaugh says you've got to go along with it or maybe your head will explode.”

“LOL...I still think Green Electricity is boob bait for bubbas...but hey if it make you feel better...LOL go for it.

Tech, good example (if you are a sophmore in Tech School) you might not understand this but when a building burns it can REALLY KILL and HURT others...its fact, not consensus (like your global warming)...come on you are smarter than that. Lets try and bring the IQ up a couple of points on our questions.”

“Fire kills individuals, maybe a family or two on occasion.

Global warming kills entire species, maybe even us if we don't watch it. (XL's response: Nuhhhh-uhhh!)

Since you obviously don't know how the power generation and distribution system works or is regulated, we'll just skip over that one for now to save you some face.”

“Gee tech, asteroids killed almost the whole earth but I don't see you screaming about it...oh what species have been totally wiped out by global warming? I am not talking a subspecies but an entire species.

So fire just kills individuals...umm So the Chicago fire was nonexistent and these reports of dozens dying is BS..>(LOL) or do you just FEEEL that is so so it is ? (LOL)”

“OH WOW...another result of global warming?

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2007/03/05/nhl-penguins-impasse.html

Penguins poised to leave Pittsburgh”

“People dont kill people , global warming kills people?.... :}
Rejects from the NRA? LOL

just a minor technical note... electrons are simply a medium that energy is transfered with. They are neutral in the green debate.

(but they do support gay rights by sometimes blowing the fuse... :} )

end analysis : overall usage is still growing faster then availible supplies.”

“
”

“(FSLR) First Solar Inc. 51.21+3.59+7.56%.”

“Science by consensus.....that was in the dark ages when if the Church said it...it was SO.”

“
”

“Now stove...how about all the people who think you are insulting middle aged men who try to wear thongs?????”

“Middle age men who wear thongs are insulting.”

“Bac...most men wearing thongs are insulting....”

“I resemble that remark..... :}”

“Don't you hate when all those scientists who argue against human-caused global warming make a video to showcase all the lies told to scare us into thinking that humans are responsible for the warming (you gotta hate because supposedly these scientists don't exist).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=the+great+swindle”

“I feel we are just about at a tipping point now, as more and more scientists come to grips with the reality of the situation.

Here's what happened here. The climate started heating up and climatologists wanted to know why. The thing that seemed most obvious as a driver of this change was greenhouse gas emmissions (especially CO2). The theory seemed to make sense, and when you plugged the numbers into the models (MAJOR POINT: models based on the ASSUMPTION that these gases drive climate change) we saw runaway global warming that threatened us all. At this point well meaning activists who already wanted to control such emmissions because of damage that we know we were already doing to the enviroment got hold of this information and started sounding the trumpets, money flowed into research, and other scientists who the theory made sense to started lining up. But the whole thing gained a momentum because of activism and money that few could have forseen. The activists controlled the money for the science which all went to those who backed the science that the activists believed in, so more and more scientists worked within the theory because thats where the money was and on and on. It got to the point where you couldn't get funded for other research if you're main funding was through such groups, even if you weren't a climatologists, so those scientists lined up too.

But now we've reached a point that it had to come to, where the assumption that greenhouse gas emmissions drive climate change is tested. And everyday there is more and more evidence that it simply doesn't. And so everyday there are more and more scientists who are falling off of the bandwagon, because the scientific evidence for warming driven by our emmissions simply isn't there.

Now, another MAJOR POINT, this does not mean that we shouldn't work as hard as we can to limit these emmissions. We should try to keep the world as natural as possible. These emmissions do damage our environment (they just aren't responsible for warming) and therefore they cause damage to us. But let's continue to look to the damage that we KNOW that these gases cause as reasons in the argument to limit emmissions.”

“Why is Mars warming?”

“I love it when they get to Dr. Stott, he puts it forth with a bit more tact than I do, but the basic message is the same "Hey, idiots, you want to know why the planet is heating up? haven't you noticed that giantic nuclear fireball in the sky?"”

“It must be gettin hodder awrite! Me and my hubsand Gissmaeioux did not use ower sleepy bags lats nite or them nother nites neether!”

“I have to commend Y2's fellow Brits for being the first to come out in such a major way to spread the truth. And this film does a brilliant job of debunking all the crap laid out in "An Inconvienent Truth."

They've done a great job of explaining the reality that the temperature increase drives increased CO2 levels (not vice versa as human-caused global warming supporters including Al Gore state) by causing CO2 to be released from the oceans (the increase in CO2 from human sources in miniscule compared to natural sources).

They've also done a fantastic job at showing just exactly how increased solar activity is the cause of warming both in the past and today.”

“Well but how did it play on Mars? (LOL)”

“interesting video Bison. thx
now i don't know who to believe anymore”

“Bison, its fact that the oceans absorb our CO2, they don't emit it.”

“Well TechNtrek, its kinda like "intelligent design".

If you believe hard enough that there is no global warming/climate change then your beliefs will come true.

"Somewhere, over the rainbow......"
(Picture Ethel Merman singing in a REALLY LOUD voice)"......and the dreams that we dare to dream really will come true."”

“Is this a Fact via Consensus?

LOL kinda like "Its a fact that the only way we can save the "HEATHEN" is to enslave them and kill them.”

“MarkO - yup. Right now I'm wishing really hard for a million bucks - I think know I'll have it by next Tuesday.

XL, like I've said before, if I said the sky was blue you would refute it, just because this silly lib says so. Basic scientific studies show that the oceans are a CO2 sink. The CO2 levels have shot through the roof (just like in the atmosphere), acidifying the water and thus killing off the reefs.

Type in "ocean CO2 acid" in Google and you'll get many references. Here's just one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400772.html”

“any so called "scientist" that won't submit their results for peer review sits in the same bucket as creationists/intelligent design proponents as far as i am concerned.”

“what about this?
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2003/story10-30-03.html”

““Bison, its fact that the oceans absorb our CO2, they don't emit it.”

techntrek
9:27:24 AM
3/13/07

Absolutely incorrect, The oceans are a CO2 sink, whether they emit or absorb is dependent on temperature. When the temp is below a certain point the oceans absorb CO2, when the oceans warm to a certain point they emit CO2. This is why there is a lag between when warming starts and when CO2 begins to rise (Something Al Gore skirts in "An Inconvienent Truth by saying that the relationship is "complicated"). The lag is due to the warming causing the Oceans to begin emitting CO2, this is why there appears to be a relationship. The problem for the human-caused global warming proponents is that they have the relationship backwards.”

“"If you believe hard enough that there is no global warming/climate change then your beliefs will come true."

MarkO
9:34:20 AM
3/13/07

This is another thing that proponents say that people are finally starting to see through.

None of these people is arguing that global warming doesn't exist. Pretty much everyone agrees that climate change is taking place. The argument is about the cause.

But as usual the left just has to distort other people's views like this because they begin to see that their own views aren't going to stand up to scrutiny in the end.”

“Exactly, its a sink. The definition of a sink is one that absorbs something - not emits it.

edit - and yes, the solubility of CO2 reduces as the temperature of seawater increases. This only means that it will become a smaller sink in the future, not that its going to suddenly release the CO2 in solution.
last edited: 3/13/07 11:54:27 AM”

“Bison, i think thatlink supports what you're saying, and it looks pretty credible to me.
If it's wrong, can someone show why?”

“Think of the heatsink in your computer tech, it can only absorb so much heat, dependent on several factors including the ambient temperature. At some point it crosses the line where it can no longer absorb heat, and it has to emit some of the heat that it previously absorbed to remain in balance.

Same thing with the oceans, they can absorb a certain amount of CO2 depending on temperature, once the temperature rises to a certain point they begin to release some of the stored CO2 so as to remain in balance.

The ice core data shows absolutely that temperature increase is the cause of increased CO2, because CO2 increase starts after the temperature rises, not before. Not vice versa as big Al would have you believe.”

“Yes a heat sink and the ocean CO2 sink are alike, but not like you describe. Neither one starts releasing stored heat/CO2 once a certain temperature is released. They become less and less effective at being a sink for heat/CO2 as their temperature rises, but they still absorb it even as they become warmer. Even more so for the ocean since most of the trapped CO2 initially lies in the top layer of water. It takes a long time for it to precipitate downward to deeper waters. So in this case there is a very large untapped sink in the other 98% of the deeper ocean water that can still absorb CO2 - especially since its a whole lot colder than the surface layer. Remember, sunlight doesn't penetrate very deep into ocean water.

Do you have a link or two that I can read? As usual in fuego - I'd love to discuss but its hard when no one else provides links/evidence.”

“techntrek, i think my link demonstrates that co2 is released”

“Tech, there are tons and tons of data on the oceans release of CO2 And Corey B's link looks to be a good one.

There is pretty much no question that the oceans release CO2 in exactly the way I describe.

The confusion I think comes from the fact that a sink is always both emitting and absorbing. So the way I stated it originally is a bit oversimplified. The threshold is where the ocean (or any other sink) is emitting more than it is absorbing and vice versa.

A sink is trying to find a certain balance just like any other natural process. And factors such as temperature affect exactly where that balance is, hence the constant emitting and absorbing because it is never in perfect balance, the other factors that the balance is dependent on are always changing.
last edited: 3/13/07 1:11:17 PM”

“Here is why I am so adamant about this Tech.

I believe that we need to control emmissions for reasons that I have stated time and time again.

But human-caused global warming is being used as the MAIN reason to stop emmissions. The problem is that human-caused global warming theory is a house of cards, and it is going to fall. When it does the general populace is A. Going to be pissed that they were sold a bill of goods, and B. Going to think "Well then we have no reason to control emmissions."

Once that happens it will take a long time (lost time) for people get back to the point where they see good reasons to control emmissions.

Not only that but I believe it will set back the entire environmental movement for a long time to come. There are those (developers etc...) who are going to be saying "See all those environmentalists have been lying to you all this time." It's just going to provide way too much ammunition to those who have no concern about the environment at all.
last edited: 3/13/07 1:17:27 PM”

“From Corey's article: "The equatorial oceans are the dominant oceanic source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, whereas colder waters in higher latitudes are sinks of atmospheric CO2. In balance, the global oceans annually take up about 2 billion tons of carbon through sea-air exchange of CO2 gas."

Like I said, the oceans are a CO2 sink, they are not releasing CO2 on a worldwide basis. "Worldwide" was implied before, maybe you didn't interpret it that way. It doesn't matter if its releasing some on the equator and absorbing some at the poles, the total net effect is what counts since the atmospheric concentration of CO2 gets churned up very quickly into a homogenous mass.

Another issue with that study is they only studied the surface layer. As I mentioned before, the surface layer is only a small portion of the total sink. The CO2 gets churned down to lower levels over time which dillutes the surface layer in the process. Its possible what they are seeing is dilution as the CO2 moves down, not up into the atmosphere.

Now, you are very right that if the global warming rug gets pulled out from under Joe Smith, we are going to have big problems correcting the other problems like particulates, etc. I gotta run home, I'll be back tomorrow.”

“Alright Tech, their point wasn't to study the total release, only that in that particular area, no mention is made of total CO2 output. But the ice core data clearly show large releases of stored CO2 from the ocean in conjunction all previous warming periods.
last edited: 3/13/07 1:57:26 PM”