PDA

View Full Version : How much pollution does a car produce?

GavinMannion
01-11-2007, 12:16 PM
While exhaust gases such as nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide are pretty nasty in their own right it’s the CO2 emitted by cars that contributes towards global warming. Roughly, for every litre of petrol you burn, your car emits 2.4kg of CO2! The average motorist who drives 20 000km a year will therefore emit anything between 2000kg and 7000kg of CO2 a year.

http://www.greencars.za.net/?page_id=34

7000 kilograms of CO2 a year for a standard driver... that's insane...

I have never been huge into the environment and the like but that figure is quite shocking, luckily I ride a bike so I don't need to feel guilty on the way home :D

I wonder if that figure goes up for city dwellers though, while you may only drive 20 km's home it takes you over an hour due to traffic.. the whole time you are pumping out pollution...

Geriatrix
01-11-2007, 12:32 PM
Less than cows! :D

GavinMannion
01-11-2007, 12:35 PM
:D true.... but we can't convert cows now can we

BCO
01-11-2007, 12:38 PM
We'll have to eat them all!

Sessly though - the worst emission of cows is methane, not CO2 (although they do emit CO2).

They should make hybrid cows... half cow half tree.

Rkootknir
01-11-2007, 12:39 PM
http://www.greencars.za.net/?page_id=34

7000 kilograms of CO2 a year for a standard driver... that's insane...

I have never been huge into the environment and the like but that figure is quite shocking, luckily I ride a bike so I don't need to feel guilty on the way home :D

I wonder if that figure goes up for city dwellers though, while you may only drive 20 km's home it takes you over an hour due to traffic.. the whole time you are pumping out pollution...This is really interesting. The values are correct as far as I've been able to find out.

However, one liter of petrol weighs about 0.75kg. How in the world is this converted to 2.4kg of CO2? :o

It's obviously to do with something like CH-chain + O2 = Energy + CO where the oxygen's mass gets added to the mass of the CH-chains. I wouldn't have thought the effect would be that big though...

Baron Hohenzollern
01-11-2007, 12:42 PM
Global warming? It's nothing more than a natural cycle. Earth goes through cycles. It had an ice age, now it's warmer. It's getting hotter on Mars too...there are no humans there, and as far as Bush knows (hah)...there are no marsmen driving around in Petrol vehicles.

BCO
01-11-2007, 12:42 PM
@ Rkootnir: Coz there are 2 oxygen atoms in a CO2 molecule. So for every atom of carbon in the fuel that's burned, 2 oxygens are joined to it, making it a heavier molecule.

@ The Baron: The vast majority of the scientific community would disagree with you I'm afraid.

Baron Hohenzollern
01-11-2007, 12:46 PM
@ The Baron: The vast majority of the scientific community would disagree with you I'm afraid.

I'm sure they would...just as Pluto is now a dwarf planet.:rolleyes:

The fact remains.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

Mars is getting hotter, there's nothing there to cause any sort of "global warming"....It's a natural cycle.

stoke
01-11-2007, 12:52 PM
Not to mention the heat produced in the conversion process.
We are at the beginning of a exponential curve, and .. well .. I hope you own short sleev'd shirts.

Tassidar
01-11-2007, 12:54 PM
I'm sure they would...just as Pluto is now a dwarf planet.:rolleyes:

The fact remains.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

Mars is getting hotter, there's nothing there to cause any sort of "global warming"....It's a natural cycle.

What a stupid argument. Just because Mars undergoes natural warming doesn't mean earth doesn't suffer from anthropogenic global warming, there is absolutely no link.

I suggest you start you reading here (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn9903)

Roo!
01-11-2007, 01:17 PM
The solution to the earth's problems with global warming, greenhouse gases etc is rather simple; we need to stop breeding. There is simply too many people on this plant for this planet to sustain. I think the saying should be changed from 'breed like bunnies' to 'breed like [-]Neanderthals[/-] humans'.

Baron Hohenzollern
01-11-2007, 01:32 PM
What a stupid argument. Just because Mars undergoes natural warming doesn't mean earth doesn't suffer from anthropogenic global warming, there is absolutely no link.

I suggest you start you reading here (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn9903)

Oh yes, I am a believer now...it all points to the logical conclusion that global warming is a man made phenomenan...Hold on man, I've got to go purchase a skateboard...Lol.

That's all very nice, that still doesn't explain how it is that Mars is facing the exact same variation as earth. Perhaps I should do your research for you, what is it that they used to 'refute" that Russian scientist (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html) who brought about this Mars issue?

Ah yes, the way that Mars "orbits and tilts" is the reason for it's temperature variations...and that earth has a bigger moon and that it's orbit and tilt is far less than that of Mars..and that's why the two are not suffering the same source of heat increase. Despite the fact that well earth does variate from it's course every 20 - 100,000 years...and that they cannot explain why it is that both Mars and Earth are between ice ages. They consider it a coincidence.

Scientists do not even understand most of natures complexities and they want to tell me about the greenhouse effect? It doesn't definitively know how these substances interact with each other and other substances.

This Atmospheric Physicist must be a retard.

http://ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm

There's more "no links" for you if you want them.

Global warming is the modern "Nuclear threat". In the 60's it was the thing to be scared of, the end of mankind. Today it's global warming. I find it funny how so many people can run amock and consider purchasing electric vehicles to save earth, but they don't have the same conviction when it comes to their own people. Take Roo here, he's biting another myth...earth is over populated. Such a good idea...bring on abortion!. Contradiction that is, in one sense they fear global warming and they don't want to scortch to death, in another they cause extinction by lack of breeding. Way to go....

BCO
01-11-2007, 02:13 PM

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Hardly a refutation of the mainstream consensus of anthropogenic climate change. I'm open to alternative explanations for the climate change that's going on - as long as its supported by the scientific community. At this time the vast majority of climate scientists see man-made greenhouse gases as the only viable explanation for climate change. Until such a time as a theory comes along that starts to cause a meaningful impact on the debate (coz right now there's no debate at all, that's how certain they are), there's really not much to discuss.

Further, Roo! has a point - the earth can't sustain the number of people tha are now living on it in the manner in which they're living. Nobody said anything about the extinction of the species through not breeding, all Roo suggested was that we don't breed as much.

*edit* Here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=414) and here (http://currentera.com/SwindlersList.html) is some info on The Great Global Warming Swindle *edit*

mercurial
01-11-2007, 02:23 PM
did any of u perhaps watch the Al Gore documentary on global warming? really shocking stuff.

GavinMannion
01-11-2007, 02:25 PM
Another problem that I have heard we have is that there is only a limited supply of fossil fuels, we need a new way to power cars before we run out of oil....

Baron Hohenzollern
01-11-2007, 02:30 PM
Hardly a refutation of the mainstream consensus of anthropogenic climate change.

Now now, it's not healthy to nitpick things and distort them. It's a well known fact that there are many more scientists other than this Russian who have come out to state such things. As indicated in my post above. As one scientist claims is a general term.

I could just as easily refer to you in a dinner conversation and say "As one guy said on Mybroadband"...does that mean you're the only one to share that view?

I'm open to alternative explanations for the climate change that's going on - as long as its supported by the scientific community.

That's what they told Tesla too when he started working on the Tesla Coil...They told Schauberger the same thing when he suggested that there are other means for power. I'm sure they told that no wait I know that the scientific community told that to the first man who mapped the human organs. And placed the heart as the source of pumping blood rather than the lungs.

They ridiculed him, vindicated him he lost his clients, and he lost his practice, and today it's a well established fact...you my friend may flock as much as you like with the rest of the sheep. I on the other hand prefer to look at things from a more clinical point of view. And not by numbers.

Further, Roo! has a point - the earth can't sustain the number of people tha are now living on it in the manner in which they're living. Nobody said anything about the extinction of the species through not breeding, all Roo suggested was that we don't breed as much.

Why? so men like Bill Gates can own 11,000 Acre houses in 15 states?

Misinformed scientists? Duped into believing the show was something else? preposterous.

You know vindication can do this sort of thing, just ask that geneticist who came out and stated that there are distinct differences between the races...he suffered so much flak he had to come out and explain the equality of his scientific research.

mercurial
01-11-2007, 02:30 PM
there's a program called eco-tech that deals with issues like these. it's about ppl who come up with brilliant, yet simple and cost effective ways to resolve these types of problems.

mercurial
01-11-2007, 02:38 PM
Now now, it's not healthy to nitpick things and distort them. It's a well known fact that there are many more scientists other than this Russian who have come out to state such things. As indicated in my post above. As one scientist claims is a general term.

I could just as easily refer to you in a dinner conversation and say "As one guy said on Mybroadband"...does that mean you're the only one to share that view?

That's what they told Tesla too when he started working on the Tesla Coil...They told Schauberger the same thing when he suggested that there are other means for power. I'm sure they told that no wait I know that the scientific community told that to the first man who mapped the human organs. And placed the heart as the source of pumping blood rather than the lungs.

They ridiculed him, vindicated him he lost his clients, and he lost his practice, and today it's a well established fact...you my friend may flock as much as you like with the rest of the sheep. I on the other hand prefer to look at things from a more clinical point of view. And not by numbers.

Why? so men like Bill Gates can own 11,000 Acre houses in 15 states?

Misinformed scientists? Duped into believing the show was something else? preposterous.

You know vindication can do this sort of thing, just ask that geneticist who came out and stated that there are distinct differences between the races...he suffered so much flak he had to come out and explain the equality of his scientific research.

some good points there mate

Geriatrix
01-11-2007, 02:40 PM
If you're going to fight over global warming again, here's a clip to discuss.

YouTube - Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

BCO
01-11-2007, 02:44 PM
Now now, it's not healthy to nitpick things and distort them. It's a well known fact that there are many more scientists other than this Russian who have come out to state such things. As indicated in my post above. As one scientist claims is a general term.

And there a far, far more scientists who advocate anthropogenic climate change, hence the term, mainstream consensus.

That's what they told Tesla too when he started working on the Tesla Coil...They told Schauberger the same thing when he suggested that there are other means for power. I'm sure they told that no wait I know that the scientific community told that to the first man who mapped the human organs. And placed the heart as the source of pumping blood rather than the lungs.

They ridiculed him, vindicated him he lost his clients, and he lost his practice, and today it's a well established fact...you my friend may flock as much as you like with the rest of the sheep. I on the other hand prefer to look at things from a more clinical point of view. And not by numbers.

Are you a climate scientist? Just wondering what equips you to take this "more clinical point of view". Just because there have been a few cases in history where scientific brilliance has been ostracised by the mainstream, it doesn't mean that all mainstream science is misguided. In fact, most of the time it's the best explanations we have. What are your thoughts on gravity?

Why? so men like Bill Gates can own 11,000 Acre houses in 15 states?

No. It's my understanding that Roo's comment was made about the wellbeing of the earth, not about the extravagent lives of the mega rich. You like your straw men, don't you?

Baron Hohenzollern
01-11-2007, 02:59 PM
And there a far, far more scientists who advocate anthropogenic climate change, hence the term, mainstream consensus.

And that's such an accurate prediction to go by isn't it? Wasn't the mainstream consensus that earth was flat at a time?

And that earth is the center of our planetary system? and that the sun revolves around it?

Are you a climate scientist? Just wondering what equips you to take this "more clinical point of view". Just because there have been a few cases in history where scientific brilliance has been ostracised by the mainstream, it doesn't mean that all mainstream science is misguided.

Few cases? there's not enough bandwidth on this forum for me to start listing the crass stupidity of the mainstream. The fact is all change was pioneered by the few, the masses only followed when it became too embarrassing to hold onto prior stigma's.

That's a fact of life that cannot be changed.

As Schopenhauer once said "Whenever you find yourself agreeing with the masses, It's time to stop and think"

No. It's my understanding that Roo's comment was made about the wellbeing of the earth, not about the extravagent lives of the mega rich. You like your straw men, don't you?

And you enjoy not grasping sense. (http://www.jefflindsay.com/Overpop.shtml)

BCO
01-11-2007, 06:27 PM
And that's such an accurate prediction to go by isn't it? Wasn't the mainstream consensus that earth was flat at a time?

And that earth is the center of our planetary system? and that the sun revolves around it?

Few cases? there's not enough bandwidth on this forum for me to start listing the crass stupidity of the mainstream. The fact is all change was pioneered by the few, the masses only followed when it became too embarrassing to hold onto prior stigma's.

That's a fact of life that cannot be changed.

As Schopenhauer once said "Whenever you find yourself agreeing with the masses, It's time to stop and think"

And you enjoy not grasping sense. (http://www.jefflindsay.com/Overpop.shtml)

I'd like you to present some of the arguments that indicate the crass stupidity of the mainstrwam, if you don't mind. I'm open to persuasion.

scotty777
01-11-2007, 07:00 PM
I'm sure they would...just as Pluto is now a dwarf planet.:rolleyes:

The fact remains.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

Mars is getting hotter, there's nothing there to cause any sort of "global warming"....It's a natural cycle.

Um... Yes, it's warming up, and thats nature, only problem is that humans need for energy has made the "warming up" much much faster... So we find that the climate will get more and more unstable, until there's another ice age.

Baron Hohenzollern
02-11-2007, 11:35 AM
I'd like you to present some of the arguments that indicate the crass stupidity of the mainstrwam, if you don't mind. I'm open to persuasion.

The inventor of what he called "implosion technology", Viktor Schauberger developed his own highly idiosyncratic theories based on fluidic vortices. Very little of Schauberger's work has received mainstream acceptance, and the bulk of his work is still classified as pseudo-science.

Von Leibniz who initiated the study of Topology, had been ridiculed as a "cheap thief" despite the fact that he had indipendenty and before Newton created calculus. His work lambasted and thrown into the back of history. Ignored for nearly 200 years before the stupid masses suddenly decided to have a look at it.

Karl F. Gauss born a Genius kept secret his discovery of non-Euclidean geometry for thirty years because of fear of ridicule. Lobachevsky later published similar work and WAS ridiculed. After Gauss' death his work was finally published, but even then it took decades for Noneuclidean Geometery to overturn the Greek mathematically "pure" view of geometery, and to win acceptance among the professionals.

Julius R. Mayer (The Law of Conservation of Energy)

Mayer's original paper was contemptuously rejected by the leading physics journals of the time.

FM was conceived about 1933 by Edwin Howard Armstrong, a noted professor of engineering at Columbia University and a recognized genius in electronic circuitry. He had contributed to early radio two basic circuits, the regenerative or feedback circuit and the superheterodyne, which are still at the heart of nearly all modern radio-television transmitters and receivers. When he sought permission in 1935, however, to erect an experimental FM station to demonstrate the unusual qualities of his new radio system, he ran into a stone wall. FM Radio was denied another 30 years.

I can go on and demonstrate the stupidity of the "masses" as well as the ignorance of the very "scientific" community you hail as "great and authoritive". Like I told you...there isn't enough bandwidth to list the ignorance of the majority.

http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/pagepub/history.htm

Here's a little list for you, read it. So I'm not accused of being a copy/paster.

Um... Yes, it's warming up, and thats nature, only problem is that humans need for energy has made the "warming up" much much faster... So we find that the climate will get more and more unstable, until there's another ice age.

Man must be a very intelligent being, to warm earth to such an extend that it's variations are in sync with that of other planetary systems. Another scientific coincidence I presume?

EDIT. Might I add, that Volcano's which had been a long lasting entity on earth as well as the Ocean, omits far more greenhouse gasses than all the cars in the world combined? In one single year.

Mr TB
02-11-2007, 02:49 PM
I can go on and demonstrate the stupidity of the "masses" as well as the ignorance of the very "scientific" community you hail as "great and authoritive". Like I told you...there isn't enough bandwidth to list the ignorance of the majority.

Baron after reading the above comment combined with your response concerning phase 3 change in the philisophical section... please take a bow... brilliant!

Baron Hohenzollern
02-11-2007, 03:30 PM
Baron after reading the above comment combined with your response concerning phase 3 change in the philisophical section... please take a bow... brilliant!

Thank you kindly, Mr. TB...it seems though that the people over on the philosophical section mistake us for one and the same person. I suppose when you don't have the evidence required to support such a preposterous theory, the last resort is to accuse some one.

BCO
02-11-2007, 06:56 PM
The inventor of what he called "implosion technology", Viktor Schauberger developed his own highly idiosyncratic theories based on fluidic vortices. Very little of Schauberger's work has received mainstream acceptance, and the bulk of his work is still classified as pseudo-science.

Von Leibniz who initiated the study of Topology, had been ridiculed as a "cheap thief" despite the fact that he had indipendenty and before Newton created calculus. His work lambasted and thrown into the back of history. Ignored for nearly 200 years before the stupid masses suddenly decided to have a look at it.

Karl F. Gauss born a Genius kept secret his discovery of non-Euclidean geometry for thirty years because of fear of ridicule. Lobachevsky later published similar work and WAS ridiculed. After Gauss' death his work was finally published, but even then it took decades for Noneuclidean Geometery to overturn the Greek mathematically "pure" view of geometery, and to win acceptance among the professionals.

Julius R. Mayer (The Law of Conservation of Energy)

Mayer's original paper was contemptuously rejected by the leading physics journals of the time.

FM was conceived about 1933 by Edwin Howard Armstrong, a noted professor of engineering at Columbia University and a recognized genius in electronic circuitry. He had contributed to early radio two basic circuits, the regenerative or feedback circuit and the superheterodyne, which are still at the heart of nearly all modern radio-television transmitters and receivers. When he sought permission in 1935, however, to erect an experimental FM station to demonstrate the unusual qualities of his new radio system, he ran into a stone wall. FM Radio was denied another 30 years.

I can go on and demonstrate the stupidity of the "masses" as well as the ignorance of the very "scientific" community you hail as "great and authoritive". Like I told you...there isn't enough bandwidth to list the ignorance of the majority.

http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/pagepub/history.htm

Here's a little list for you, read it. So I'm not accused of being a copy/paster.

Man must be a very intelligent being, to warm earth to such an extend that it's variations are in sync with that of other planetary systems. Another scientific coincidence I presume?

EDIT. Might I add, that Volcano's which had been a long lasting entity on earth as well as the Ocean, omits far more greenhouse gasses than all the cars in the world combined? In one single year.

Forgive me... I was obviously unclear - what I meant was can you present some arguments that show the crass stupidity of the mainstream regarding climate change.

Baron Hohenzollern
02-11-2007, 07:23 PM
Forgive me... I was obviously unclear

No you weren't, you're just trying to save face.

Claymore
02-11-2007, 09:27 PM
This is really interesting. The values are correct as far as I've been able to find out.

However, one liter of petrol weighs about 0.75kg. How in the world is this converted to 2.4kg of CO2? :o

It's obviously to do with something like CH-chain + O2 = Energy + CO where the oxygen's mass gets added to the mass of the CH-chains. I wouldn't have thought the effect would be that big though...

Well, the petrol/air ratio in an internal combustion engine is 1:14.7, by mass, so that's about 3 kg of oxygen per kg of petrol.

Mr TB
03-11-2007, 09:06 AM
No you weren't, you're just trying to save face.

I think an appeal to the majority is in anycase a fallacy...hehehe...:p

Mistaken us for the same person, how dumb can they get...:D... Keep it up you have a companion I believe in Fearisgood...
PRAES... well he indeed sound like an interesting guy... maybe he will be building the next green car...

Mr TB
03-11-2007, 09:39 AM
Well, the petrol/air ratio in an internal combustion engine is 1:14.7, by mass, so that's about 3 kg of oxygen per kg of petrol.

Rkootnr
However, one liter of petrol weighs about 0.75kg. How in the world is this converted to 2.4kg of CO2?
Maybe the answer can be found here... Have a look...

Gasoline (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml)

It seems to me it depends on the weight of the atoms C, H and O
Maybe Claymore should ask his chemics wife, she should be able to produce the answer without doubt...

BCO
03-11-2007, 10:47 AM
No you weren't, you're just trying to save face.

Oh, thanks for explaining to me what I meant. We were dabating climate change, so is it really that far-fetched that I was asking you to provide climate change-related evidence?

Mr TB
03-11-2007, 11:23 AM
Originally Posted by Tassidar
What a stupid argument. Just because Mars undergoes natural warming doesn't mean earth doesn't suffer from anthropogenic global warming, there is absolutely no link.
If your argument is true, how can you link the age of meteorites and the age of the earth?
A natural phenomenon discovered on Mars explains a phenomen that earth is suffering from, one that scientists had great difficulty with..
If you want to isolate earth isolate it, but not only when it suites your purposes...

Baron Hohenzollern
03-11-2007, 11:28 AM
Oh, thanks for explaining to me what I meant. We were dabating climate change

No the topic is climate change, you were discussing the "validity of the majority" a completely different concept altogether. Perhaps next time you'll stick to the topic of the thread itself, rather than state things like this.

Just because there have been a few cases in history where scientific brilliance has been ostracised by the mainstream, it doesn't mean that all mainstream science is misguided.

Which triggered my initial response.

Few cases? there's not enough bandwidth on this forum for me to start listing the crass stupidity of the mainstream. The fact is all change was pioneered by the few, the masses only followed when it became too embarrassing to hold onto prior stigma's.

That's a fact of life that cannot be changed.

I'd like you to present some of the arguments that indicate the crass stupidity of the mainstrwam, if you don't mind. I'm open to persuasion.

I'm sure being capable of unique manipulation skills, you'll explain a nice colorful way around these very obvious and clear statements made by yourself. But the fact remains, this is what you stated this is what you asked.

I noticed that you avoided my tidbit on the emissions from Volcanic bursts and the Ocean itself...in comparison to that of emissions from vehicles in a yearly period.

If it is such an iminent threat, would earth's climate not have increased by more than .5 C since 1970? Instead it's consistent, and constant with that of Mars, why is that?

If your argument is true, how can you link the age of meteorites and the age of the earth?
A natural phenomenon discovered on Mars explains a phenomen that earth is suffering from, one that scientists had great difficulty with..
If you want to isolate earth isolate it, but not only when it suites your purposes...

Well put.

Baron Hohenzollern
03-11-2007, 12:15 PM
I sure do hope this is "mainstream" for you.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57605

A major new scientific study concludes the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on worldwide temperatures is largely irrelevant, prompting one veteran meteorologist to quip, "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57253

Seems that Russian dude really isn't the only one who thinks it's rubbish.

More than 17,100 American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's Global Warming Petition, which says in part, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm

Scientists who disagree with the theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us

Fearisgood
03-11-2007, 12:22 PM
Global warming might not be such a bad thing afterall, 1 or 2 degrees max maybe. And all extra CO2 we put into the atmosphere might actually help food production.
Here
2) Temperature Effects on Rice at Elevated CO2 Concentration (http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/43/7/959)

Abstract
The continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) and projections of possible future increases in globalair temperatures have stimulated interest in the effects of these climate variables on agriculturally important food crops. Thisstudy was conducted to determine the effects of [CO2] and temperature on rice (Oryza sativa L., cv. IR–30). Rice plants weregrown season-long in outdoor, naturally sunlit, controlled-environment, plant growth chambers in temperature regimes ranging from 25/18/21°C to 37/30/34°C (daytime dry bulb air temperature/night-time dry bulb air temperature/paddy water temperature)and [CO2] of 660 µmol CO2 mol1 air. An ambient chamber was maintained at a [CO2] of 330 µmol mol–1 and temperature regimes of 28/21/25°C. Carbon dioxide enrichment at 28/21/25°C increased both biomass accumulation and tillering and increased grain yield by 60%. In the 660 µmol mol–1 [CO2] treatment, grain yield decreased from 10.4 to 1.0 Mg ha–1 with increasing temperature from 28/21/25°C to the 37/30/34°C temperature treatment. Across this temperature range, the number of panicles plant–1 nearly doubled while the number of seeds panicle–1 declined sharply. These results indicate that while future increases in atmospheric [CO2] are likely to be beneficial to rice growth and yield, potentially large negative effects on rice yield are possible if air temperatures also rise.

3) IMPACTS OF DROUGHT, HIGH TEMPERATURE AND CARBON DIOXIDE ON RICE PHYSIOLOGICAL PROCESSES (http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=147621)

4) Global Warming Puzzle: Amazon Rainforest Showed Better Growth During Drought (http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_account/global_warming_puzzle_amazon_rainforest_showed_bet ter_growth_during_drought)

And were did all those hurricanes suddenly disappear to? mmm
Maybe sunspot activity plays a bigger role and anthropogenic activities are minor?

But please switch off those geysers, ESKOM cant handle it... and can someone please get us off oil... its getting ridiculous, at this trend i might have to fill up my tank with Klippies (without coke).

BCO
03-11-2007, 12:37 PM
Ok Baron, let’s start over.

I conceded beforehand that there were great scientists who've not been met with mainstream approval. So yes, thank you for providing more evidence for this. We agree. I’ll also concede that the “validity of the majority” argument is not always valid, especially in the light of the examples you posted.
However, this topic is about vehicle emissions and climate change (notice the thread topic: How much pollution does a car produce). I apologised for lack of clarity regarding my request for arguments about “crass stupidity of the mainstream”. Nevertheless, whatever YOU think my intentions were, I was asking for examples related to climate change. If you perceive that as me trying to save face, then so be it.
Another apology here – I was being lazy by making appeals to the wisdom of mainstream consensus. You’re 100&#37; correct to assert that the validity of the majority argument is invalid. Notwithstanding, I appealed to mainstream consensus on climate change, because, it’s my conviction that in this case, the mainstream happens to be correct.

It’s my understanding that you have 3 points of contention:
1) Climate change is being used as some means of controlling the population via scare tactics. It’s the modern nuclear threat (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1301632&postcount=12 “).The mainstream scientific community is acting on the behest of the powers that be in order to promote this agenda of control, silencing any voices of dissent.
2) There are numerous dissenting theories that, while presenting valid, irrefutable evidence, are marginalized and ridiculed by the scientific community. Similar situations have been evidenced before historically, and in the case of climate change we see history repeating itself.
3) Current explanations by the establishment advocating anthropogenic climate change are unsatisfactory.

Are these three statements correct? I’d really like to engage you in a meaningful debate and provide you with informed arguments (lest I be accused again of flocking with the sheep (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1301818&postcount=16)) If you could confirm your standpoint before I get started, I’d appreciate that – I don’t want you to think that I’m using my unique manipulation skills (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1305097&postcount=34) to distort your initial arguments.

Fearisgood
03-11-2007, 01:11 PM
Here are a few links to get the debate started for you guys.
The global-warming hucksters (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/article58279.html)
Gore gets a cold shoulder (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html)
Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966)
Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat: Precipitation Systems (http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm)

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id)

Edit: comment to post #40
Die ou wat jou geblok het van die PD draad kan maar sy kop gaan laat lees en die ou wat gese het niemand wil jou daar he nie lieg deur sy tande. Kan nou nie saamstem oor alles wat jy se nie (maanlanding ens) en seker visa versa, maar elke ou het sy opinie. Lyk my die materiaalistiese gomtorre hou nie juis van wat jy te se het nie. Wie gaan nou daai Darwinbots gas gee met n paar mooi versies, filosofiese gedagtes ens...

Mr TB
03-11-2007, 01:14 PM
Originally Posted by Rkootknir
This is really interesting. The values are correct as far as I've been able to find out.
However, one liter of petrol weighs about 0.75kg. How in the world is this converted to 2.4kg of CO2?

It's obviously to do with something like CH-chain + O2 = Energy + CO where the oxygen's mass gets added to the mass of the CH-chains. I wouldn't have thought the effect would be that big though...
In addition to your original post I did some further unwinding of knot...

4.4 What are the hydrocarbons in gasoline?

Hydrocarbons ( HCs ) are any molecules that just contain hydrogen and
carbon, both of which are fuel molecules that can be burnt ( oxidised )
to form water ( H2O ) or carbon dioxide ( CO2 ). If the combustion is
not complete, carbon monoxide ( CO ) may be formed. As CO can be burnt
to produce CO2, it is also a fuel.

The way the hydrogen and carbons hold hands determines which hydrocarbon
family they belong to. If they only hold one hand they are called
"saturated hydrocarbons" because they can not absorb additional hydrogen.
If the carbons hold two hands they are called "unsaturated hydrocarbons"
because they can be converted into "saturated hydrocarbons" by the
addition of hydrogen to the double bond. Hydrogens are omitted from the
following, but if you remember C = 4 hands, H = 1 hand, and O = 2 hands,
you can draw the full structures of most HCs.

Gasoline contains over 500 hydrocarbons that may have between 3 to 12
carbons, and gasoline used to have a boiling range from 30C to 220C at
atmospheric pressure. The boiling range is narrowing as the initial boiling
point is increasing, and the final boiling point is decreasing, both
changes are for environmental reasons. Detailed descriptions of structures
can be found in any chemical or petroleum text discussing gasolines [14].
source
(http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part1/)

Mr TB
03-11-2007, 01:17 PM
Here are a few links to get the debate started for you guys.
The global-warming hucksters (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/article58279.html)
Gore gets a cold shoulder (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html)
Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966)
Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat: Precipitation Systems (http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm)

Baron Hohenzollern
03-11-2007, 01:19 PM
We agree. I’ll also concede that the “validity of the majority” argument is not always valid, especially in the light of the examples you posted.

That is hardly a majority, or do you think the world has about 18,000 scientists? another preposterous notion.

Secondly why are they wrong? because you say so? hardly factual my friend. The tides change, at one point in time they all agreed that climate change is as a result of man...it's becoming far too embarrassing to propagate that claim because there isn't sufficient evidence to hold it.

The rest of your post is irrelevant drivel...and assumptions. Playing on the actual meaning of the thread topic while neglecting it's direct link with alleged "global warming as a result of emissions from greenhouse gasses" as is provided on the very first source in the opening post of this thread.

Irrelevant nonsense.

As for the large amounts of "factual evidence" there aren't any.

Claymore
03-11-2007, 01:24 PM
Maybe the answer can be found here... Have a look...

Gasoline (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml)

It seems to me it depends on the weight of the atoms C, H and O
Maybe Claymore should ask his chemics wife, she should be able to produce the answer without doubt...

Umm...well done. You can google! (And the link seems correct too, even better).

BCO
04-11-2007, 05:58 PM
That is hardly a majority, or do you think the world has about 18,000 scientists? another preposterous notion.

Secondly why are they wrong? because you say so? hardly factual my friend. The tides change, at one point in time they all agreed that climate change is as a result of man...it's becoming far too embarrassing to propagate that claim because there isn't sufficient evidence to hold it.

The rest of your post is irrelevant drivel...and assumptions. Playing on the actual meaning of the thread topic while neglecting it's direct link with alleged "global warming as a result of emissions from greenhouse gasses" as is provided on the very first source in the opening post of this thread.

Irrelevant nonsense.

As for the large amounts of "factual evidence" there aren't any.

OK, so I guess what you're saying is that you're not willing to engage in meaningful debate, and would rather just play at ***** slinging. Frankly, I'm struggling to comprehend what you even said in this post, but what is clear is that you're not willing to answer my question directly.

BCO
04-11-2007, 08:57 PM
In the absence of an explicit statement of the Baron’s views on climate change, I’ll just respond directly to the claims he's made and the links he's posted in this thread.

Global warming being experienced at the moment is part of a natural cycle. (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1301514&postcount=6)

Rebuttal. (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/335)

While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural -- or even mostly natural -- have two challenges.
First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause.
Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35&#37; increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?
The mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed, internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/19/51921/827). Where is the skeptic community's model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich cycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovich_cycle)that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm) taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?

BCO
04-11-2007, 09:00 PM

Simple version. (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/222712/69)

Warming on another planet would be an interesting coincidence, but it would not necessarily be driven by the same causes.
The only relevant factor the earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related, that would be the logical place to look. As it happens, the sun is being watched and measured carefully back here on earth, and it is not the primary cause (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666) of current climate change.
More complicated article. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/)

Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&summit=AutosSummit05&storyid=2005-09-21T013927Z_01_KWA105917_RTRUKOC_0_US-SPACE-MARS.xml)). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here (http://instapundit.com/archives/025681.php) and here (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011741.php)). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data….

Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129)

BCO
04-11-2007, 09:01 PM

I linked 2 rebuttals, but I’ll do it again with some text, because he neglected to comment. While the article contains counter-arguments to the claims made in The Great Global Warming Swindle, the part that I find most interesting about The Great Global Warming Swindle is the rather dodgy tactics of the show’s producers.

Swindled! (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=414)

We were hoping for important revelations and final proof that we have all been hornswoggled by the climate Illuminati, but it just repeated the usual specious claims we hear all the time. We feel swindled. Indeed we are not the only ones: Carl Wunsch (who was a surprise addition to the cast) was apparently misled (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_great_global_warming_swind.php#comment-367476) into thinking this was going to be a balanced look at the issues (the producers have a history of doing this), but who found himself put into a very different context indeed [Update: a full letter from Wunsch appears as comment 109 on this post

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples,
it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one:
a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only
a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to
infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning
meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases
are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director
not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.

Here’s the other rebuttal I linked previously which remained uncommented on by the Baron.

The Great Global Warming Swindler's List ( "http://currentera.com/SwindlersList.html")

Again, this article features scientific rebuttals to the movie’s claims, but again, it sheds some light on the unscrupulous nature of the filmmakers.

The writer/director of the film, Martin Durkin, admits to changing the C4 graph. The original had data up to 1980s which new data refutes and Durkin said that he extended the time line to 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said. Fluff indeed. The charts from NASA’s website show greater warming since 1975 than in the period between 1900 to 1940. Another thing pointed out in the article by Steve Connor in The Independent is:

“The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention....

"....Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which was first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old. This graph gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years.”

BCO
04-11-2007, 09:03 PM
Volcanoes and the oceans emit more CO2 than all the world’s cars. (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1303482&postcount=24)

O rly? (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72)

Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.htm)around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption. Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.

And some more. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/)

One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources) . However, over very long times scales (millions of years), variations in vulcanism are important for the eventual balance of the carbon cycle, and may have helped kick the planet out of a 'Snowball Earth' state in the Neo-proterozoic 750 million years ago.

Regarding the oceans, they ABSORB CO2, not emit it.

From National Geographic. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html)

Scientists who undertook the first comprehensive look at ocean storage of carbon dioxide found that the world's oceans serve as a massive sink that traps the greenhouse gas.
The researchers say the oceans' removal of the carbon dioxide from Earth's atmosphere has slowed global warming.
But in a second, related study, scientists say the sink effect is now changing ocean chemistry. The resulting change has slowed growth of plankton, corals, and other invertebrates that serve as the most basic level of the ocean food chain. The impacts on marine life could be severe, scientists say.
From Harvard Magazine. (http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102198.html) The oceans currently absorb man-made C02, but may release it in about 500 years’ time.

Of all the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted into the atmosphere, one quarter is taken up by land plants, another quarter by the oceans. Understanding these natural mechanisms is important in forecasting the rise of atmospheric CO2 because even though plants and bodies of water now absorb surplus greenhouse gas, they could become new trouble spots. The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere in an attempt to reach equilibrium by direct air-to-sea exchange.

BCO
04-11-2007, 09:06 PM
There is a growing body of scientists who dispute anthropogenic climate change. (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1305142&postcount=35)

Here’s (http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/09/global-warming-consensus-disproved.html) an interesting article that highlights a lot of the misinformation that’s going around regarding this point. They specifically speak about the Hudson Institute “study” featured on WorldNet Daily.

I downloaded the PDF of the study and took a quick scan of who these 500 scientists were. A few familiar names popped up. The first of which is the weather channels Heidi Cullen from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO). She is listed as publishing skeptical material which is kind of peculiar since she made newspaper headlines for chastising skeptics on her blog..

Obviously there are some pretty major flaws with the Hudson's consensus debunking study. Despite this, I kept on scanning the document. Apparently almost half of the contributors to realclimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10) are skeptics:

Gavin A. Schmidt, University of Virginia
Michael E. Mann, University of Massachusetts
Thibeault De Garidel-Thoron, Rutgers University
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany
The Hudson Institute did have a curious disclaimer though:
The List of More Than 500 Scientists Documenting Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares**
**Citation of the work of the following scientists does not imply that they necessarily support our conclusions.
At this point I'm literally left speechless. This report is claiming that some of the ardent supporters of the consensus on climate change (http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm) are publishing consensus debunking work.

BCO
04-11-2007, 09:19 PM
I’d also like to ask you, Baron about the ideological motivations of the climate science community who advocate anthropgenic climate change. Why would they want to create this conspiracy?
A Digg comment (http://digg.com/environment/500_scientists_refute_global_warming_dangers) I read sums it up nicely, I think:

OK, it's time to come clean. I'm actually a climate scientist, and I have to confess that there is no evidence for global warming. We made the whole thing up. One day, a bunch of us scientists were hanging out in our mansions, drinking champagne, and discussing ways to undermine capitalism. The evolution scam was going better than anyone had expected, and we were on top of the world. Perhaps we got greedy. Someone suggested this whole "global warming" thing and we just decided to go with it. The international union of scientists sent out a memo to every scientist in every country of the world that said we're all gonna pretend the Earth is warming and scare the public into giving us even more funding. It sounded pretty funny, nobody thought it would work, but people actually bought it! That is, except for a small group of uneducated right wingers who were able to see through our nefarious plan from the beginning. So far it's been going pretty well, I myself have just bought my second yacht. The democrats were on board from the beginning, they thought this was an excellent way to finally destroy America, but those damn republicans said there was no way they would support lying to the American public for political and monetary gain. I'm sorry everybody, there's no global warming, there's no reason to change the way you live or even think about using less gas. We were just lying, for research funding, which for some reason actually goes into our pockets and isn't used to fund research at all. I'm sorry Goracle, I can't do this anymore.
Looking at your links, it’s pretty clear who really has idealogical agendas here.
Worldnet Daily (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldnet_Daily) is a known US conservative publication, and it’s no secret that American Neocons have huge vested interests in the fossil fuel industry.
This vaunted publication’s had a lot of quality reporting in the past, like the story about how eating soy turns boys gay, or the column that tried to advocate that only whites should be allowed into the USA as immigrants.
The studies mentioned in the WND articles you linked are equally dubious. The one study was funded by the Hudson Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hudson_Institute#Funding), conservative think tank. The Hudson Institute gets its funding mostly from corporate giants like Exxon Mobil and DuPont – not likely that they’re going to be critical of anthropogenic climate change.
Extensively cited in your WND article, is S. Fred Singer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Fred_Singer)

In 1994 Singer was Chief Reviewer of the published report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution… the report attacked the United States Environmental Protection Agency for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking and called it "junk science"
Clearly, this Singer’s a top-class scientist.

Finally, let me mention the article that was part of the anti-Kyoto agreement petition (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm) the Baron linked (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1305142&postcount=35). Go here (http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM) for some info on the shortcomings of this paper. It's worth mentioning that the paper was published in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons, a very non-standard venue for climate science papers, and also with strong conservative ties (http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/91/strange-bedfellows).

I hope you actually take some time to read all this, Baron Hohenzollern, before you label it as “irrelevant drivel,” “assumptions” and “nonsense.” Maybe you need to re-examine who’s “flocking with the sheep” and who’s capable of looking at things “from a more clinical point of view.”

If you'd like to learn more, look here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses) and here (http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics). I doubt you'll find any argument that's skeptical of man-made climate change that isn't thouroughly dealt with in these two pages.

Baron Hohenzollern
04-11-2007, 09:55 PM
Volcanoes and the oceans emit more CO2 than all the world’s cars.

1. I did comment on the "rebuttle" you linked, which really isn't a rebuttle at all.

2. I said greenhouse gasses, not CO2. You forgot it's omissions of.

The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H20), followed by carbon dioxide (C02) and sulfur dioxide (S02). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He).

Perhaps if you stop being a tv jockey, you'd distinguish between the CO2 and Greenhouse gasses.

It's funny that one should lecture us on the use of greenhouse gas and yet not know what it is.

Regarding the oceans, they ABSORB CO2, not emit it.

Again GREENHOUSE GAS!

Your a clown, and because you don't know what exactly it is you're fighting for, there is no need in my bothering to even answer the next post.

Interesting...it seems Pluto is also on a Global Warming scale.

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html)

Oh no, Jupiter too?

New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html)

Darn humans! heating up all the planetary systems at the same time!:rolleyes:

BCO
05-11-2007, 12:03 AM
1. I did comment on the "rebuttle" you linked, which really isn't a rebuttle at all.

2. I said greenhouse gasses, not CO2. You forgot it's omissions of.

Perhaps if you stop being a tv jockey, you'd distinguish between the CO2 and Greenhouse gasses.

It's funny that one should lecture us on the use of greenhouse gas and yet not know what it is.

Again GREENHOUSE GAS!

Your a clown, and because you don't know what exactly it is you're fighting for, there is no need in my bothering to even answer the next post.

Interesting...it seems Pluto is also on a Global Warming scale.

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html)

Oh no, Jupiter too?

New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html)

Darn humans! heating up all the planetary systems at the same time!:rolleyes:

Wow, is that the best you can do... a little more name-calling, a half-assed little squirm as you attempt to wiggle out of the corner you're in and that's about it.

Regarding greenhouse gases and volcanoes, only CO2 and water vapour are greenhouses gases emitted by volcanoes. Water vapour is the most common greenhouse gas, and yes there's more water vapour released into the atmosphere from the oceans than there are anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but that's no argument at all against anthropogenic climate change. The earth requires greenhouse gases to sustain life, the natural occurance of water vapour and CO2 are good, but the point is that all the extra greenhouse gases people emit (specifically CO2 and methane), are tipping the balance of acceptable greenhouse gas limits and raising temperatures.

WRT the post about Mars, if you clicked the links I posted, you'll see the one article discusses Pluto as well, while there are discussions about Jupiter in the comments of both articles. The point is this - it's completely plausible that climate change is occuring on other planets. This doesn't mean the reasons are the same for each planet.

Next time before you start calling names, how about you provide at least one decent answer?

Where's you retort about the misinformation posted by the Right Wing media you referred to?

How do you explain how an independant scientific community allegedly has an agenda, while the scientists you refer to are on Big Oil's payroll?

Fact is, unless you can actually say something intelligent, I suggest you keep quiet - you're just embarrassing youself.

Baron Hohenzollern
05-11-2007, 03:21 AM
Wow, is that the best you can do... a little more name-calling, a half-assed little squirm as you attempt to wiggle out of the corner you're in and that's about it.

You talk good BlueCollar, but talk is cheap, you may theorize on the possibilities, but here are the facts.

Mars - Hotter
Pluto - Hotter
Jupiter - Hotter

We've established all three of these facts.

Global Warming Detected on Triton (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml)

Study says sun getting hotter (http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm)

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html)

We've now added Triton to the list and the Sun itself...Theorize on emissions and man made disasters all you want, these are the facts. Explain these minor coincidences that happen in sync with Earth itself.

I care little for your theories. Because that's all that Man Made climate change is. It's all hot air from a buffoon.

I have my facts, I have various planetary systems heating up in sync with that of Earth. You have nothing but hot air, baseless assumptions and theoretical hogwash.

The point is this - it's completely plausible that climate change is occuring on other planets. This doesn't mean the reasons are the same for each planet.

You think so do you? That's a particularly strange argument to make, do explain how Earth is not effected by events occuring in the Solar system? I would like to know, no....THE READERS HERE...would like to know, how Earth is exempt from Solar occurances? How is it that Earth is not effected by occurances in the Solar system.

BCO
05-11-2007, 07:55 AM
You talk good BlueCollar, but talk is cheap, you may theorize on the possibilities, but here are the facts.

Mars - Hotter
Pluto - Hotter
Jupiter - Hotter

We've established all three of these facts.

Global Warming Detected on Triton (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml)

Study says sun getting hotter (http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm)

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html)

We've now added Triton to the list and the Sun itself...Theorize on emissions and man made disasters all you want, these are the facts. Explain these minor coincidences that happen in sync with Earth itself.

I care little for your theories. Because that's all that Man Made climate change is. It's all hot air from a buffoon.

I have my facts, I have various planetary systems heating up in sync with that of Earth. You have nothing but hot air, baseless assumptions and theoretical hogwash.

You think so do you? That's a particularly strange argument to make, do explain how Earth is not effected by events occuring in the Solar system? I would like to know, no....THE READERS HERE...would like to know, how Earth is exempt from Solar occurances? How is it that Earth is not effected by occurances in the Solar system.

You haven't read what I posted, have you? My post #45 (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1306578&postcount=45) - in the first quote there's a link that goes here (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666). On that page are links to here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/) and here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/)
.

According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.

Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.

"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said.

Mr TB
05-11-2007, 10:15 AM
You haven't read what I posted, have you? My post #45 (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1306578&postcount=45) - in the first quote there's a link that goes here (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666). On that page are links to here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/) and here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/)
.

Apparently the excess gas the greens claims cause global heating is actually irrelevant...

The saying goes..."Ones animals are treated like humans, humans will be treated like animals"... Hitler's regime is a good example...
#38 Edit Fearisgood...:D... die maanlanding? wel ek betwyfel nie vir 'n oomblik dat die Amerikaners wel daarin geslaag het nie...
Ek glo egter dat sulke dinge deur swendelary betwyfel sal word in die toekoms, soos die "holocaust" bv...

BCO
05-11-2007, 10:47 AM
Apparently the excess gas the greens claims cause global heating is actually irrelevant...

What are you talking about, exactly?

Baron Hohenzollern
05-11-2007, 12:57 PM
You haven't read what I posted, have you? My post #45 (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1306578&postcount=45) - in the first quote there's a link that goes here (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666). On that page are links to here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/) and here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/)
.

The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity,

Using a source I gave you to indicate inconsistencies in your theory, doesn't make a difference, I am well aware of what the "sciences say about it" in the link I provided, do I care? no it's irrelevant.

His opinion that the sun does not effect global warming is grossly contradicted by the various planetary systems affected by this phenomena.

So unless you can give me a better explanation to this question

You think so do you? That's a particularly strange argument to make, do explain how Earth is not effected by events occuring in the Solar system? I would like to know, no....THE READERS HERE...would like to know, how Earth is exempt from Solar occurances? How is it that Earth is not effected by occurances in the Solar system.

I care very little.

Baron Hohenzollern
05-11-2007, 01:10 PM
His opinion that the sun does not effect global warming is grossly contradicted by the various planetary systems affected by this phenomena..

Researchers have managed to replicate the effect of cosmic rays on the aerosols in the atmosphere that help to create clouds. Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist in Denmark, said the experiments suggested that man’s influence on global warming might be rather less than was supposed by the bulk of scientific opinion.

Cosmic rays — radiation, or particles of energy, from stars, which bombard the Earth — can create electrically charged ions in the atmosphere that act as a magnet for water vapour, causing clouds to form.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1368920.ece

I'd say the sun being historically hotter than it's been in the past 400 years, definitely effects the solar system. Since the sun is synonymous with cosmic rays.

BCO
05-11-2007, 01:16 PM

Using a source I gave you to indicate inconsistencies in your theory, doesn't make a difference, I am well aware of what the "sciences say about it" in the link I provided, do I care? no it's irrelevant.

His opinion that the sun does not effect global warming is grossly contradicted by the various planetary systems affected by this phenomena.

So unless you can give me a better explanation to this question

I care very little.

Keep ducking and diving buddy. Nobody said anything about the earth being exempt from solar occurances. The sun's impact on the earth is undeniable. The point is that since the 1950s we've had pretty reliable solar activity information (even more so since satellite monitoring came about in the late 70's) and there's been no change in solar activity despite temperature rises on earth and other planets.

*edit* some info on Svensmark

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

At RealClimate, we've often criticised press releases that we felt gave misleading impressions of the underlying work and lead to confused, and sometimes erroneous, headlines, but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation-beyond-reasonableness that we've seen.

*edit*

Mr TB
05-11-2007, 01:49 PM
[QUOTE=BlueCollar;1307560]Keep ducking and diving buddy. Nobody said anything about the earth being exempt from solar occurances. The sun's impact on the earth is undeniable. The point is that since the 1950s we've had pretty reliable solar activity information (even more so since satellite monitoring came about in the late 70's) and there's been no change in solar activity despite temperature rises on earth and other planets.

*edit* some info on Svensmark

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

here
(http://www.prnewswire.com/news/index_mail.shtml?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-12-2007/0004661425&EDATE=)

Baron Hohenzollern
05-11-2007, 01:49 PM
there's been no change in solar activity
Seems to be one ongoing right now....

The Modern Maximum refers to the ongoing period of relatively high solar activity that began circa 1950. This period is a natural example of solar variation, and one of many that are known from proxy records of past solar variability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/s/summaries/solarmwp.jsp

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aa7704-07.pdf

So much for that theory.

BCO
05-11-2007, 02:00 PM
here
(http://www.prnewswire.com/news/index_mail.shtml?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-12-2007/0004661425&EDATE=)

Yes, my post #48.

BCO
05-11-2007, 02:20 PM
Seems to be one ongoing right now....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/s/summaries/solarmwp.jsp

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aa7704-07.pdf

So much for that theory.

Firstly, could you stop posting from oil-funded "research organisations."

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (co2science.org) receives funding from Exxon-Mobil. (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24)

WRT to the Usoskin article, it's discussed in the Realclimate article I linked earlier. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180)

Therefore, in the view of the uncertainties and the conflicting data it doesn’t seem to be appropriate to make uncritical and sensational claims about the history of the sun. As long as the differences between the 10Be records are not understood, conclusions based on only one of these records should be treated with caution. Atmospheric 14C concentrations, on the other hand, are much less sensitive to a climate influence during the last 1000 years and, therefore, can provide good estimates of the history of the sun. However, the disagreement between 14C-based solar activity and group sunspot number (Muscheler et al., 2005) should remind us that the variations of the solar activity are not yet completely understood.

Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.

Yes Baron, there are dissenting theories about the nature of climate change, but at this point NONE of these theories has been able to provide anything that cannot be explained by the current accepted mainstream explanations.

Baron Hohenzollern
05-11-2007, 02:24 PM
Firstly, could you stop posting from oil-funded "research organisations."

Why? Have a problem with their method? demonstrate their flaws for us. I'm sure after an hour of googling you might come up with a spectacular ad-hominem link that attacks and vilifies the person rather than their argument.

But I care little for your *****e links with irrelevent attacks that bare no relevance to the studies itself. Demonstrate why they are wrong.

Their funding is of no concern to me.

Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.

BCO
05-11-2007, 02:34 PM
Their funding should be of concern to you - they're an interest group whose sole concern is to protect the interests of an oil company. It's thus very likely that they will present skewed information, if not outright misinformation.

Secondly, I've now linked repeatedly, refutations of the solar influence on current global warming. What more exactly do you want?

Mr TB
05-11-2007, 02:37 PM
Yes, my post #48.

Those funded by oil companies are biased and those not funded by oil companies are objective... you are actually a bigot ain't you?

Edit: But then again national museums like Smithonians are heavily funded by those in support of evolution...

Baron Hohenzollern
05-11-2007, 02:45 PM
Their funding should be of concern to you - they're an interest group whose sole concern is to protect the interests of an oil company. It's thus very likely that they will present skewed information, if not outright misinformation.

Easy to say, to prove it is another thing.

Secondly, I've now linked repeatedly, refutations of the solar influence on current global warming. What more exactly do you want?[

No you've given the same one over and over again, despite the fact that I already addressed it, indicating that there is in fact solar activity currently and that the Modern Maximum isn't a figment of the imagination. No matter how much Professor Alice in Wonderland, wants it to be.

BCO
05-11-2007, 02:48 PM
Those funded by oil companies are biased and those not funded by oil companies are objective... you are actually a bigot ain't you?

I believe you're trying to call me a hypocrite not a bigot.

I've said it earlier and I'll say it again. What motive would the climate science community have to create some global conspiracy theory about climate change? Can you not see the difference between one group who is paid to protect the interests of an industry whose profitability is threatened by the anthropogenic climate change model, and another group who conducts research for the purpose of understanding natural phenomena?

The creation of RealClimate was noticed by both the prestigious academic journals Science and Nature.

In 2005, the editors of Scientific American recognized RealClimate with a Science and Technology Web Award, writing:

A refreshing antidote to the political and economic slants that commonly color and distort news coverage of topics like the greenhouse effect, air quality, natural disasters and global warming, Real Climate is a focused, objective blog written by scientists for a brainy community that likes its climate commentary served hot. Always precise and timely, the site's resident meteorologists, geoscientists and oceanographers sound off on all news climatological, from tropical glacial retreat to "doubts about the advent of spring."

In 2006, Nature compiled a list of the 50 most popular blogs written by scientists, as measured by Technorati. RealClimate was number 3 on that list.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realclimate)

How many scientific journals have given praise and recognition to Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change?

How plausible is it that it's the academic community that's involved in spreading misinformation, as opposed to big business lobbyist groups? Come on man, catch a wake up.

mebox
05-11-2007, 02:49 PM

The first commercial electric bike. I actually dig its looks to. Too bad about the price tag @ around R68 000, but i guess as the technology catches on they will get cheaper.

BCO
05-11-2007, 03:03 PM
No you've given the same one over and over again, despite the fact that I already addressed it, indicating that there is in fact solar activity currently and that the Modern Maximum isn't a figment of the imagination. No matter how much Professor Alice in Wonderland, wants it to be.

Where exactly did you address it? The article I have repeatedly linked specifically refers to the shortcomings of both Svensmark and Usoskin.

Referring to the article you posted from co2science, let's overlook that they're a big oil mouthpiece for now. Here's how their article concludes:

In light of these several real-world observations, it would seem almost impossible to deny that there was indeed a Medieval Warm Period of vast geographical extent, that it was at least as warm as the Current Warm Period (and probably even warmer), and that it was caused by some aspect of solar activity. Hence, there is absolutely no need to invoke the historical increase in the air's CO2 content as a cause of the world's current warmth; the sun suffices nicely in this regard.

The studies cited here infer from localised data make conclusions about global climate change.

We argue, on the basis of differences between regional and true hemispheric/global temperature trends evident during the instrumental period that past warm/cold periods can only be determined from truly hemispheric- and global-scale series. Inferences from regional data in isolation will clearly provide a biased view of larger-scale changes. Over longer periods (e.g., the past couple millennia), differences are clearly apparent between individual proxy series and the hemispheric/global composites (see our Figures 4 and 5). ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ and ‘‘Little Ice Age’’ are therefore restrictive terms, and their continued use in a more general context is increasingly likely to hamper, rather than aid, the description of past large-scale climate changes.

Source. (http://iri.columbia.edu/~goddard/EESC_W4400/CC/jones_mann_2004.pdf)

For some variety, here's some more criticism on the solar activity/cosmic ray theories you like so much:

The bottom line is that changes in solar activity do affect global temperatures. However, what research also shows is that increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes in the Sun’s energy over the last 50 years.

even if cosmic rays have a detectable effect on climate (and this remains unproven), measured solar activity over the last few decades has not significantly changed and cannot explain the continued warming trend. In contrast, increases in CO2 are well measured and its warming effect is well quantified. It offers the most plausible explanation of most of the recent warming and future increases.

BCO
05-11-2007, 03:05 PM

The first commercial electric bike. I actually dig its looks to. Too bad about the price tag @ around R68 000, but i guess as the technology catches on they will get cheaper.

Nope. I have an electric bike (it's not a 3 wheeler though). It has a Li-Ion battery, a 250W motor and a top speed of 35km/h with a 50km range. Costs R14k in SA. <spam> pics and info in my blog.</spam>

Mr TB
05-11-2007, 03:06 PM
I believe you're trying to call me a hypocrite not a bigot.

I've said it earlier and I'll say it again. What motive would the climate science community have to create some global conspiracy theory about climate change? Can you not see the difference between one group who is paid to protect the interests of an industry whose profitability is threatened by the anthropogenic climate change model, and another group who conducts research for the purpose of understanding natural phenomena?

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realclimate)

How many scientific journals have given praise and recognition to Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change?

How plausible is it that it's the academic community that's involved in spreading misinformation, as opposed to big business lobbyist groups? Come on man, catch a wake up.

I've said it earlier and I'll say it again. What motive would the climate science community have to create some global conspiracy theory about climate change?

What have the scientific community to gain in forcing thenselves onto Smithonians? Your question is not valid...
In both cases nothing but they still do it...

The scientific community proved they are not open to new ideas... cold fusion is a great example...
The scientific community is a closed community that will conspire to protect itself...

BCO
05-11-2007, 03:09 PM
What have the scientific community to gain in forcing thenselves onto Smithonians? Your question is not valid...
In both cases nothing but they still do it...

The scientific community proved they are not open to new ideas... cold fusion is a great example...
The scientific community is a closed community that will conspire to protect itself...

Mr TB, please take your conspiracy theories back to the PD section kthx. There is NO EVIDENCE of any conspiracies or collusion in the reputable scientific community about climate change. This is not a thread about evolution, so I don't want to hear about the Smithsonian. It's irrelevant.

Mr TB
05-11-2007, 03:23 PM
Mr TB, please take your conspiracy theories back to the PD section kthx. There is NO EVIDENCE of any conspiracies or collusion in the reputable scientific community about climate change. This is not a thread about evolution, so I don't want to hear about the Smithsonian. It's irrelevant.

Sorry pal but then you should not have mentioned such ideas in the first place.
EDIT:
Oh yes I was not talking about evolution... you were the first to blame the other party of conspiracy... I used it as an analogy to show that the scientific community are not clean.

BCO
05-11-2007, 03:28 PM
Sorry pal but then you should not have mentioned such ideas in the first place.
EDIT:
Oh yes I was not talking about evolution... you were the first to blame the other party of conspiracy... I used it as an analogy to show that the scientific community are not clean.

What have the scientific community to gain in forcing thenselves onto Smithonians?

Mr TB
05-11-2007, 04:26 PM

You are quite right, I indeed answered but rather sarcatically with a question, using the analogy to indicate the scientific community are far from as holy as they pretend to be...

But that is not really part of this discussion, did you read NASA's research on Mars?

Phoenix.Mars
(http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/mars172.php)

ToxicBunny
05-11-2007, 04:51 PM
Answering a question with a question is never an answer, and the scientific community do not pretend to be or even try to be holy.

Now what exactly does the mars research have to do with this discussion?

Mr TB
05-11-2007, 06:47 PM
Answering a question with a question is never an answer, and the scientific community do not pretend to be or even try to be holy.

Now what exactly does the mars research have to do with this discussion?

ToxicBunny
05-11-2007, 07:20 PM

you made a statement, back it up now..

And no, this thread is about how much pollution a car produces, mars unfortunately doesn't have a road network with millions of cars on it.

Mr TB
05-11-2007, 08:01 PM

you made a statement, back it up now..

And no, this thread is about how much pollution a car produces, mars unfortunately doesn't have a road network with millions of cars on it.

ToxicBunny
05-11-2007, 08:35 PM
Ahhhh ok, so you obviously have no intelligent response...

Kthxbaai

Mr TB
08-11-2007, 10:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCollar
Their funding should be of concern to you - they're an interest group whose sole concern is to protect the interests of an oil company. It's thus very likely that they will present skewed information, if not outright misinformation.

Since the funding is of great concern to BlueCollar, maybe it is a good idea to provide the findings of a source that outrightly declares it did not receive any funding from the oil companies...
Secondly it sole intention was not investigating global warming...

Death of Global Warming (http://www.geoclimaticstudies.info/benthic_bacteria.htm)

Or is it possible that a hoax concerning global warming is floating around?

Warning! Warning! Warning! (http://www.globalwarming.org/node/1267)

EDIT:
Toxibunny you are baffled for me being banned from the PD-section. Well it was for apparent "trolling"...
Pointless to comment in a biased environment accept my fate...:) thx baai.

BCO
09-11-2007, 05:12 AM
Since the funding is of great concern to BlueCollar, maybe it is a good idea to provide the findings of a source that outrightly declares it did not receive any funding from the oil companies...
Secondly it sole intention was not investigating global warming...

Death of Global Warming (http://www.geoclimaticstudies.info/benthic_bacteria.htm)

Or is it possible that a hoax concerning global warming is floating around?

Warning! Warning! Warning! (http://www.globalwarming.org/node/1267)

ToxicBunny
09-11-2007, 08:13 AM
My guess is he doesn't have one. He's getting soundly beaten here, like he did in PD so its back to trying the BS baffles brains concept.

Mr TB
11-11-2007, 05:25 PM
My guess is he doesn't have one. He's getting soundly beaten here, like he did in PD so its back to trying the BS baffles brains concept.
Not really...

The deceit behind global warming Page 1 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/04/eaclimate104.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox)

The deceit behind global warming Page 2 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml;jsessionid=FQ4L3350HN0DPQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQ WIV0?xml=/earth/2007/11/04/eaclimate104.xml&page=2)

Yet to convince me that global warming is not... like TOE another myth...

ToxicBunny
11-11-2007, 05:50 PM
Well isn't that just typical of you dodo.

Both of the authors of that "column" are journalists, and not scientists of any kind at all. So you'll believe journalists over people who have been studying the subject for their whole lives?

Mr TB
12-11-2007, 07:25 PM
Well isn't that just typical of you dodo.

Both of the authors of that "column" are journalists, and not scientists of any kind at all. So you'll believe journalists over people who have been studying the subject for their whole lives?

The two jounalists were obviously lambasted in the comments, funny that mankind are quick to take responsibility for climate change but refuse to take responsibility for their gifted "free will"...really a joke...:sick::o:(

At least there is reference to some literature...
global warming the myth (http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v3=1&DB=local&CMD=010a+2006009308&CNT=10+records+per+page)

ToxicBunny
12-11-2007, 07:44 PM

1 author of that book is an Electrical engineer and physist and the other is an agricultural economist. Yet again, leading authorities to be commentating on the Global warming debate.

Try again dodo

Mr TB
12-11-2007, 08:40 PM

1 author of that book is an Electrical engineer and physist and the other is an agricultural economist. Yet again, leading authorities to be commentating on the Global warming debate.

Try again dodo

:sick::sick: try to please you? no way...:rolleyes:

EDIT:
As you are so concerned about qualifications... I have an Owners Manual for human beings... you know that type of books you receive when buying your car... Apply the rules in the book and your vehicle last, do your own thing lose the guarantee and the vehicle is fcked

ToxicBunny
12-11-2007, 08:43 PM
who said anything about pleasing me?

Just try to find sources that are credible in some way.

Mr TB
12-11-2007, 08:52 PM
who said anything about pleasing me?

Just try to find sources that are credible in some way.

EDIT:
As you are so concerned about qualifications... I have an Owners Manual for human beings... you know that type of books you receive when buying your car... Apply the rules in the book and your vehicle last, do your own thing lose the guarantee and the vehicle is fcked...

EDIT:
Please find me a court where the testimony of an eye-witness account are not accepted... under any circumstances...

ToxicBunny
12-11-2007, 09:18 PM
Please explain to me what exactly that has to do with what is being discussed?

as for the court, if its on a scientific subject, they require "expert" testimony from reliable sources.

Mr TB would you please either debate rationally and stop trying to derail threads when things don't go your way.

BCO
13-11-2007, 10:06 AM
Lol @ Mr TB. You're really not doing yourself any good in this debate, mate.... just making yourself look silly.

Geriatrix
13-11-2007, 10:32 AM
What the hell? What are you guys on about?

BCO
13-11-2007, 01:07 PM
Mr. TB's trying his utmost to discredit anthropogenic climate change by posting loads of useless articles.

Geriatrix
14-11-2007, 04:06 PM
:Edit: This link(I posted it in the Eskom thread as a joke but it led me to actually look for something like this. Maybe our engineer forumees can check it out?
http://www.hasslberger.com/tecno/hydrogen.html

Just found this, and apparently there's more like it. But they have a tendency to not become commercial. Might be fake, just posting it cause it seems relevant

YouTube - Run you car on water and nothing else.

ToxicBunny
14-11-2007, 04:30 PM
Could be v v interesting if it isn't fake.

BCO
14-11-2007, 08:21 PM
It's not possible, AFAIK. It always takes more energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water than you can get back from using the hydrogen as a fuel.

Bernie
14-11-2007, 08:24 PM
Could be v v interesting if it isn't fake.

Seems to be fake.

From randi.org

The FOX video shows Klein holding the tip of the welder between his fingers, which, they marvel, “remains cool to the touch.” Duh! again. Any of this sort of torch acts the same. The tip is cool because the compressed gas, as it decompresses and exits, makes the metal tip cold. It’s only when the mixed gases – hydrogen and oxygen, in this case – burn, that heat is produced, and that happens just beyond the tip. WHERE’S THE MIRACLE HERE? Clearwater’s FOX TV tells us, “No other gas will do this." Wrong, juvenile, and na&#239;ve. Add, stupid.

and there is more Link (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-05/052606action.html)

ToxicBunny
14-11-2007, 08:30 PM
I was just about to start digging for this kind of thing.

Obviously the whole bit about the tip being cool was just american sensationalism, as was the bit about as hot as the surface of the sun... no concrete figures are given.

Its a pity, cos I do like the idea of just pouring water into my tank and driving.

Teleological
06-12-2007, 12:36 PM
More skepticism about anthropogenic global warming:
Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4
Climate change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 2 of 4
Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - pt 3 of 4
Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause?- pt 4 of 4

Teleological
11-12-2007, 06:38 PM
Anthropogenic (as a result of CO2) global warming is a farce. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c)

“We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don’t cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years,” Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper “Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming.”

Anybody else noticed how "hot" it is in Gauteng this summer?
Do humans really think we can compete with the sun in affecting climate...

BCO
25-12-2007, 11:36 PM
Teleological, just be aware that the article you linked above is a blog post from Republican senator James Inhofe. He's not a very credible source:

So Sen. James “global warming is a hoax” Inhofe (R-OK) issues a report in which he claims:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.

“Padded” would be an extremely generous description of this list of “prominent scientists.” Some would use the word “laughable” (though not the N.Y. Times‘ Andy Revkin, see below). For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?

I’m not certain a dozen on the list would qualify as “prominent scientists,” and many of those, like Freeman Dyson — a theoretical physicist — have no expertise in climate science whatsoever. I have previously debunked his spurious and uninformed claims, although I’m not sure why one has to debunk someone who seriously pushed the idea of creating a rocket ship powered by detonating nuclear bombs! Seriously.Link (http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/21/debunking-inhofe-report-over-400-prominent-scientists-disputed-man-made-global-warming-claims-in-2007-andy-revkin/)

ravage
26-12-2007, 12:21 AM
I'm sorry BlueCollar and ToxicBunny, but why do you even bother arguing with some of these guys (i dont think i need to mention names :p)

Seriously, one has even said "I care little for you arguments" and essentially said "I'm right and you're wrong, because i say so".

I used to love reading the science and philosophical debates section, but it appears to have been ruined by a few people :(

Oh and on topic :D:

Regarding the introduction of the topic, if electric and hydrogen powered cars (ie, "green" cars) become mainstreamed, will it have a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions?

The answer may appear obvious, but i read somewhere (sadly, no links) that the process for making some Green cars releases some harmful gases :confused:

edit: bah, i should have read this entire last page, it appears much of the senseless arguing has died down :)

BCO
26-12-2007, 11:30 AM
@ Ravage: don't worry - the senseless arguing will flare up again, just as soon as some Neocon news site proclaims (yet again) that "new evidence" shows the IPCC to be wrong or whatever.

Regarding the environmental effects of manufacturing "green" cars, obviously, the making of any 2 ton piece of machinery will create pollution, and yes, the large batteries hybrids/EV's do use more energy in their manufacturing than is required to make a normal internal combustion engined car. However, this is easily offset by greatly reduced fuel consumption of the greener cars. You can read an article I wrote here (http://www.greencars.za.net/hummer-vs-prius-the-facts/), explaining this in more depth.

Transportation is one of the biggest (but not the biggest) contributors of greenhouse gases globally, so reducinh vehicular emissions will certainly help.

Teleological
28-12-2007, 08:07 PM
Teleological, just be aware that the article you linked above is a blog post from Republican senator James Inhofe. He's not a very credible source:

I'm aware that the link is from Republican senator James Inhofe, and I'm am sure you are also aware that the link you provided is from a physiscist's blog.
I liked this comment by Ron there:
Ron: "Try these simple rules of thumb i have developed: All politicians are crooked. All journalists and (especially) bloggers have an agenda. All scientists have tunnel vision."
Now apply it equally and lets look at a few of the links provided by the "crooked" Republican senator James Inhofe.

1)HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S
CLIMATE SYSTEM (http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf) Peer-reviewed literature. In a nutshell, if the CO2 content in the atmosphere doubles (estimates of CO2 doubling every 70 years doubling present levels @ +- year 2075 (http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2004/Energy&#37;20&%20Climate/9.21.04%20Post-2100%20CC/Supplementary%20Briefing%20Handout%209.21.04.pdf)) then expected rise in temperature as a result of the CO2 is expected to be 1.1+-0.5 Kelvin. Far below the IPCC climate models. If you look at some of the above clips, the earth and life on it seems to be quite robust and 1 or 2 degrees wont be catastrophic (quite the opposite it seems), and extra CO2 does have a positive effect on crop yields (as outlined a few posts back).

2) The following peer-reviewed article also cautions on the use of climate models to predict future climate changes.
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. (http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf)

3)And Were is the warming the last 3-4 years? (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf). Graph on last page.

@ Ravage: don't worry - the senseless arguing will flare up again, just as soon as some Neocon news site proclaims (yet again) that "new evidence" shows the IPCC to be wrong or whatever. Let's look at what the "Neocon" Dr Vincent Gray has to say about the IPCC.

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures. (http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1) Be sure to read the rest.

Pollution is bad and I'm all for the developemet of hydrogen technology and/or electric cars. But to tax CO2 emmisions that will lead to minimal gains is ridiculous and will only suit those with already vested interests in "Green companies". Diverting food sources for the production of energy (e.g. ethanol) is also a bad idea imo. The sun does look like the major player in climate change and there is nothing that we can do about it, other than research technologies that will help humans survive in case of extreme warming AND extreme cooling. Not CO2 taxing.

cyghost
28-12-2007, 10:43 PM
I agree with something telewhatsisname posted? must be the end of the year or sumthin :D

BCO
29-12-2007, 10:40 AM
I'm aware that the link is from Republican senator James Inhofe, and I'm am sure you are also aware that the link you provided is from a physiscist's blog.
I liked this comment by Ron there:
Ron: "Try these simple rules of thumb i have developed: All politicians are crooked. All journalists and (especially) bloggers have an agenda. All scientists have tunnel vision."
Now apply it equally and lets look at a few of the links provided by the "crooked" Republican senator James Inhofe.

1)HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S
CLIMATE SYSTEM (http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf) Peer-reviewed literature. In a nutshell, if the CO2 content in the atmosphere doubles (estimates of CO2 doubling every 70 years doubling present levels @ +- year 2075 (http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2004/Energy%20&%20Climate/9.21.04%20Post-2100%20CC/Supplementary%20Briefing%20Handout%209.21.04.pdf)) then expected rise in temperature as a result of the CO2 is expected to be 1.1+-0.5 Kelvin. Far below the IPCC climate models. If you look at some of the above clips, the earth and life on it seems to be quite robust and 1 or 2 degrees wont be catastrophic (quite the opposite it seems), and extra CO2 does have a positive effect on crop yields (as outlined a few posts back).

2) The following peer-reviewed article also cautions on the use of climate models to predict future climate changes.
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. (http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf)

3)And Were is the warming the last 3-4 years? (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf). Graph on last page.

Let's look at what the "Neocon" Dr Vincent Gray has to say about the IPCC.

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures. (http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1) Be sure to read the rest.

Pollution is bad and I'm all for the developemet of hydrogen technology and/or electric cars. But to tax CO2 emmisions that will lead to minimal gains is ridiculous and will only suit those with already vested interests in "Green companies". Diverting food sources for the production of energy (e.g. ethanol) is also a bad idea imo. The sun does look like the major player in climate change and there is nothing that we can do about it, other than research technologies that will help humans survive in case of extreme warming AND extreme cooling. Not CO2 taxing.

This I agree with 100% - I've never really been a fan of biofuels, especially when using maize, soy etc. Maybe Jatropha's better, but I still think that burning fuel in an ICE isn't the way to go. Busy doing a proper reading of the other stuff and will comment later.

BCO
29-12-2007, 01:46 PM

Gray has 2 problems with the IPCC's standpoint. The first is their claim of global warming, and the second is their claim that CO2 is responsible for this warming.

In attacking the notion of global warming itself, Gray lists two factors, and then mentions a third.

a) There's no global warming

Gray states that the global warming claim "is based on a graph showing that "mean annual global temperature" has been increasing." (It's this (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/) graph, BTW)

Here's what Gray says:

1. No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made.

How can you derive a "global average" when you do not even have a single "local" average?

What they actually use is the procedure used from 1850, which is to make one measurement a day at the weather station from a maximum/minimum thermometer. The mean of these two is taken to be the average. No statistician could agree that a plausible average can be obtained this way. The potential bias is more than the claimed "global warming.

The point is that the global warming graph is looking at trends, not absolute levels. As long as the methodology for determining the mean daily temperature figure is the same at every station (which it is), trend data is possible. From Grist (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/15216/865):
Often, as in this case, it is easier to determine how much a given property is changing than what its exact value is. If one station is near an airport at three feet above sea level and another is in a park at 3000 feet, it doesn't really matter -- they both show rising temperature, and that is the critical information.

Gray then mentions the problem of urban heat islands.

2. The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly near to towns.

The urban heat island theory has been thoroughly disproven. Read here (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/224634/48) for plenty. I especially like the comparision between the night time satellite image showing the urbanised areas worldwide and the surface temperature anomaly satellite image.

It's also worth noting that direct surface temperature measurements as discussed above are only one indactor of global warming. Evidence for global warming can also be found in:

* Satellite measurements of the upper and lower troposphere
* Weather balloons show very similar warming
* Borehole analysis
* Glacial melt observations
* Declining arctic sea ice
* Sea level rise
* Proxy Reconstructions
* Rising ocean temperature

Gray then states that direct surface temperature

there has been no "global warming", however measured, for eight years, and this year is all set to be cooling. As a result it is now politically incorrect to speak of "global warming". The buzzword is "Climate Change" which is still blamed on the non-existent "warming".

Excellent answers to this can be found here. (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329)

In short though:

At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!)

According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data.

b) CO2 doesn't cause global warming

The next section of Gray's letter is concerned with his perceived shortcomings with current climate modelling techniques. He basically says that just because there's a correlation between CO2 and GW, doesn't mean CO2 causes GW. He also argues that the current models are unable to make predictions. A summary of what he says in his letter can by found in one of his comments on a RealClimate article (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/index.php?p=509), which in turn is nicely counter-argued by some other contributors. (Interestingly, the article in question is a response to the Douglass et al paper (http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf) you linked).

# Vincent Gray Says:
22 December 2007 at 8:52 PM

This argument is not about a PREDICTION. It is about a a SIMULATION. There is so much variability between models and between data collections that it is not surprising that some madels can be found which simulate some data.

This does not prove the correctness of the models because of the well-known (but little accepted) maxim that a correlation, however convincing does not prove cause and effect.

No model has ever convincingly predicted future climate. Global temperatures, however measured, have been relatively unchanged for some eight years, in violation of all model PROJECTIONS. Until models can be shown to be successful in prediction, why should anybody believe in them?
# Hank Roberts Says:
22 December 2007 at 10:43 PM

But, Vincent, can you cite any source to support any of what you write above? I can understand you saying you believe it. But I’ll be surprised if you can show anyone else has published research supporting what you believe. Please provide your evidence that my hypothesis about this is wrong by giving cites — that’s how science works, after all.

Hansen’s Scenario C looks very good so far, after 20 years. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

Eight years is insufficient data to reliably demonstrate a trend (or lack of one) against the noise level in climate. Didn’t I find this for you earlier? Has someone told you different? Who? Where?

William Connolley gives you the information to be appropriately skeptical about what people tell you, and points out how you can download the data set and do your own statistics to test what you’re being told and shows you what you will get using standard tests of significance on one sample data set, and comments:

“15 year trends are pretty well all sig and all about the same; that about 1/2 the 10 year trends are sig; and that very few of the 5 year trends are sig. From which the motto is: 5 year trends are not useful with this level of natural variability. They tell you nothing about the long-term change.”
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/05/the_significance_of_5_year_tre.php#

So, even Hansen’s 20 year old model has been quite good at predicting (and over a long enough period of years for the trends to be statistically interesting). Does having a factual basis to believe this change what you believe? Do facts make a difference?
# Barton Paul Levenson Says:
23 December 2007 at 7:12 AM

Dr. Gray writes:

[[No model has ever convincingly predicted future climate. Global temperatures, however measured, have been relatively unchanged for some eight years, in violation of all model PROJECTIONS. Until models can be shown to be successful in prediction, why should anybody believe in them?]]

Climate models successfully predicted that the climate would warm, that the stratosphere would cool, that the poles would warm more than the equator, that nights would warm more than days, and they predicted quantitatively how much the Earth would cool after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. What else do you want?

Finally, a couple of points about Vincent Gray. Firstly, he's a chemist, not a climate scientist. Secondly, he's affiliated with The Heartland Institute - an ExxonMobil funded think tank. Link. (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41)
Never trust a GW skeptic who has ties to big oil, is what I always say.

BCO
29-12-2007, 05:13 PM
Ok, now onto the Douglass et al paper. I'm no climatologist, so the RealClimate article that I linked above is a little over my head. Fortunately though, one of the readers of the article posted a "layman's version" in the comments.

# Richard Ordway Says:
12 December 2007 at 11:02 PM

Joe says: “Anyone want to give me a laymen version?”

Hmmmm, a short answer might look like this:

A new study (that is already full of fatal omissions and inaccuracies) has just come out in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal (Inernational Journal of climatology).

Remember, a study needs at least two things to really be important scientifically:

1. To come out in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal (this is true with this study).

2. This same study has to stand up under world-wide peer-review scrutiny for accuracy (This study has already failed this criteria).

A rundown of the study might be this:

Independent computer models (about 23 or so world-wide, I believe), generally show a warming of the surface and even more in the tropsophere in the tropics due to increased water vapor (warm the air up and it has more available water vapor (a greenhouse gas)..so a “new greenhouse gas” comes into play where the air is warmed (ouch, what a simplification).

…the higher up you go the less water vapor you normally get because it is too cold to have available water vapor (the rate of condensation strongly exceeds the rate of evaporation)…unless you warm it and “suddenly water vapor just appears” where it was mostly absent before. However, it did already exist lower down because it was already warm and already contained water vapor because it was warm.

The study states that that instruments do *not* show more warming the higher you go in the tropics…even though the models do.

Hence, independent world-wide computer models are wrong when they predict global warming in the next 100 years…

and secondly, because computer models base their future (and present) warming predictions on increasing greenhouse gases (and they “don’t get the warming correct now”), that greenhouse gases actually are not causing the warming we have been seeing for the last 100 years.

This means then, that mainstream science only predicts global warming based on computer simulations…so global warming is not a problem.

This then means that the warming (most of it) is part of a natural cycle (cosmic rays and solar wind) and is not man-made…

so we can burn all the oil, coal and gas that we want without guilt (and we certainly don’t have to regulate them)…and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is irrevocably wrong and can be ignored with impunity.

This also would mean that President Bush is “correct” to do nothing right now about global warming even though every other major world country is taking action including the last holdout- Australia on Kyoto, I believe).

Anyway, here are some fatal problems with the study as I understand them that invalidate this study:

1. Even if the study were right…(which it is not) mainstream scientists use *three* methods to predict a global warming trend…not just climate computer models (which stand up extremely well for general projections by the way) under world-wide scrutiny…and have for all intents and purposes already correctly predicted the future-(Hansen 1988 in front of Congress and Pinatubo).

Now the three scientific methods for predicting the general future warming trend is:

1. Paleoclimate reconstructions which show that there is a direct correlation between carbon dioxide increasing and the warming that follows.

2. Curent energy imbalance situation between the energy coming in at the top of the atmosphere (about 243 watts per square meter WM2) and fewer watts/M2 now leaving due mostly to the driving force of CO2…ergo the Earth has to heat up.

3. Thirdly, climate computer simulations that have been tested against actual records before they actually happened….and were correct.

Now, on to actual problems with the paper:

Any real scientist, ahem, includes error bars in their projections because of possible variables. The study does not include them. If it did, or they were honest enough to, they would fit the real-life records (enough to overlap the two records) and be a non issue.

Secondly, this study is dishonest and does not show all the evidence available (v1.3 and V1.4)…boing…this paper has just failed peer-review. Science is an *open* process and you just don’t cherry pick or real scienists will correctly invalidate your results.

Third, with this omitted data, the computer models agree with the actual data (enough for it to be a non-issue).

Fourthly, the study does not honestly work out the error bars for the models themselves by giving them reasonable uncertainty for accounted-for unknowns such as El Nino (Enso) and other tropical events.

Now however, there are honest unknowns with the models and how they (slightly) mismatch histoical records…but they are accounted for in the big scheme of things…more work needs to be done…but it does not invalidate what the models are saying for general warming trends…unbrella anyone?

In other words, this study is a strawman and the authors know it.

Teleological
31-12-2007, 12:29 PM
Ok fair enough, Dr Gray (http://www.nzcpr.com/guest72.htm) is a nutter/chemist that cannot look past his next paycheck from Exxonmobile and is not qualified to make a comment on the models. I'll take that, even though I think it is a cheap shot at a dissenting voice.
And applying this evenly
All politicians are crooked. All journalists and (especially) bloggers have an agenda. All scientists have tunnel vision., don't you think IPCC scientists has a paycheck to lose if they don't agree with the so-called consensus? Also, isn't www.realclimate.org a blog? What do you think the agenda is there? But ok, let's move on.
I'll take the notion that the Douglas paper is perceived as a "dog" by some. But being cautious about models is not a bad thing. Note that they do not make predictions but projections, the same way the weather man does.

Coming back to the Schwartz paper (http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf). Why should there be taxes on CO2 emissions when
The resultant equilibrium climate sensitivity, 0.30 &#177; 0.14 K/(W m-2), corresponds to an equilibrium temperature increase
for doubled CO2 of 1.1 &#177; 0.5 K.
Is the likelihood of a of 1.1 degree Kelvin increase (as a result of CO2) within the next 70 years such a terrible prospect when life seems to flourish in hotter climates. Extra CO2 in the atmosphere also has a positive effect on crop yields.

Also, the effect that the sun has on climate change is much more powerful than CO2 related causes (See the crooked politician's links). Wouldn't it be prudent to prepare for extreme cooling AND extreme warming rather than CO2 taxing?

BCO
31-12-2007, 04:23 PM
Thanks for your input on this topic, Teleological. I apologise if it times I've come across as snotty - I'm so used to agressive/antagonistic GW deniers that I'm a little unaccustomed to civilised debate :p

Realclimate is a blog. In hindsight, I probably shouldn't have singled out Inhofe's blog just because it's a blog. You got me there. :D Still, RealClimate is one of the most respected science sites on the Interwebs. Regarding the Schwartz paper, there are apparently some problems with his calcs, but right now I'm busy burning some hydrocarbons (even leftist hippies like me gotta braai sometimes), so I'll jump in a little later.

I'd also like to clarify that I've no vested interested or agendas WRT the science of climate change - except for my own puny blog which ahsn't earned me a cent. I'm also very far from an expert.

I do, however, have no doubt that the greater climate science community is not part of some massive consipiracy out to dupe the public or that the thousands of climate scientist who advocate the "consensus" view of climate change are unwilling to re-evaluate their work simply because of the paycheques that come in. If anything, the pay should be better for those whose work is in line with what Big Oil wants to hear i.e. CO2 aint a problem. If some discovery comes along that refutes the consensus, then that's great news, but as I was saying in the other thread, one peer reviewed article doesn't mean much, and a skeptical paper can only act as a seed of change in the juggernaut that's the scientific community. Thus, I don't believe it's at all reasonable to all-of-a-sudden dismiss the accepted notion of anthropogenic climate change just because the occasional paper says it's bull**** (especially because up until now, none of these skeptical papers have stood up to any degree of scrutiny, peer review notwithstanding).

Mr TB
02-01-2008, 08:57 PM
Mr TB, please take your conspiracy theories back to the PD section kthx. There is NO EVIDENCE of any conspiracies or collusion in the reputable scientific community about climate change. This is not a thread about evolution, so I don't want to hear about the Smithsonian. It's irrelevant.

Interesting but just about a week a go saw a great photo of Al Gore and guess what it says! He exploited climate change we he was vice!, pushing it to the front for the so-called greenies!

Then I remember about this thread where you guys tried and burn me making that suggestion. So global warming may indeed be over emphasized.

ToxicBunny
02-01-2008, 09:06 PM
Provide a link to this photo, and its sources if you please.

And how exactly does pushing climate change as an issue equate to a conspiracy theory? its just good politicking...

Reptilian
03-01-2008, 12:13 AM
cant we just tax people who eat red meat, sheep, cows etc... it is they who are responsible for all the co22 emissions, methane...

cyghost
03-01-2008, 08:25 AM
No. I am curious about co22 emissions though - is that the scientific formula for a fart?

Reptilian
03-01-2008, 04:18 PM
No. I am curious about co22 emissions though - is that the scientific formula for a fart?
isnt that methane, and yes it does mostly come from sheep, cows etc.. and the people who eat it fart alot too, so if i was prez, i would tax red meats higher, as they come from animals who worsen global warming and also make more governmental costs.

ppl who eat these meats are also more unhealthy, and we therefor have to pay higher taxes for the health care for these people.

this is not fair to people who don't eat these large animals.

Mr TB
03-01-2008, 05:55 PM
Provide a link to this photo, and its sources if you please.

And how exactly does pushing climate change as an issue equate to a conspiracy theory? its just good politicking...

I was standing in a shop you know... when I read the article... since you and your friends ensure that those with opposing views are not allowed a fair chance, forumites with opposite views should be banned, that is the overall view especially in the pd-section... I did exactly what I said can't you read?...

I did not jump up and down and got estatic and thought hell now I can just them ok?... I only remembered this thread and had a good laugh...

BCO
03-01-2008, 06:05 PM
I was standing in a shop you know... when I read the article... since you and your friends ensure that those with opposing views are not allowed a fair chance, forumites with opposite views should be banned, that is the overall view especially in the pd-section... I did exactly what I said can't you read?...

I did not jump up and down and got estatic and thought hell now I can just them ok?... I only remembered this thread and had a good laugh...

Obviously you just skipped over all the stuff about scientific consensus, responses to skeptical arguments, the nature of the peer review process etc, and jumped to the part where you say "Global Warming's bull**** because some ex-politician 'exploited' the issue".

Please read everthing that's actually in here before you dismiss global warming because you saw a picture of Al Gore in a book store.

Further, I don't see anywhere in this thread where someone has not been allowed a fair chance to express their views.

Mr TB
03-01-2008, 06:13 PM
cant we just tax people who eat red meat, sheep, cows etc... it is they who are responsible for all the co22 emissions, methane...

Now let us be a little technichal on this farting story...
1)Do you pay my medical aid in the first place?

2)Should nobody eat red meat , how much income will the goverment lose?

3) With what will you replace red meat ?, there are substances in red meat that human beings require... and the cost thereof?

I am sitting with a book that says eat according to your blood type.
One blood type can generally eat everything and be healthy...
A second should stay away from fish and fowl...
The third should stay away from red meat...
The other should stay away from fruit and veggies...
Very interesting this book....

ToxicBunny
03-01-2008, 06:21 PM
Mr TB : basing an opinion on a poster you glanced at in a shop isn't exactly a good way to go through life, and exploiting an issue to seem "different" to the voting public doesn't make an issue rubbish either, or any less true.

As for your book about eating according to blood types, is it one of those new fangled rubbishy diet books?

Mr TB
03-01-2008, 06:22 PM
Obviously you just skipped over all the stuff about scientific consensus, responses to skeptical arguments, the nature of the peer review process etc, and jumped to the part where you say "Global Warming's bull**** because some ex-politician 'exploited' the issue".

Please read everthing that's actually in here before you dismiss global warming because you saw a picture of Al Gore in a book store.

Further, I don't see anywhere in this thread where someone has not been allowed a fair chance to express their views.

No you are missing the point, you are assuming I want to discuss the issue now..., not so I was involved in this discussion quite a while back and various snotty and arrogant remarks were made towards me...

Seeing the picture of Al Gore only brought back the sweet memories of a sarcastic bunch of Mr Know-Alls that I had a discussion with...:D:D:D

ToxicBunny
03-01-2008, 06:27 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but when you were "involved" in this discussion awhile back, your "evidence" etc was pretty much universally panned and shown to be rubbish?

BCO
03-01-2008, 06:30 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but when you were "involved" in this discussion awhile back, your "evidence" etc was pretty much universally panned and shown to be rubbish?

Apparently if you present him with valid scientific evidence, you're being snotty and arrogant.

ToxicBunny
03-01-2008, 06:32 PM
Ahhh yes, that I do remember quite distinctly...

:p

Mr TB
03-01-2008, 07:09 PM
Ahhh yes, that I do remember quite distinctly...

:p

Did Al Gore push the issue and the answer is yes... why because it is to his advantage is it not...
Trek_Mambo was pushing hard for to implicate the USA for the assassination of Bhutto... but he can not deliver a shred of evidence...
Only speculation...but he ran of with it no one stopped him... really...

valid scientific evidence... in your opinion sigh...

BCO
03-01-2008, 07:14 PM
Did Al Gore push the issue and the answer is yes... why because it is to his advantage is it not...
Trek_Mambo was pushing hard for to implicate the USA for the assassination of Bhutto... but he can not deliver a shred of evidence...
Only speculation...but he ran of with it no one stopped him... really...

?! Gore has a LOT of evidence to back most of his claims. Whether or not he adopted the cause of GW out of genuine concern or for political gain is irrelevant.

Mr TB
03-01-2008, 07:41 PM
?! Gore has a LOT of evidence to back most of his claims. Whether or not he adopted the cause of GW out of genuine concern or for political gain is irrelevant.

Al Gore was a student of one that greatly believed in Global Warming, so really it was not a surprise when he followed the same trend...

This is clear indoctrination ... and we should not indoctrinate the youth with religion and teachings like global warming for instance...

At first it is the communist or red danger..,
then the racial or black danger...,
now the danger of global warming or the green danger?
Keep on frightening the next generation to keep control, that is it?

ToxicBunny
03-01-2008, 07:44 PM
No see Mr TB... you cannot equate religion to global warming.

Global warming has evidence to support the theory, religion doesn't.

It has nothing to do with control, and everything to do with surviving on this planet, or are you to short sighted to see that we are harming this planet to the point that in the not too distant future it will destroy humanity.

The Cosmos
03-01-2008, 08:16 PM
No see Mr TB... you cannot equate religion to global warming.

Global warming has evidence to support the theory, religion doesn't.

How on earth do you bring religion into this discussion ? :eek:

It has nothing to do with control, and everything to do with surviving on this planet, or are you to short sighted to see that we are harming this planet to the point that in the not too distant future it will destroy humanity.

How about seeing the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, on googlevideo.
There is a problem, but it's being blown way out of proportion.

The Global Warming Swindle

74min long.

ToxicBunny
03-01-2008, 08:32 PM

Did you not read the post above mine where dodo quite clearly brings religion into it.

It may being blown out of proportion at this point in time, I do not deny that is a possibility, BUT getting a handle on it now before it becomes a bigger problem should be a priority for every nation on this planet. and saying global warming is just indoctrination is just poppyc@#k and should not be allowed. We as a species need to learn how to live in harmony with our world instead of abusing it for our own gains.

The Cosmos
03-01-2008, 08:37 PM

Did you not read the post above mine where dodo quite clearly brings religion into it.

Ok, sorry about that. I tend to like your posts, and i mean that in all seriousness, so that's why i looked at yours first.

It may being blown out of proportion at this point in time, I do not deny that is a possibility, BUT getting a handle on it now before it becomes a bigger problem should be a priority for every nation on this planet.

i agree.

and saying global warming is just indoctrination is just poppyc@#k and should not be allowed.

Not necessarily indoctrination, but progaganda.

We as a species need to learn how to live in harmony with our world instead of abusing it for our own gains.

Agree.

ToxicBunny
03-01-2008, 08:41 PM
Ahhh, I feel priviledged, I think....

Propoganda is one thing, and for something like global warming I honestly don't have a problem with propoganda because we as a species are very capable of ignoring something until it is too late, so if its necessary to make it seem more of problem than it really is, I'm all for that approach.

I have seen some houses that are built on a carbon neutral type approach and attempt to self provide as much as possible, and in all honesty they're actually very comfortable inside, maybe even more so than our normal houses are now, and they don't stand out in the surrounding landscape as much.

The Cosmos
03-01-2008, 08:48 PM
Ahhh, I feel priviledged, I think....

Don't think, know ! :D

Propoganda is one thing, and for something like global warming I honestly don't have a problem with propoganda because we as a species are very capable of ignoring something until it is too late, so if its necessary to make it seem more of problem than it really is, I'm all for that approach.

In a way it's good, but then you have to separate truth/reality from fiction.

I have seen some houses that are built on a carbon neutral type approach and attempt to self provide as much as possible, and in all honesty they're actually very comfortable inside, maybe even more so than our normal houses are now, and they don't stand out in the surrounding landscape as much.

Do u have information on the carbon neutral approach ? I would like to read more on it.

ToxicBunny
03-01-2008, 08:50 PM
Ummm I shall have to hunt the site down in my favourites at work, but there is a whole community based on these green ideas and carbon neutral is one of them.. though its definitely NOT cheap in the slightest... and the calculations they use are obviously not entirely accurate.

Mr TB
03-01-2008, 09:01 PM
Ummm I shall have to hunt the site down in my favourites at work, but there is a whole community based on these green ideas and carbon neutral is one of them.. though its definitely NOT cheap in the slightest... and the calculations they use are obviously not entirely accurate.

Propoganda... is nothing more than lying and you approve of lying so you are not trustworthy my friend, sorry to say that...
That for instannce is the way that OJ Simpson who killed his girlfriend was found not guilty by a jury propaganda...
The evidence clearly shows he is guilty... he was even found guilty in a civil court...

ToxicBunny
03-01-2008, 09:04 PM
No, propaganda doesn't mean lying... it means spreading information to support a cause dodo.

You should REALLY learn what a word means before you try and attack it.

You dodo, base your opinions on posters you see in shops, so your opinion means v little to me.

The Cosmos
03-01-2008, 09:07 PM
No, propaganda doesn't mean lying... it means spreading information to support a cause dodo.

You should REALLY learn what a word means before you try and attack it.

You dodo, base your opinions on posters you see in shops, so your opinion means v little to me.

Propaganda does have a lying side, because your creating something else out of what it really is. And therefore not true, to it's "nature" and therefore a lie.

ToxicBunny
03-01-2008, 09:11 PM
I'd say propaganda is more akin to cherry picking the truth that you want from the facts rather than presenting ALL of the facts...

I am still trying to figure out how supporting propaganda that has a potentially useful outcome makes me untrustworthy, but then I live in the real world and dodo lives in a different one.

Mr TB
03-01-2008, 09:21 PM
Propaganda does have a lying side, because your creating something else out of what it really is. And therefore not true, to it's "nature" and therefore a lie.

Thank you IJ, I equate it with stealing. A person stole R1000= but now I insist he actually stole R1000 000= .

Yes that person is guilty but I am guilty of false witnessing.
Propaganda a false witness?... but wtf let me drink some tea...

ALL the facts? Oops! I know people like Cyghost and co go mad because a certain group of people cherry pick facts?!

YOU HAVE A SET OF DOUBLE STANDARDS?

ToxicBunny
03-01-2008, 09:24 PM
Your example dodo is lying/bearing false witness not propaganda

Propaganda would be more along the lines of someone stealing R1000 from you, but you bringing in his race/upbringing etc to paint him in an incredibly bad light, or neglecting to inform people that he stole R1000 in retaliation for you stealing a painting or something from him.

The Cosmos
03-01-2008, 09:26 PM
I'd say propaganda is more akin to cherry picking the truth that you want from the facts rather than presenting ALL of the facts...

Well, honesty never hurt anybody, and not being completely honest, is being dishonest, and that's not acceptable. If people are to tackle a problem, they need all the facts, honestly and truthfully.

However, propaganda has it's way of getting attention.

ToxicBunny
03-01-2008, 09:28 PM
I think it is one of those grey areas..

Propaganda in a war scenario is just plain wrong... but using propaganda to promote a cause that will benefit humanity is fine IMO.

Mr TB
03-01-2008, 09:33 PM
Your example dodo is lying/bearing false witness not propaganda

Propaganda would be more along the lines of someone stealing R1000 from you, but you bringing in his race/upbringing etc to paint him in an incredibly bad light, or neglecting to inform people that he stole R1000 in retaliation for you stealing a painting or something from him.

That is what happened in the OJ SIMPSON case but in the opposite drection, his colour were effectively used to set him free because the prosecutor was white... You have proved my point... thanks...sleep tight... He was and still is guilty as hell...

ToxicBunny
04-01-2008, 07:41 AM
Did they have enough conclusive evidence to convict OJ according to the rules of law of the SA?

You just think he is guilty, the legal system in the states found there was reasonable doubt and they couldn't convict him. Again, that is not propaganda, that is just using a legal system to his advantage.

BCO
04-01-2008, 10:36 AM
I think that we should put some perspective on this so-called propaganda.

Anthropgenic global warming (AGW) is an established scientific FACT. The theory has been comfirmed and supported by thousands of scientists in a wide range of fields. There are climate models that have been built around the theory which are proving to be accurate in their predicitions (for example Hansen's 1998 model has predicted much of what's happening now 20 years later).

The notion of consensus implies that the scientific community as a whole agrees that the theory is correct. Let's look at some of the scientific bodies who endorse the AGW.

* Academia Brasiliera de Cięncias (Bazil)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Science Council of Japan
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

And:

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

Also, it must be noted that, yes, some peer reviewed skeptical papers are published in scientific journals, but please refer to this thread for discussion on that issue:

Mr TB
04-01-2008, 07:25 PM
Did they have enough conclusive evidence to convict OJ according to the rules of law of the SA?

You just think he is guilty, the legal system in the states found there was reasonable doubt and they couldn't convict him. Again, that is not propaganda, that is just using a legal system to his advantage.

Did you watch crime investigation?
His blood on the glove, apparently his glove on the crime scene.
Obvious cheating by OJ when he disprove that the glove found on the crime scene belong to him?
Why cheat if you are not guilty? He did not take advantage of the legal he blatantly cheated the jury!

It is easy to open your mouth big it was not your sister that got killed....
But rather stick to your greenie topic...

ToxicBunny
04-01-2008, 07:32 PM
Explain HOW he cheated the jury?...

Do you not understand the concept of reasonable doubt dodo?

Was it your sister that got killed?....

Mr TB
04-01-2008, 08:18 PM
Explain HOW he cheated the jury?...

Do you not understand the concept of reasonable doubt dodo?

Was it your sister that got killed?....

Did you watch a proper discussion of the OJ Simpson trial on Criminal Investigation ?....
If you did not don't even consider reasonable doubt, the defense harped on one thing and one thing only the colour of Simpson's skin... that is not reasonable doubt...
The defense lawyers actually intimidate the jury, only watch the video, and in doing so a murder go free...
The legal systems you adore stink of corruption in anycase pal....
No, but when the court find someone that is guilty that has touched my family not guilty... well he stays guilty in my view...
I will be the next one in court...

ToxicBunny
04-01-2008, 08:27 PM
I actually don't know how to respond to that.... its a typical dodo tactic tho of trying to derail the thread with completely irrelevant rubbish.

Back to the topic of global warming and stuff, thanks Bluecollar for the list of bodies that endorse global warming. Some rather prestigious bodies there.

BCO
04-01-2008, 08:33 PM
lol @ the OJ debate. :D

Mr TB
04-01-2008, 09:06 PM
lol @ the OJ debate. :D

LOL.. yes... what a lot of nonsense... crazy world we live in...

Teleological
07-01-2008, 08:11 PM
Regarding the Schwartz paper, there are apparently some problems with his calcs, I’m going to take the calculations for what they are and accept them for the moment. Is there any reason one should not? You will find problems with calculations in other papers as well (for or against the AGW viewpoint).

I do, however, have no doubt that the greater climate science community is not part of some massive consipiracy out to dupe the public or that the thousands of climate scientist who advocate the "consensus" view of climate change are unwilling to re-evaluate their work simply because of the paycheques that come in. Or the invested money on “green companies”? These scientists are in a powerful position to push an agenda. Also, science is not a democracy, if there is doubt, any doubt as to the magnitude of GW and the degree to which humans are responsible should be acknowledged and tested.

If anything, the pay should be better for those whose work is in line with what Big Oil wants to hear i.e. CO2 aint a problem. Maybe some prepare for the future, and make sure that the future goes in their direction?

If some discovery comes along that refutes the consensus, then that's great news, but as I was saying in the other thread, one peer reviewed article doesn't mean much, and a skeptical paper can only act as a seed of change in the juggernaut that's the scientific community. There are other articles showing the overwhelming importance the sun has on the climate.

Thus, I don't believe it's at all reasonable to all-of-a-sudden dismiss the accepted notion of anthropogenic climate change just because the occasional paper says it's bull**** (especially because up until now, none of these skeptical papers have stood up to any degree of scrutiny, peer review notwithstanding). None? AGW might not be BS, but the magnitude is important to know. Besides, water vapour is the major greenhouse gas, the more water vapour, the greater the greenhouse effect. Current models include water in calculations, but do they account for increased cloud formation? Won’t clouds reflect incoming sun energy? Has this effect been tested? If confirmed, then there does seem to be a self-regulating element in our climate.

It has nothing to do with control, and everything to do with surviving on this planet, or are you to short sighted to see that we are harming this planet to the point that in the not too distant future it will destroy humanity.
Pollution is harming the planet and water resources, a little extra CO2 in the atmosphere might be good thing for plant growth and contribute only very minimally to warming.

It may being blown out of proportion at this point in time, I do not deny that is a possibility, BUT getting a handle on it now before it becomes a bigger problem Is it becoming a bigger problem? Where is the warming trend the past 4-5 years? Maybe this year will establish that trend again?

I'd say propaganda is more akin to cherry picking the truth that you want from the facts rather than presenting ALL of the facts... And you see nothing wrong with this?

I am still trying to figure out how supporting propaganda that has a potentially useful outcome makes me untrustworthy,Because it has potentially disastrous outcomes as well.

Propaganda in a war scenario is just plain wrong... but using propaganda to promote a cause that will benefit humanity is fine IMO. Is this the mind of relative morality at work, or do you honestly believe this kind of propaganda will only have a positive effect?

The commercial farming community is running this world indirectly and/or directly IMO. Taxing CO2 emissions will increase food production costs because of increased running costs etc… (the increasing oil prices is already doing that). Putting extra strain on food production is only setting up the scene for economic recession, widespread famine, wars etc. Again, I feel the emphasis should be on securing food production resources, irrespective of the climate change. Whether GW will negatively affect food production is not a clear-cut certainty, the extra CO2 might even be helpful.
Here is an interesting article (http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf) on research done by South African researchers on water resource management and the synchronous linkage between hydrometeorological processes in South Africa and elsewhere, and solar activity. And no evidence could be found of trends in the data that could be attributed to human activities.
If you are interested in their opinion, why not contact them?

I think that we should put some perspective on this so-called propaganda.

Anthropgenic global warming (AGW) is an established scientific FACT. And the magnitude of AGW?