Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My concern is about things I know will happen with carbon cap, it will decimate US indutry even further and drive prices up across the board. In the meantime China and other emerging economies will be laughing their asses off.
Decimate industry? You forget about natural gas?
China and other countries are choking on their own pollution.
Quote:
They will never develop without them hence the reason these UN treaties include massive transfers of wealth and technology .
Massive transfers of wealth and technology occur every year.... It's called an economy.....
Quote:
The very tip of this pyramid of active mines is nearly 20 years worth of coal.
Modern humans have been around for tens of thousands and hopefully we won't ever go extinct. So please spare me.....
You can't think long term.
Quote:
When you hit the bottom line cost is the only thing that is relevant hence the reason for cap and trade type legislation which is designed to drive up the costs.
Cap and trade has worked in the US for other emissions, which helped clean up acid rain and NOX.
The costs will be driven up once Chinese and Indian citizens are fed up with the huge environmental cost of pollution at the scale in those countries. Not to mention other countries.
There was ever proof of manmade global warming? Last I heard the lighthouse down the shore was still miles away from the sea, where it was originally built on the beach. What, no hurricanes this year? Well I guess if we had no hurricanes then it must be global warming. But if we had a big one then I'm sure it would be global warming; and if we had a moderate one, global warming caused that too. I'm not a fan of destroying our environment, but as an objective person who knows a bit about science, I am just not convinced by the proponents of man-made global warming.
There was ever proof of manmade global warming? Last I heard the lighthouse down the shore was still miles away from the sea, where it was originally built on the beach. What, no hurricanes this year? Well I guess if we had no hurricanes then it must be global warming. But if we had a big one then I'm sure it would be global warming; and if we had a moderate one, global warming caused that too. I'm not a fan of destroying our environment, but as an objective person who knows a bit about science, I am just not convinced by the proponents of man-made global warming.
I'm not convinced of the timetable of it. The gloom and doom of the early 2000s really hurt their credibility. However, I firmly believe man's actions can influence climate.
I'm not convinced of the timetable of it. The gloom and doom of the early 2000s really hurt their credibility. However, I firmly believe man's actions can influence climate.
Early 2000? At the risk of dating myself, I'll tell you that the gloom and doom was there in the late 80's. Here we are 30 years later with no floods or Armageddon.
And maybe the media itself is making me bias in an opposite way. It seems these days every time there is a hurricane, or a snow storm, or a warm front, or a cold front, or a dry spell, or a wet spell... the media always asks: "How is global warming or climate change contributing to this?" Well... it's not, *****, it's February in NJ, it snows, that's what it does in NJ in February. And it will be hot in July, and again in August. Maybe we will get a lot of rain this year, or not so much. Give it a rest.
Early 2000? At the risk of dating myself, I'll tell you that the gloom and doom was there in the late 80's. Here we are 30 years later with no floods or Armageddon.
I have a hard time believing it got the amount of national and global attention that it got in the late 90's/early 2000s. Especially considering we simply didn't have the technology.
Quote:
And maybe the media itself is making me bias in an opposite way. It seems these days every time there is a hurricane, or a snow storm, or a warm front, or a cold front, or a dry spell, or a wet spell... the media always asks: "How is global warming or climate change contributing to this?" Well... it's not, *****, it's February in NJ, it snows, that's what it does in NJ in February. And it will be hot in July, and again in August. Maybe we will get a lot of rain this year, or not so much. Give it a rest.
Biggest scam ever perpetrated on a dumbed down public. It's nothing more than a get rich scheme and only fools and idiots believe it. Who do you think is backing your scientists so they reach a conclusion that humans have caused it?
A 7th grade science teacher knows better and so should you idiots who believe in manmade global warming.
So you think people are stupid to want to save the planet for future generations. There is no scam. We pollute the earth...that is a fact. Call it global warming or something else but we are changing our planet.
Early 2000? At the risk of dating myself, I'll tell you that the gloom and doom was there in the late 80's. Here we are 30 years later with no floods or Armageddon.
And maybe the media itself is making me bias in an opposite way. It seems these days every time there is a hurricane, or a snow storm, or a warm front, or a cold front, or a dry spell, or a wet spell... the media always asks: "How is global warming or climate change contributing to this?" Well... it's not, *****, it's February in NJ, it snows, that's what it does in NJ in February. And it will be hot in July, and again in August. Maybe we will get a lot of rain this year, or not so much. Give it a rest.
The news, if such it be, does not understand that anecdotes aren't data. Doesn't change the results of research, though.
Given that the New York Post is in a cty that may sink below the waves as the waters of the Atlantic rise in New York Harbor, it may take a shark swimming into the Post 's Editorial room and biting the the editin the ass before the Post acknowleges yhay man hasan impact on the global climate going forward!
So you agree that the models predicted warming over land is well overstated at least within the time frames? If you actually think Chicago will have East Texas summers and Oklahoma winters within the next 75 years, I have a bridge to sell you on Michigan Ave
What models are you referring to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
Yes the old "oceans ate my global warming" mantra
Actually it kinda does. "The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955"- Levitus 2012.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
Of course you would be correct. The oceans have warmed by 24X1022 Joules which translates to a whopping 0.09C over the last 50 years. Is that even detectable by our instruments?
Are you serious? I'm guessing you only read the abstract and not the whole paper? Are you somehow confusing air temperature with ocean heat content (OHC)?
From the Levitus paper:
"The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m
layer increased by 24.01.91022 J (2S.E.) corresponding
to a rate of 0.39 W m2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a
volume mean warming of 0.09C. This warming corresponds
to a rate of 0.27 W m2 per unit area of earth’s surface. The
heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer
increased by 16.7 1.6 1022 J corresponding to a rate of
0.27 W m2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume
mean warming of 0.18C
We have estimated an increase of 24x1022 J representing a
volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0-2000m layer
of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to
the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a
volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F)..
This transfer of course will not happen; earth’s climate system
simply does not work like this. But this computation does provide
a perspective on the amount of heating that the earth system
has undergone since 1955"
Do you not understand the significance of that much energy storage? That's 136 trillion Joules per second over 55 years!
I copied this graph directly from the Levitus study:
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
So do I, but that doesn't mean that all climate scientists believe in catastrophic global warming in our lifetimes. My beef is with the models.....
Depends how old you are I guess. And depends on what you mean by 'catastrophic' . If you mean 'the end of the world is nigh!' then I don't think any serious scientist is saying that.
Your "beef" with the models seems to be garnered from what denialist sources SAY about the models. And they have a habit of misrepresenting them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
So many of those professor types are knowitalls....
Well a lot of them know a lot. Muller seems to be a bit of peacock and has said some pretty dumb things in the past about climate change (not that he will ever admit it, or apologize to those scientists he has maligned)- I hope he's learnt more from being involved in the BEST studies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
Yes he was. And NO I'm not being dishonest. You are not as informed as you think you are... Read the New York Times article that I posted, he cites a published a study that he conducted back in 2004
You changed from "Anthropogenic Global Warming believer" to 'luke warmer'. He called himself a "AGW skeptic" back then when he did that video. He isn't now. He also said some pretty ignorant things about the supposed 'climategate' and Mann's work that showed he didn't really know much about the methodology in climate science at the time or about Mann's work. You also seemed to be trying to diss Mann's work by using that video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
I am only aware that his study agreed with Mann's study. Not the Mann's methodology was beyond reproach.
"When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections." - Richard Muller 2011.
Last edited by Ceist; 12-08-2013 at 03:05 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
