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.
Why don't they put windmills on top of cars? They could power electric motors, using the wind from the car driving down the road, and then they wouldn't need gas.
The problem with global warming is that there hasn't been any for the last 17 years. Temperatures increased for 150 - 100 years till about 2000, then they've been stable. They haven't decreased, which is why the last decade was the warmest of the last 60 or so, but they haven't increased, either.
And catastrophic weather events haven't increased, either. Tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, all are following historical patterns. Even the most recent IPCC report acknowledges this.
Whatever other promises he might have broken, Obama has kept one: He has halted the rise in sea levels. He is a real Canute. Projected sea level rises for the next century will be unobservable to the naked eye, the UN says. Or implies, since they won't come right out and say it.
The IPCC also revised down its estimate of the temperatures sensitivity to CO concentrations, which is a logarithmic function anyway and at some point must peter out completely.
It doesn't sound like climate change is much of a problem, except for those whose livelihoods depend on it.
Why don't they put windmills on top of cars? They could power electric motors, using the wind from the car driving down the road, and then they wouldn't need gas.
The problem with global warming is that there hasn't been any for the last 17 years. Temperatures increased for 150 - 100 years till about 2000, then they've been stable. They haven't decreased, which is why the last decade was the warmest of the last 60 or so, but they haven't increased, either.
And catastrophic weather events haven't increased, either. Tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, all are following historical patterns. Even the most recent IPCC report acknowledges this.
Whatever other promises he might have broken, Obama has kept one: He has halted the rise in sea levels. He is a real Canute. Projected sea level rises for the next century will be unobservable to the naked eye, the UN says. Or implies, since they won't come right out and say it.
The IPCC also revised down its estimate of the temperatures sensitivity to CO concentrations, which is a logarithmic function anyway and at some point must peter out completely.
It doesn't sound like climate change is much of a problem, except for those whose livelihoods depend on it.
I understand that everyone can take away anything they want from any data. Here are the basic facts.
1) If you look at world temperatures over the last 11,000 to 12,000 years. Outside of the last 100 years or so, there is really no relationship between CO2 and temperature whatsoever(and that could even be coincidental).
2) CO2 levels do track larger temperature changes over longer periods of time. CO2 levels always decline during ice ages, and rise after ice ages. At the peak of the ice ages CO2 levels have been about 190 ppm, and the peak of interglacials has been around 270 ppm.
3) As this statement explains, CO2 increased lagged behind temperature increases in Antarctica, and temperature increases in Antarctica preceded temperature changes in the northern hemisphere. "The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.
You are correct when you state that CO2 levels preceded temperature increases in Greenland. But you need to recognize that temperatures increased in Antarctica first, and the Antarctic ice core shows temperatures preceded the rise in CO2.
Secondly, we are currently at 400ppm, and it is highly unlikely that we won't go over 450ppm. If the last optimum saw temperatures 8C higher than today at CO2 ppm of less than 300. Then if your computer models were correct, global temperatures should rise much higher than that 8C increase. In fact, we would have to somehow reduce CO2 concentrations to ~280 ppm within a very short period of time. Otherwise we should have sea level rise of at least twenty feet over the next couple hundred years.
And even worse, most of the CO2 that has been released came from the ground. It would be impossible to sequester that CO2 in organic material(IE trees) even if we completely stopped using fossil fuels. And the increasing temperatures would mean more CO2 being released from ice and the ocean. That means getting rid of fossil fuels on its own is a waste of time, because it would still most likely leave us with CO2 concentrations well above 400 ppm.
To prevent temperature rise of at least 6 degrees Celsius, we would necessarily have to pump CO2 underground or store it in a solid state on a massive scale to get us back to ~270 ppm.
Of course that is the problem. If the computer models for CO2 were actually correct, not only have we already screwed ourselves regardless of our future consumption of fossil fuels. But temperatures should still be rising, and will continue to rise dramatically over the next few hundred years even if we disappeared completely.
But as we know, not only are temperatures not rising currently, or at anywhere near the predicted rates, but the obsession with CO2 is almost universally focused on fossil fuels. Very few seem to want to talk about the fact that even if we stopped using all fossil fuels tomorrow, that it would solve absolutely nothing.
If the CO2 models were accurate, and we were being consistent, our discussion should be entirely based around how to remove CO2 from the air. Because if we don't remove that CO2 from the air, we should still be screwed.
Which comes to a junction in the dialog. If we can only solve climate-change by "scrubbing" out CO2. And since we have the technology to scrub CO2 and other GHG's from the atmosphere. Then the discussion about climate-change could be completely directed there instead of obsessing about fossil fuels.
If we have to scrub CO2 in order to prevent climate-change, then we will be able to scrub it regardless of whether or not we add more CO2.
Which of course is why I hate the discussion about climate-change. It isn't a real intellectual discussion, it is all about politics, ideology, and money, it has nothing to do with fixing anything.
Of course, the obsession with CO2 is only important if we can prove with any certainty that CO2 is the primary driver of global-warming. If the models don't match up to reality, and predictions fall on their face as they largely already have. Then this whole discussion is basically pointless.
I'll leave you with this. They can take CO2 and Methane and turn them into plastic.
For me it's a simple as the folks coming up with the data lying about it and the folks pushing it getting richer by the minute by manipulating weak minded folks into buying the idea.
This is one of many many many proven cases of falsified data.
I believe we should take care of the earth out of respect for what she provides not because someone who wants to get richer pay off the people that come up with the data that convinces intellectually challenged people that it's true therefore taking theie money under the preface that something exists that doesn't.
These are the reports from the investigations that debunked the supposed 'climategate scandal' as conspiracy nonsense.
"there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data".
"The so-called “trick” was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
"The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt".
"found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
"The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
"Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
"there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
"In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data".
"no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".
"The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU."
"In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty--for example, Professor Jones's alleged attempt to "hide the decline"--we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that "global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity
Look, I don't think you've really tried to understand what I said. I was trying to explain why things are either not as bad as you believe, or they are much worse.
What I said is this. CO2 levels over the last 800,000 years have never exceeded 300 ppm. We are currently at 400 ppm.
If temperatures go hand-in-hand with CO2, then a CO2 level of 400 ppm means it should be much warmer than a CO2 level of 280 ppm.
Typically CO2 levels fluctuate from ~200 PPM in Glacial maximums to about ~300 ppm at the peak of interglacials. The difference in temperature from 200 to 300 ppm is has typically been about 12 degrees Celsius.
If an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 means a rise of 12 degrees Celsius. Then the current 400 ppm of CO2 should mean another 12 degree rise in temperature beyond the peak in temperature of the Eamian interglacial. That means a total temperature increase from today of about 15 to 20 degrees Celsius.
What that means is, based on the current CO2 models, regardless of whether or not we stabilize CO2 levels, it will not stabilize temperatures. In order to stabilize temperatures we would have to lower the current atmospheric CO2 levels from 400 ppm to less than 300 ppm.
Which is the problem. How would we lower our CO2 levels from 400 to 300 ppm? If we completely stopped using fossil fuels, would our atmospheric CO2 levels return to 300 ppm or less?
The problem is, current CO2 levels are driven by the burning of fossil fuels. Those fossil fuels were located in huge reservoirs under the ground. The current forests cannot sequester the additional CO2 from the atmosphere, they are already at peak capacity.
Which means to lower atmospheric CO2 back below 300 ppm, there is really only one option. We would have to sequester the CO2 somehow. Either by pumping it underground, pumping it to the bottom of the ocean, or by storing it in a solid state.
If we don't do that it doesn't matter whatsoever if we stop burning fossil fuels. It is already too late.
Which takes me to my real point. If we have to sequester CO2 to prevent the Earth from warming regardless of whether or not we burn any more fossil fuels. Then whether or not we burn additional fossil fuels isn't overly important. The only thing that actually matters is our ability to sequester CO2, and who should be paying for it.
Of course, this discussion only matters if it is actually true that CO2 has as important an impact on global temperatures as the computer models predict. If we understand that in Antarctica, the CO2 didn't rise until after the temperature rose. Then how much confidence do we really have that CO2 was the cause of past temperature increases?
Further, if we recognize that the temperature of the Earth doesn't seem to be nearly as responsive to CO2 as basically all the computer models have predicted(IE the temperature hasn't been increasing in nearly two decades). Then CO2 might be much much much weaker than we thought, and we need to reevaluate our entire position on climate-change.
My problem is this, poor people don't give a crap about global-warming. If the government decides to spend any amount of money to stave off global-warming, poor people will disproportionately suffer the most. Any tax on energy will be the equivalent of a regressive tax on poor people. They spend a larger share of their income on energy.
If you are going to make a policy proposal which will have the greatest negative impact on the most vulnerable people, you better as hell know with certainty that it is absolutely necessary.
Which is why I said that I believe that everyone should just shut up about global warming until the Earth is actually warming again. Listening to Obama and liberals talk about how it is acceptable to triple the cost of energy to make alternative-energy more cost-competitive, really pisses me off.
"The ‘temperature’ record is a hand-drawn schematic derived from the work of Chris Scotese, and the CO2 graph is from a model that uses tectonic and chemical weathering histories to estimate CO2 levels (Berner 1994; Berner and Kothavala, 2001). In neither case is there an abundance of measured data."
Which is why I said that I believe that everyone should just shut up about global warming until the Earth is actually warming again. Listening to Obama and liberals talk about how it is acceptable to triple the cost of energy to make alternative-energy more cost-competitive, really pisses me off.
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.
Worth a big rep. 
