MERGED Great Climate Change Swindle, who is trying to swindle who?

Do you mean the American public or the American goverment/s ?.
As i think they are quite ahead of a lot of countries as far as research goes http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport07.html
http://www.gcrio.org/new.htm etc etc . Is it not their [a vast majority anyway] scientific equipment [in space] ?. Giving us all the data that we use for the scientific models.

It seems you mean the American 'general public' judging by your further remarks.

The thing i'd not like to buy into so quickly [but do] is the point that WE are to blame. I can't fathom how 100 years of human action has caused such a swing in the temp' . More likely in my tiny mind is that it is 'natural'. i'l have to read all the links and have a revelation i think. It just seems that we are discovering millions of years worth of data and are attempting to resolve what the hell is going on. How can a few decades worth of data be considered long enough to have a complete understanding of what and who is to blame *shrugs shoulders*.
Is it some kind of paradigm shift - like plate tectonics 30/40 years or so ago ?.

The whole scientific world goes: aghh yes we seem to be the blame for all of this current activity.

 

Yes, obviously I meant the american public / media. And obviously I was generalising hideously. They just seem to be having the debate that we had here a decade ago. "An Inconvenient Truth" for instance was aimed solely at people who just didn't have any idea about the science of climate change which many of us in Europe have been aware of for a very long time. I guess the disinformation campaign has been much stronger in the States.

And well, "a few decades of data" is extended back in the ice core record for hundreds of thousands of years. If you look at the ~34% increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750 (well above natural variability), and couple that with the 'greenhouse effect' - a question of basic physics which has been understood since about 1824 - it seems pretty blatantly obvious that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will have a significant effect on global climate.

Anyway, probably not the place to go through these details again, I would recommend reading the IPCC 2007 summary: link to a pdf.

 

Channel 4 is full of car adverts regardless of content.

 

Most scientists agree that water vapor is the greatest contributor to climate change. And that the CO2 factor is minimal.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Car exhaust like second hand smoke is a smoke screen. It may be politically expedient, but it is not scientifically sound.

Uh, no, water vapor is not contributing significantly or even insignificantly to climate change. Anyone that would suggest otherwise doesn't have the slightest idea of how the atmosphere works. Water vapor is only so soluble in the atmosphere. If there gets to be "too much" it rains. Thus, the effect of water vapor on the greenhouse effect and on climate is almost constant--it cannot drive a change in climate. CO2 and many other greenhouse gases, however, can accumulate to much higher concentrations and can cause a change in climate. I see you got this flawed information from "junkscience"...the name is fitting

Most plants and animal life give off CO2, not just automobiles and power plants.

Most plants and animals do not give off CO2, all of them do. Plants (and other CO2 fixers--not just plants/algae in the ocean) also take up CO2, and as it turns out they take up a lot more than they give off, hence they can grow and reproduce. When they are eaten or decompose the excess CO2 they have taken out of the atmosphere is returned to the atmosphere. The effect of the biosphere on atmospheric CO2 is nill--they draw down and release CO2 at the same rate, causing no net change. Burning fossil fuels causes a net increase since CO2 is added to the atmosphere from carbon that was in geologic storage. There are not mechanisms in place to absorb much of this excess CO2, so it accumulates. Hence, we are adding about 3 - 6 uatm of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, and the rate of increasing is rising.

Those houseplants in your appartments are giving off CO2. Why not outlaw and them? Frankly CO2 has a place in the living world, it's not wrong or right it's an effect of life.

http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050317hutchison.htm

Because they suck up more CO2 than they release, causing a net reduction in atmospheric CO2....

cj

 

i new you could keepem on the run! all these different threads are messin with my mind! posts keep getting deleated or moved, its hard to remember what was where!!! jeeshsh! lol, i am realy concernd about some of what you quoted above, there are pepole thinking that the life forms that made our atmospher liveable should be killed!!lol ! but its not funny at all that the proccess and products of photosynthisis is not common knowledge! is this not taught in school anymore???

 

now chris in another thread you said that you were involved in studying the acidification of the oceans, i read somewere that there were experiments being done to acidifi them because it was thought to exelerate or mak it more effieciant as a carbon sink but then the exp hit a wall and decreased in eff. i couldent quite understand it but have you heard of this and or be able to bring it to us (me) in laymans terms??PEACE!

 

flmkpr,

Hmmm, I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but let me conjecture a bit as to what you may have heard.

As CO2 dissolves into water it reacts with H2O producing carbonic acid (H2CO3). This causes the pH of the water to drop. This is very concerning because many marine organisms such as corals (which build coral reefs), coccolithophores (phytoplankton responsible for much of the primary production in the ocean), pterapods (very important zooplankton food for larger organisms), and many, many other organisms produce hard skeletons out of calcium carbonate (they calcify). In a more acidic ocean it may be substantially more difficult for many if not all of these organisms to build their skeletons (the reasons for this are not entirely understood and some organisms may be more sensitive than others depending on how they calcify--that's what I work on), potentially leading to a cascade of problems.

For example, if corals can no longer grow fast enough coral reefs will actually starting eroding and dissolving away instead of growing, destroying the most ecologically diverse marine habitat. If coccolithophores can no longer build proper coccoliths they may be at risk to all kinds of physical and ecological problems, disrupting the ecology/food webs of the ocean in every way imaginable. If pterapods can no longer build proper shells we could see similar effects. These are potentially very serious and long-lasting consequences for the marine environment that, if bad enough, could lead to dramatic changes in the ecology of the oceans and perhaps outright collapse of many ecosystems.

On possible strategy for reducing atmospheric CO2 that has been discussed is to capture CO2 emitted from power plants (presumably we'd go over to electrical power for pretty much everything and thus generate all our energy needs at the plant) and inject this CO2 directly into deep underground caverns and into the deep ocean (down a few km). The CO2 would dissolve into the water in the ocean, but eventually much of this CO2 would come back to the atmosphere anyway as this deep water is eventually circulated to the surface (it takes about 600 yrs for surface water to sink in the North Atlantic and upwell in the North Pacific). So, we'd reduce atmospheric CO2 for a while by dumping the CO2 deep in the ocean, but eventually most of it will come right back up. Thus, this isn't and can't be a long-term fix of the problem. Also, we can be pretty well assured that almost everything on the ocean floor where we are pumping the CO2 will be killed (they've tried this on a small scale and surely enough, the super-high CO2 water kills pretty much everything it touches). Considering that this is not a long-term fix, I can't see this as a viable option. It would buy us time, but wouldn't fix the problem indefinitely, and may well devestate communities on the ocean floor.

So, by injecting CO2 right into the deep ocean we acidify it rapidly, but the water will only hold so much CO2 and eventually will put most of it into the atmosphere anyway.

If that's not what you were referring to then I'm not quite sure what you meant and would need more details

Chris

 

ok i got it wrong the experiment involved adding iron to create alge blooms to create larger carbon sinks? http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0402/feature5/online_extra.html this is the article i was reading the iron thing is in the last few paragraphs im just having a hard time keeping every thing i read in a synergistic perspective plus i have a recall problem i dont often forget i just cant recall it acuratly lol. my apolagies!! but a interesting article none the less! peace!

 

hehe i just learnd how to use my clipbord for links ya now if i can remember next time ill be doing good!! hehe!

 

Hi flmkpr,


Iron fertilization of the southern ocean (and a few other spots) definitely "works" in-so-far as it causes a pretty substantial phytoplankton bloom. Most of this increased production ends up decomposing above the thermocline and very little (maybe 1%) actually makes it to the ocean floor. An even smaller portion (maybe 0.1%) actually gets buried and thereby sequestered. There's very little reason to think that this could significantly draw down atmospheric CO2 and permanently sequester it, and even the proponents of this method acknowledge that it would, at best, buy us a few years at current rates of production--it wouldn't ameliorate the problem. We also don't know how big the impact on the ocean floor could be, but since water is renewed fairly slowly (every 600 yrs or so) there is reason to think that we could see hypoxia or anoxia over large areas of the deep ocean, leading to a dead zone the likes of which humanity has never seen before. For these reasons I don't think this is a good option. We would be trading very meager benefits for, potentially, very large costs.

Chris

 

this gw is just another scam designed to consume your energies and attention that should focus on the real problems of the world, generated by people who put the love for power and material things above the love for their kind.

you have below the temperature records since 1880, as provided on the NASA, an organisation financed by the same people that spend 10 billion usd a year on gw issues. so this should support their claims. but it's not...

what you can see there is that from 1910 to 1940 the temperature raise was pretty much the same as in the last 30 years.
also you can see some significant decreases between 1940 and 1980, although in that period cars were much more polluting and fuel consuming than today. the industry was growing as always.
around 1900 there were about 1 billion ppl on this planet, now we are 6 billion, the growth is exponential, not linear, as the temperature growth.
so it's obvious the graphic doesn't follow at all the human race evolution, has nothing to do with it.
history shows indeed there were times when the British territories were enjoying pretty much same climate as southern Spain today and there was solid agriculture in Groenland.
i would sacrifice to the sea a few feet from the beaches and some polar ice to be able to grow oranges in my yard and see some poor kids smiling because the taxes weren't spent on bombs and false flags.
hundreds times more people die because of anti-gw politics than because CO2.
think for yourselves, don't let governmental media think for you!
NASA GRAPHS

 

this gw is just another scam designed to consume your energies and attention that should focus on the real problems of the world, generated by people who put the love for power and material things above the love for their kind.

I have a love for power and material things above my love for other people? That's news to me. Please explain to me how solving this problem will bring me power?

you have below the temperature records since 1880, as provided on the NASA, an organisation financed by the same people that spend 10 billion usd a year on gw issues. so this should support their claims. but it's not...

Huh? Have you ever seen the predicted temperatures for the last century from climate models over that last 20 years? The trends are pretty much spot-on.

what you can see there is that from 1910 to 1940 the temperature raise was pretty much the same as in the last 30 years.

In the US or worldwide? The temperature increase worldwide has been a fair amount faster from 1980 - present than 1910 - 1940 (about 0.5 C in 25 years rather than about 0.3 C in 30 years). This is also a slower rate of warming than we expect over this century if we don't change our activities (about 3.5 C in 100 years).

also you can see some significant decreases between 1940 and 1980, although in that period cars were much more polluting and fuel consuming than today. the industry was growing as always.

So, a 0.2 C cooling over 40 years is significant cooling, but 0.5 C of warming in 25 years is not significant warming? Please explain that one to me. Also, during that period atmospheric CO2 was much, much lower than it is now, and so was industrial production. All the climate models predict slight cooling during this period, as observed.

around 1900 there were about 1 billion ppl on this planet, now we are 6 billion, the growth is exponential, not linear, as the temperature growth.
so it's obvious the graphic doesn't follow at all the human race evolution, has nothing to do with it.

Agreed. Human population is affecting climate indirectly, not directly. What matters is atmospheric CO2 and other climate forcers. This is related to human population, but only indirectly.

history shows indeed there were times when the British territories were enjoying pretty much same climate as southern Spain today and there was solid agriculture in Groenland.

Please provide references. Britain experienced warm weather around 900 - 1300 AD, but they were never as warm as southern Spain is now. Yes, Greenland had agriculture (I assume you mean Greenland) and it failed miserably. People struggled along for awhile, but it was never particularly successful. Vikings did the same thing everywhere they settled regardless of local climate, and in many places they failed miserably.

i would sacrifice to the sea a few feet from the beaches and some polar ice to be able to grow oranges in my yard and see some poor kids smiling because the taxes weren't spent on bombs and false flags.

If the only sacrifices were a few feet worth of beaches we wouldn't be talking about this. Also, how do you think those poor kids are going to fair when tropical diseases become common in the temperate zones? How do you think they'll fair when the cost of food jumps? How do you think they'll fair when everyone's cost of living increases? The poor around the world have the most to lose from climate change.

hundreds times more people die because of anti-gw politics than because CO2.

Let's see those calculations.

think for yourselves, don't let governmental media think for you!
NASA GRAPHS

Agreed.

Chris

 

brother, if you really are in search for truth, not for defending a cause twisting phrases and missinterpreting them, like a lawyer, you search for the figures for yourself, you take a better look at the graphics, find out the "tropical diseases" are tropical because most tropical countries are poor and their national budgets are sometimes half the money us spend on gw, and there were european countries devastated by malaria and other diseases, check history around year 100 too, and in the end make sure your tax money end up where they belong! (which, by the way, if you live in us you should know there's no law saying you got to pay taxes for your profits, but yet they scam you every year).

you turn this into a "let's take it outside" kind of "debate", i'm not in. this is not between you and me. this is beyond you and me.
if this is how you like to spend your time on the internet, go on, but some people die every day because they are denied access to their resources in the name of a fake cause like gw. this stinky false flag keeps busy hundreds of thousands of people who should better work on taking care of the poor, disabilitated or ill.
thousands of scientists drag tax money to projects that won't ever stop nature following its path, instead of helping the same needy people.
and you support this genocide! next time you adress me, make sure your eyes are not blurred by tv pixels.
bye!

 

I'm not taking a "let's take it outside" styleof debate, I simply responded to the points you raised. All I ask is that you support your position. You haven't provided any support for your position.

Yes, I certainly support and in fact conduct the scientific research you call "genocide." We greedy scientists certainly do enjoy taking money away from all the needy. I mean, afterall, we do in fact get our grant money by robbing the poor people in other countries. Sure, we've used this money to produce modern medicine, modern agriculture (which feeds most of the world's population), and countless live-saving technologies, but we shan't talk about that.

Chris

 

WTF... anti-global warming? A genocide?!?! The guy is out of his mind!

 

^^why The Fuck Hasnt This Been Deleted?

 

Hellooooo?

 

Delete the smegging porn!