Why skeptics must heed climate change

[Chimney]

Why panic over global warming is probably phooey:

1. We are already hitting peak oil, at the same time as demand from the huge emerging economies of India, China, and Southeast Asia is skyrocketing. The recession is a temporary relief in oil terms. The price will be back up very soon.

2. It will be difficult for supply to increase at the required rate to meet demand.

3. Oil will become expensive relative to emerging alternatives. For example solar power is halving in cost on a Moore's Law type curve. Soon many of us will be charging our Teslas from the garage roof solar panels.

4. No government interference is required to "manage" this process.

5. Fourth generation, low cost and super safe nuclear power plants are a reality and are cost effective.

6. In the context of oil, cheaper sources such as algae bio-fuel etc are all under development.

In other words, let progress rip, let the free market do its job, and CO2 emissions will decline anyway.

There is only one valid reason for govt involvement and that is the strategic threat of oil dependence on unstable and hostile regimes.

[Bob Burns]

Chimney wrote:

Why panic over global warming is probably phooey:
1. We are already hitting peak oil, at the same time as demand from the huge emerging economies of India, China, and Southeast Asia is skyrocketing. The recession is a temporary relief in oil terms. The price will be back up very soon.
2. It will be difficult for supply to increase at the required rate to meet demand.
3. Oil will become expensive relative to emerging alternatives. For example solar power is halving in cost on a Moore's Law type curve. Soon many of us will be charging our Teslas from the garage roof solar panels.
4. No government interference is required to "manage" this process.
5. Fourth generation, low cost and super safe nuclear power plants are a reality and are cost effective.
6. In the context of oil, cheaper sources such as algae bio-fuel etc are all under development.
In other words, let progress rip, let the free market do its job, and CO2 emissions will decline anyway.
There is only one valid reason for govt involvement and that is the strategic threat of oil dependence on unstable and hostile regimes.

Yes. End all subsidies and tariffs/quotas on all energy products/technologies. Lift the eco-terrorists inspired restrictions on nukes. Not sure about "peak oil", maybe, maybe not. We got 1000 years of coal tho

[Chimney]

Bob Burns wrote:

<quoted text>Yes. End all subsidies and tariffs/quotas on all energy products/technologies. Lift the eco-terrorists inspired restrictions on nukes. Not sure about "peak oil", maybe, maybe not. We got 1000 years of coal tho

Well we have made some progress. No more crucifixion?

Peak oil is controversial but it seems that geologists who know what they are talking about are concerned. New finds like Brazil, though large, look like being very expensive to develop.

And thats the point, yes? New forms of energy will eclipse the old as the economics dictate, not according to the whims of politicians. The cost of oil is inexorably rising, and the cost of alternatives is falling.

Coal is cheap...but nobody sane is saying that we have to completely eliminate CO2 emission.

[Brian_G]

Peak oil is a myth, oil production is still increasing. More than half the US continental shelf has been off limits to exploration and production for the past thirty years, we have no idea how much oil is down there.

End the ban, sell development options to China in return for our debt, and get our children out of hock.

Drill here, drill now and explore everywhere. We can develop new oil cleaner than the countries who supply our imports. For the sake of the world environment, end the ban on expanded offshore exploration and production.

[Queue]

The Earth warms up, the Earth cools down. Done this since the beginning. Will do this until the end. The difference we make is about the equivalent of a hair on a gnats a$$.

Let us not be so arrogant as to think we can affect climate change nearly as much as the sun or the orbital wobble..........

Get over it already, we are not that mighty..........

[Brian_G]

CO2 is a tiny bit of climate, like the USB hub on your PC. The system has been running longer than Windows 95; I wouldn't panic about some fossil fuel. It's been in the air before; we are merely putting it back. In the four billion years of evolution, life has used fossil resources before; we are just doing it again.

Don't panic.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Dirtling is the only troll I know that can be confused and baffled by the logic of:

If A, then A.

Must be something in his medications?

[Earthling]

Chimney wrote:

Yes, higher CO2 concentrations may make plants grow, but they also might heat the planet up and put a lot of land underwater, create a lot of deserts, and cause more hurricanes etc.

"May, might," meaningless words.
Climate will change, but very slowly, so slowly you won't notice it in your lifetime, neither will your children or granchildren.

Chimney wrote:

And, if they do, then going back to the original point, there is an issue of property and property damage.

That isn't an issue worth considering.

Chimney wrote:

What p&$$ing me off is that on both sides are people who are religiously believing what they WANT to believe.
As an AR supporter and free market capitalist you don't WANT to believe that CO2 might have deleterious effects.

It doesn't matter a damn what anyone believes, because it will change nothing.

Chimney wrote:

On the other side are a bunch of asses that will delight in the idea that AGW will discredit capitalism and give them an excuse for control.

That might take a while.

Chimney wrote:

The THIRD option is that CO2 might have some deleterious effects but we stick to our guns in defending free market capitalism as the only way to solve the issue effectively. THAT is the path that AR would endorse.

We shall see.

[Brian_G]

Fossil calcium helps make mountains, that has an effect on climate. Fossil carbon is our duty. It's good luck, emit enough and no ice age. I'm all for it.

[tina anne]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Dirtling is the only troll I know that can be confused and baffled by the logic of:
If A, then A.
Must be something in his medications?

Then try looking in the mirror. I have seen many who are easily baffled by simple scientific concepts.

[tina anne]

Bob Burns wrote:

<quoted text>CO2 is the opposite of a pollutant. It makes plants bigger and stronger, thus greening the planet. Am I against real actual toxic pollutants? Yes. This whole AGW thing is a shameless scam, based of the ignorance of sheeple, designed to promote poisonous socialism

Ran across this while looking up something else. The funny part is with more CO2 and other resources the flora of this planet will keep right on growing.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/04/s...

[albedodown]

Bob Burns wrote:

How many alarmists are obaminites?

How many deniers are threateners, stalkers, intimidators & racists? Can't get a complete answer....they are......deniers!!!!

Only the pukey proud deniers brag about their threats, stalkings, intimidations & racisms. That's right. Some are proud of their threats, stalkings, intimidations & racisms.

What a grand body of people to be the ones to say science doesn't know the right answers

[Meme Mine]

albedodown wrote:

<quoted text>
How many deniers are threateners, stalkers, intimidation & racists? Can't get a complete answer....they are......deniers!!!!
Only the pukey proud deniers brag about their threats, stalkings, intimidation & racism. That's right. Some are proud of their threats, stalkings, intimidation & racism.
What a grand body of people to be the ones to say science doesn't know the right answers

We feel your love for the planet and humanity.

Scientists have determined that solar wind generators are reducing the velocity levels of the global wind systems. These delicate and fragile and balanced forces of global currents of moving air structures have been slowing down to the point of no return,“maybe” according to very impressive looking paid consultants in really white lab coats. These same official scientific looking types of well paid advisers have predicted that the effects of lower airstream velocity levels (LAVL), on the planet include increased extreme weather events such as higher winds, maybe. Recent studies of the effects of AGWR ( Anthropogenic Global Wind Reduction), say the effects are unpredictable but their models and their guesses are almost certain and without any great amounts of doubt that the future of our planet may or may not be in danger now, soon or at least many hundreds of years from now to some point in the future, maybe.
World leaders are being encouraged to stretch the thin pasty skins of former Global Warming Enviros (GWEEBS for short or sometimes known as SUV Killing Greenzis), between the propellers of the wind generators. It may be too late at this point someone probably said, to attempt at slowing down the earth’s atmospheric winds and restoring global weather system stability for future generations. A do nothing approach is “doing nothing” as one leading climate modeler was compensated for saying.

[I Am DigitaP]

Chimney wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree that Hansen is on the "alarmist" end of the scale. Note that there are plenty of reputable scientists who do not doubt the reality of AGW, but argue that its effects are probably overstated for political reasons, and that we should continue to focus on economic growth and poverty reduction rather than adopt draconian policies that will make poverty worse.
I do not really understand all your "lens" stuff. The greenhouse effect is simply an increase in atmospheric opacity to the infrared wavelengths, causing the atmosphere to warm up when the surface re-radiates the energy it has absorbed from the sun.
NASA satellite observations show warming. Stars twinkle - its a very subjective effect to try to measure.

There were two, big, atmospheric science scares in global warming. The very first big scare was atmospheric: the last one has been. They both involve the region of the atmosphere where there's a thin layer of CO2 at the very top of the lower section of the atmosphere: you've got the troposphere and the stratosphere. The reason they have, two separate names, marked at X point, is that thin layer of CO2 which WAS believed to be a sort of very sensitive trigger... more a valve control; is there.

The first scare came with a general "all CO2 is bad cause we're making a whole lot" and the kicker: this area of separation of the warmer and colder part of the atmosphere is divided by this CO2 layer and it was getting more CO2 in it. He said it could change the ratio of heat out to heat in.

We waited. it got hotter but no signatures of high atmospheric heat. No thermal sensors then later with ever more refined infra red cameras we scanned from above and there was no heat appearing at the kick-back point's most potent point: the equator.

Additionally since the earth's atmosphere is like .. a dome sort of, lowest at poles highest at equator due to spin slinging it out flatter, ALL NET ADDED HEAT would LEAD TO A HOT SPOT as the general, well-mixed heat, inevitably convected upward generally, over time. It didn't happen so they lied and said nobody understood.

They then finally: Gavin Schmidt at UnRealClimate - he's the Loon Platoon mouthpiece: he wrote up a little article and put it on his website saying - after years of having that mandatory missing parameter - "well see, it .. really.. IS there.. you just can't see it." He just said.. basically, "stop listening to 'them', I told you it's there." When the very HEAT he was claiming was enough to warm the world, wasn't even convecting upward enough sum, to drizzle a warm band upward around the equator: much LESS have ORIGINATED AT the equator.

So: couple of years ago NASA reported for the first time, this section, the top of the troposphere's thin CO2 layer, jumped in thickness to nearly a thousand feet at the equator where it had been about five hundred feet thick. Jim Hansen said the end was near and for everybody to kiss the kids and round up the deniers.

But no heating happened up there. For the SECOND TIME.

So now, those global warmers don't like to hear about that because if it's not happening we're back to normal processing of the CO2 we put out, and if you think "oh, you just don't undersstand," I'd suggest you ponder this:
The margin of error
in estimating the CO2 cycle per year of the oceans: is larger than all mankind's CO2 emissions.
The margin of error. Not, the oceans. The oceans' margin of error.

And people talk about how HALF - about half our output's considered 'excess' needs to be cut out or the world's gonna spin out...

Ponder this: it's the old joke but you can see i'm not hamming it up: c.o.w. f.a.r.t.s equal all mankind's transportation CO2.

But half of our CO2; is gonna flip the world and we need to dismantle civilization now.

I didn't know they'd completely stopped mentioning their lens ever

[Queue]

Brian_G wrote:

Fossil calcium helps make mountains, that has an effect on climate. Fossil carbon is our duty. It's good luck, emit enough and no ice age. I'm all for it.

And they say "Global Warming" - like it's a bad thing..........

[I Am DigitaP]

Chimney wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree that Hansen is on the "alarmist" end of the scale. Note that there are plenty of reputable scientists who do not doubt the reality of AGW, but argue that its effects are probably overstated for political reasons, and that we should continue to focus on economic growth and poverty reduction rather than adopt draconian policies that will make poverty worse.
I do not really understand all your "lens" stuff. The greenhouse effect is simply an increase in atmospheric opacity to the infrared wavelengths, causing the atmosphere to warm up when the surface re-radiates the energy it has absorbed from the sun.
NASA satellite observations show warming. Stars twinkle - its a very subjective effect to try to measure.

This is Original Global Warming: the "it's sooo complicated your not a climatologist" global warming.

I dont' like to spam links but that's the breaks this time. I looked for an image with explanation there used to be a lot more, till this last scare about the region expanding a thousand feet went south. Hansen freaked everybody out about that because it was supPOSED to be the thermostat of the world.

That's WHY there was such a big deal. It wasn't the entire troposphere expanded a thousand feet. THIS part did.

We'd been watching it for years it wasn't getting hot. Then he said it doubled and everybody went "oh shit this guy, finally got it right after all this shit he's taken?"

So everybody started checking the infra reds. If the infrared stripes RIGHT on or VERY near to the equator aren't appearing: it's a no go.

One becuase the atmosphere's domed and all accumulated net PLUS heat, has to eventually, start doing simple convection, if it gets real warm, for long, for REAL warm for any reason, eventually that heat'll drift up there. But if it was the global thermostat, this refractory CO2 lens layer: the REAL "Global Warming/Global Climate Change 'Mechanism'- the heat wouldn't be drifting up but SOURCED there.. I know i just wrote this before sorry.

Ok the guys site's just a mess but he describes the mechanism precisely as described by them, I read through it to check it, this guy is actually laying out, the "you're too stupid I don't have to answer your questions" original and still the real global change runaway feedback "bomb" hanging over all our heads.

Literally.

http://nov55.com/dispa.html

The ad revenue sites have been scrubbing global warming mechanisms i see. This model is THE model that was on the internet for 18ish years. They just started scrubbing last year or so.

[I Am DigitaP]

This is phrased incorrectly:
That's WHY there was such a big deal. It wasn't the entire troposphere expanded a thousand feet. THIS part did.

It should be, That's why there was such a big deal. It was THIS SECTION of the troposphere that expanded.

[Brian_G]

If we can keep up our carbon emissions, someday even the highest mountain peaks will be green. More food for all life on Earth, that's a good thing.

[Earthling]

tina anne wrote:

Ran across this while looking up something else. The funny part is with more CO2 and other resources the flora of this planet will keep right on growing.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/04/s...

An excellent and well worded piece that should make anyone stop and think that a future with more Co2 in the atmosphere will be more beneficial than harmful.

[Chimney]

I Am DigitaP wrote:

<quoted text>
This is Original Global Warming: the "it's sooo complicated your not a climatologist" global warming.
I dont' like to spam links but that's the breaks this time. I looked for an image with explanation there used to be a lot more, till this last scare about the region expanding a thousand feet went south. Hansen freaked everybody out about that because it was supPOSED to be the thermostat of the world.
That's WHY there was such a big deal. It wasn't the entire troposphere expanded a thousand feet. THIS part did.
We'd been watching it for years it wasn't getting hot. Then he said it doubled and everybody went "oh shit this guy, finally got it right after all this shit he's taken?"
So everybody started checking the infra reds. If the infrared stripes RIGHT on or VERY near to the equator aren't appearing: it's a no go.
One becuase the atmosphere's domed and all accumulated net PLUS heat, has to eventually, start doing simple convection, if it gets real warm, for long, for REAL warm for any reason, eventually that heat'll drift up there. But if it was the global thermostat, this refractory CO2 lens layer: the REAL "Global Warming/Global Climate Change 'Mechanism'- the heat wouldn't be drifting up but SOURCED there.. I know i just wrote this before sorry.
Ok the guys site's just a mess but he describes the mechanism precisely as described by them, I read through it to check it, this guy is actually laying out, the "you're too stupid I don't have to answer your questions" original and still the real global change runaway feedback "bomb" hanging over all our heads.
Literally.
http://nov55.com/dispa.html
The ad revenue sites have been scrubbing global warming mechanisms i see. This model is THE model that was on the internet for 18ish years. They just started scrubbing last year or so.

The argument in your link that existing CO2 would absorb all the available IR spectrum within a few metres is a strong one. Its information on that exact question that got me looking around sites like this. I wondered if there was a saturation level - and if already reached, how could further CO2 matter? Novak's article was interesting in this respect.

My enthusiasm for Novak diminished once I read a bit more of his writing. He makes some obvious scientific guffs and writes in a tone of fake certainty that is not characteristic of a real scientist.

For example he claims that 1 billion years ago terrestrial life was destroyed by a huge ice age, then claims dinosaurs were around "about this time" etc. Thats about 780 million years too early for the dinos, and about 600 million years too early for any terrestrial life.

This kind of sloppy writing does not create a lot of confidence. On the other hand, it was no surprise to see it, once he mentioned that the ocean system must be "intelligently designed". Ahh, the penny drops.

The hypothesis that warming is being driven by the oceans, from sources within the earth, is interesting and original. It makes some sense. However he has provided no evidence to support this hypothesis yet.