General Climate Discussion

[Angus]

Would you please find a source for that. For now we are burning many times as much carbon as 100 years ago.
Here is something I found, now beat me:

As for the "theory", it looks pretty much like reality to me, and I confess that I actually use it for my benefit, so do many others.

[Angus]

Oh, and as for the dreaded volcanoes, well, once upon a time, they raised CO2 levels to insane numbers, and caused incredible greenhouse effect. That was not so nice, but it was many many millions of years ago. But today, as Wiki puts it:
" In the modern era, emissions to the atmosphere from volcanoes are only about 1% of emissions from human sources.[12][13]"

Go google greenhouse gases and read some, instead of stating nonsense over and over.

[Jackal1]

I recommend you seriously look into http://realclimate.org/ to start out with.  It's filled with climatologists that actually DO the work, not just claim to, which you can look up, and actually check the numbers.

Now that is some rich stuff right there. 
There is quite possibly more controversy and unanswered questions dealing with realclimate.org than any such site on the web.
Polish that statue.

Here a a couple of my favorite comments concerning this site.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nir Shaviv on "More Slurs from RealClimate.org"


Realclimate.org continues with its same line of attack. Wishfulclimate.org writers try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them.

A recap. According to realclimate.org, everything my "skeptic" friends and I say about the effect of cosmic rays and climate is wrong. In particular, all the evidence summarized in the box below is, well, a figment in the wild imagination of my colleagues and I. The truth is that the many arguments trying to discredit this evidence simply don't hold water. The main motivation of these attacks is simply to oppose the theory which would remove the gist out of the arguments of the greenhouse gas global warming protagonists. Since there is no evidence which proves that 20th century warming is human in origin, the only logically possible way to convict humanity is to prove that there is no alternative explanation to the warming (e.g., see here). My motivation (as is the motivation of my serious colleagues) is simply to do the science as good as I can.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But here is my favorite. (Wish I could post the entire content of this one here.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

realclimate.org is not Real Climate…. Field Workers are not Field Marshalls.

Its got to be a power trip with these clowns.

If we could just deflate the egos of the specialists and were able to get straight answers from them we would have a good understanding of this climate deal in weeks.

I have the policy of still tending to trust these tax-eating science-workers in their specific field of specialization.

But this particular bunch of idiot-savants have gone further and they have set up a website for world spiritual and economic domination and they call this website REALCLIMATE.

None of these guys would be worthy to lick the souls of the feet of a real scientist.

[lazs2]

yep.. I was gonna link all the sites where scientists are saying it is all a hoax but it wouldn't affect moray in the least.. he is an acolyte of the high priest algore... He is a "scientist".. or so he says and he loves being in the limelight..   He loves the attention,

There is no scientific consensus on man made global warming.. the only "fact" is that even morays heros have moderated their hysteria on a dramatic scale.. the end of the world has been postponed...  a couple of cool years have shut them up.

As soon as we have a heat wave it will all start again.. as for now.. it is just the stuff that has already been jammed down our throats from the el nino years that we are paying for.. the policies of panic..  I don't really see much more being said or done about man made global warming.. the momentum of panic has pretty much run it's course.

I am thankful for that at least.   The hoax did make a lot of useless folks rich and famous and get a lot of grant money.   Hopefully.. it is about over.

lazs

[MORAY37]

yep.. I was gonna link all the sites where scientists are saying it is all a hoax but it wouldn't affect moray in the least.. he is an acolyte of the high priest algore... He is a "scientist".. or so he says and he loves being in the limelight..   He loves the attention,

There is no scientific consensus on man made global warming.. the only "fact" is that even morays heros have moderated their hysteria on a dramatic scale.. the end of the world has been postponed...  a couple of cool years have shut them up.

As soon as we have a heat wave it will all start again.. as for now.. it is just the stuff that has already been jammed down our throats from the el nino years that we are paying for.. the policies of panic..  I don't really see much more being said or done about man made global warming.. the momentum of panic has pretty much run it's course.

I am thankful for that at least.   The hoax did make a lot of useless folks rich and famous and get a lot of grant money.   Hopefully.. it is about over.

lazs

LOL...<snore>. Must have taken alot for you not to say "volcano" or "coal fire" in that post.  I don't want any attention at all... my work has about .5% to do with any sort of climate change.  Call me whatever you want.  We both know who has a better grasp of the physics.

You really believe scientists get rich with grant money.  Unreal.  You truly don't have a clue. 

[WWhiskey]

been a while since i have tried to find the source stuff!! try too find Tesla, test tubes sealed, air samples, new york city! I'm sure you wont believe any of what you find, but its there somewhere, they tested the air in the tubes against current air  for content say 10 years ago, carbon was quite a bit higher in old samples , as for me i must go to work! a polluting i will go , a polluting i will go , high ho a mary o  a polluting i will go

[lazs2]

moray...  and you can't read.. except for incestuous "scientific" papers.

I didn't say "got rich off of grant money"  I said "lot of useless folks rich and famous and get a lot of grant money"

Are you saying those things did not happen? that a bunch of unheard of (outside said incestuous groups) scientists did not get rich and famous and that they and others did not get a lot of grant money off this whole man made global warming hoax?

It is good to see that they have all toned down the lieing hysteria by about 100% over just a few years ago.

lazs

[Angus]

The grant money is usually no big money, but some "scientists" made good money from working for big oil money, where there is lots and lots.
There is also lots of useless folks...don't have to have a science degree for that 

[Holden McGroin]

The grant money is usually no big money, but some "scientists" made good money from working for big oil money, where there is lots and lots.

"grants global climate change" =  1,530,000 hits on Google.

To say that money sways only in the direction of big oil is not facing reality.

The foundation’s five-year, $100 million Climate Change Initiative seeks to
accelerate the development and deployment of climate-friendly technologies that will
reduce the threat of global warming to people and the environment. - Doris Duke Fdn

Small awards may be up to $150,000, in total, dispersed over a period of up to 2 years. Larger awards may be up to $500,000, in total, dispersed over a period of up to 3 years. -- NASA’s GCCE

William T. Cooper, a professor of analytical and environmental chemistry in the department of chemistry and biochemistry, have received a research grant in the amount of $493,448 from the National Science Foundation to study the carbon balance in Minnesota's peatlands—a possible indicator of climate changes brought on by global warming.

Money has the ability to corrupt science regardless of politics.

To know which side your bread is buttered on is an old saying which acknowleges this.

[Angus]

So it goes both ways. A bribe is a bribe. Göbbels is Göbbels.
So, why would big oil offer a ton of money to someone who is supposed to stand up and deny GW????
And why would a government grant somebody to study GW????
Beats me....

[Holden McGroin]

So it goes both ways. A bribe is a bribe. Göbbels is Göbbels.
So, why would big oil offer a ton of money to someone who is supposed to stand up and deny GW????

Because it affects their business, obviously.

And why would a government grant somebody to study GW????
Beats me....

Let's see...

In the State of Oregon, I can get a tax incentive and grants from the Oregon Energy Trust (a nonprofit gatherer and disseminate of public funds, the beginning of which was passed by Ore Senate Bill 1149) that drop the cost of installing PV panels on my roof from appx $8 / watt to about $6 / watt. 

Oregon also passed a law that allows me to turn the electric meter backwards and send excess energy back to the grid.  The state said that during an energy year, March to March, I could bank the excess PV generation during the summer, and use it during the winter. 

So apparently the State wants me to put green energy on my roof.

Then, state law says if I generate less than I use, I buy at market rates from the utility. If I generate more than I use, I give it away for free to the low income assistance energy program.

So a 1500 or 2000 watt system could electrify my house, and I could pay it off in 10 or 12 years, but any amount over that would never bring any value.   

Apparently the state wants me to put up only what I need personally and not one watt more. Being a net producer of green energy is frowned upon.

Why does a government do something?

Logic is not the first answer that should come to mind.

[Overlag]

why is it you believers only post "charts" that support your views?

ie from the little ice age to now?...... well DUH of coarse its hotter. Coming out of an ice age, into "normal" is gona look like a massive increase isnt it? 




Maybe im gona make up a graph of ONLY the last 3 years weather to prove my point that we've infact LOST 3c over this period.... At least it would support my claim.

[MORAY37]

why is it you believers only post "charts" that support your views?

ie from the little ice age to now?...... well DUH of coarse its hotter. Coming out of an ice age, into "normal" is gona look like a massive increase isnt it? 




Maybe im gona make up a graph of ONLY the last 3 years weather to prove my point that we've infact LOST 3c over this period.... At least it would support my claim.

Might help if you reference what "chart" you are attacking.  Maybe I'm just going to assume you're a special education child.... your post above would support that claim.

IF you are referencing the chart at the top of this page...(which I must assume, since it is the most recent to your assault, and there is not another chart within 4 pages of this post)  you might want to take a minute and figure out what it's talking about.  It's showing CO2 rise, not temperature.  IF and only IF that is the chart you are referencing, then my claim that you are a special education child is further strengthened.  As well, the ice age did not end in 1750, no matter how revisionist you may be. 


 

[MORAY37]

been a while since i have tried to find the source stuff!! try too find Tesla, test tubes sealed, air samples, new york city! I'm sure you wont believe any of what you find, but its there somewhere, they tested the air in the tubes against current air  for content say 10 years ago, carbon was quite a bit higher in old samples , as for me i must go to work! a polluting i will go , a polluting i will go , high ho a mary o  a polluting i will go

Testing within that environment would skew the results. Direct CO2 observation isn't done within those confines, as the proximity of the main producers of carbon are directly within the test area, therfore ruining it's statistical weight.

[Angus]

Holden, the state of Oregon should perhaps adapt the Icelandic system. If I would for instance put up a few windmills for generation and produce more energy than I use, I'd be selling it to the grid.
However there are no subventions for the investment.

About the oil companies, - obviously they pay people for the propoganda because the GW issue is affecting their business. After all, they want to sell as much as possible and make as much profit as possible.
However, when it comes down to governments and scientists from many different fields, there is no particular goal or benefit for studying GW, - well yet there is one. Concern.