Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[bj229r]

Well, it appears we've naught to worry about...this guy has figured the whole thing out
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516286

Qing Bin-Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy at Canada's University of Waterloo, is a believer in the value of drawing conclusions from observable data and not from selective data fed into computer models that are based on false assumptions and include "fudge factors."

In a peer-reviewed paper published in the prestigious online journal Physics Reports, Lu, who holds a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Newcastle, reports that CFCs, the compounds once widely used as refrigerants, and cosmic rays, which are energy particles originating in outer space, are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Lu puts the start of the cooling trend at 2002 and writes that "the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."

From 1850 to 1950, Lu notes, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the Industrial Revolution; the global temperature stayed constant or rose only 0.1 degree Celsius.

"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases ... decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."

Other reputable scientists have also predicted decades of cooling ahead to, er, varying degrees and for varying reasons. Earth's climate is affected by many things and is more complicated than the CRU computer models.

Hmmm...we squashed the CFC's because we thought they were killing the ozone layer, and we accidentally fixed global warming?

[batch]

the part I like most about the article is "peer reviewed" which means no alarmist can dispute it............ since they say "peer review" means absolute fact (I would have to guess these arent the same peers who conspired to deceive the world with this MMGW nonsense to begin with)

[E25280]

Right, but only under certain conditions.  You say we have such a small amount of co2 in the atmosphere, but how do you know exactly how much is too much?  Ten percent is lethal to humans, and I can't imagine how two or three percent wouldn't put a strain on our bodies.

A few percent more oxygen was in the atmosphere 65 million years ago.  This allowed dinosaurs to walk the earth, if we saw a similar increase in co2, don't you think we would see ill effects?  Our biological reactions with surprisingly small amounts of chemicals.  To throw off that balance would most certainly be harmful.

Just some thoughts,

-Penguin

We aren't talking about a few percentages increase in CO2.  We are talking about a change of a few hundreths of a percent.  That's right -- all the alarm is about hundreths of a percent.

"We've doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere!!" say the alarmists.  But doubling miniscule is still miniscule.

Someone wake me when we reach an entire one-tenth of one percent CO2 concentration.

[CAP1]

No I would not.  The sun has been through about 20 cycles since the Industrial Revolution.  Although the first half of that data on climate is debatable, there is an obvious trend that extends between cycles upward with regard to temperature.  Solar output is not to blame for that, as it hasn't changed in average intensity. 

(Image removed from quote.)

what's the source for this chart? and where's the legend?

[Motherland]

what's the source for this chart? and where's the legend?

Right on the chart...

[CAP1]

Right on the chart...

DOH!

[spammer]

Everybody just needs to, "Exhale and die".

LOL

spammer

[gunnss]

Grin,
Apparently I am now among exalted company. That is, I write "Fiction" for money.  "Science Fiction".
Regards,
Kevin

[Shuffler]

... run the sky is falling   

[Penguin]

We aren't talking about a few percentages increase in CO2.  We are talking about a change of a few hundreths of a percent.  That's right -- all the alarm is about hundreths of a percent.

"We've doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere!!" say the alarmists.  But doubling miniscule is still miniscule.

Someone wake me when we reach an entire one-tenth of one percent CO2 concentration.

We've already passed that point.  We have gone there and three times over.  If the graph continues to show an exponentialy increasing amount of CO₂, we can see some very strange things going on.



As you can see, the curve is exponential.  And the end of that curve is past even y=x².  So as we keep pumping it in, we can see some pretty weird things happening.

Now just so I can figure this out, what exactly are bickering, err, debating about?  If it's Carbon Monoxide levels, those are still going up, up, up.  If it's Carbon Dioxide, that's going up exponentially.  If it's CFC's, we are doing quite well at keeping them at low levels.

Even if oil can form abiologically, we will still require too much in other forms to just burn it.  It's like burning sweaters (polyester), or vaccine syringes.  Why destroy what we can use for useful things? We can't just burn it, this stuff is black gold- we can use it for a better purpose than just setting it on fire.
 
If there is a chance that we are destroying the only planet we have, why take it?  I mean if we had Mars and terraforming to fall back on, to heck with it!  If we only have one, we should take care of it.  What I'm saying is that burning oil can't just possibly wreck our environment, it can leave us without a survival asset.

-Penguin

[CAP1]

We've already passed that point.  We have gone there and three times over.  If the graph continues to show an exponentialy increasing amount of CO₂, we can see some very strange things going on.

(Image removed from quote.)

As you can see, the curve is exponential.  And the end of that curve is past even y=x².  So as we keep pumping it in, we can see some pretty weird things happening.

Now just so I can figure this out, what exactly are bickering, err, debating about?  If it's Carbon Monoxide levels, those are still going up, up, up.  If it's Carbon Dioxide, that's going up exponentially.  If it's CFC's, we are doing quite well at keeping them at low levels.

Even if oil can form abiologically, we will still require too much in other forms to just burn it.  It's like burning sweaters (polyester), or vaccine syringes.  Why destroy what we can use for useful things? We can't just burn it, this stuff is black gold- we can use it for a better purpose than just setting it on fire.
 
If there is a chance that we are destroying the only planet we have, why take it?  I mean if we had Mars and terraforming to fall back on, to heck with it!  If we only have one, we should take care of it.  What I'm saying is that burning oil can't just possibly wreck our environment, it can leave us without a survival asset.

-Penguin

because we're not destroying our planet.

now, if someone were to push the red button...then we might hurt her.....just a little. we'd all be gone though.

[Penguin]

You misread my post. 

I said that if there is a chance that we may be roasting our environment (pun

intended), why should be continue burning the stuff that we think is doing it (petroleum products).  We need petroleum for so many other important things.  Such as:

• Food packaging
  
• Medicine delivery (catheters, IV tubes)
  
  • Vaseline (Medical lubrication for procedures)
    
  • Syringes for vaccines (If we don't have that, say hello to 50% plus infant mortality rates)
    
    • PVC pipes for plumbing in hospitals
      
    • Farming equipment
  If we don't have those things, we're screwed.  Why burn the stuff that makes them up, and if it puts out noxius gasses, burning becomes especially dangerous!
  
  -Penguin

[CAP1]

You misread my post. 

I said that if there is a chance that we may be roasting our environment (pun

intended), why should be continue burning the stuff that we think is doing it (petroleum products).  We need petroleum for so many other important things.  Such as:

• Food packaging
  
• Medicine delivery (catheters, IV tubes)
  
  • Vaseline (Medical lubrication for procedures)
    
  • Syringes for vaccines (If we don't have that, say hello to 50% plus infant mortality rates)
    
    • PVC pipes for plumbing in hospitals
      
    • Farming equipment
  If we don't have those things, we're screwed.  Why burn the stuff that makes them up, and if it puts out noxius gasses, burning becomes especially dangerous!
  
  -Penguin
  

we can(i believe) make most everything you've mentioned from synthetic oil products.

 having the infrastructure requires us to burn fuel. nothing moves without it.

 i personally would like to see hydrogen fuel cells move forward, for what it's worth. [/list][/list]

[Penguin]

Then the question becomes, where do we get the synthetic oil from? 

having the infrastructure requires us to burn fuel. nothing moves without it.

That statement is a non-sequitur.  Having an infrastructure does not require the combustion of fuel.  If we can build bullet trains, freight can be moved without burning a single drop of fuel.  The third point in your argument is simply a falsehood, as there are many other forms of transportation used (subway system, trams).

-Penguin

[CAP1]

Then the question becomes, where do we get the synthetic oil from? 

That statement is a non-sequitur.  Having an infrastructure does not require the combustion of fuel.  If we can build bullet trains, freight can be moved without burning a single drop of fuel.  The third point in your argument is simply a falsehood, as there are many other forms of transportation used (subway system, trams).

-Penguin

the electricity for these trains comes from somewhere. windmills don't provide enough. there's still fuel burnt to produce electricity.

 once the train gets to a depot, then the product still needs to go from there to the end user. this requires trucks. trucks burn fuel.

how is hydrogen a falsehood?