So much for Global Warming

[fccool]

It's not even December yet. The forecast is a long and cold winter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-sweeps-UK.html

[Woody]

Like you say ... 'So much for global warming'. We are havin snow now. Crazy . And certainly not warming. Ha Ha What a hoax.

[Bravus]

Not even gonna bother

[fccool]

Come on... give it a try. I am always for open debate. It just does not sit well with me how global warming can cause severe winters.

[Bravus]

The global climate is an extremely complex system, so changes in one part of it cause changes in other parts in complex ways. In particular, huge currents in the oceans and the atmosphere distribute warmth around the globe. Disruption of those currents causes changed climate - as we see with the El Nino and La Nina effects with ocean current circulation in the South Pacific. For this reason, a net increase in global temperature will not lead to a simple and proportional net increase of temperature at all places and times. Rather, it will lead to disruption of existing climate patterns, leading to more extreme weather. So an unusually extreme winter may well be a consequence of global warming - the extra energy is here, it's just not evenly distributed. To measure global warming you have to average global temperature measurements, some of which will be cooler than average and some warmer... and the warmer will outweigh the cooler, which is what we actually observe.

[fccool]

I don't argue that we had temperature rising and dropping. You can't deny that.

Yet do you think it has more to do with the sun activity rather than with the carbon emition? Especially considering that 95% of all CO2 emissions are non-human in origin, and that there is very close relationship in sun spot cycles and temperature changes.

I guess, the most bewildering thought is that major thinktanks would run with this idea, in spite of the historical evidence proving otherwise. Nowhere in history did the global warming contributed to the climate changes that for example this article describes:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125713.300-one-degree-and-were-done-for.html

I would buy the Schuman resonance argument, yet I can't see how 1 degree change in temperature would bring about such catastrophic results. We are not talking about human body here.

[Bravus]

Those who do the science on such things say that the solar radiation changes are a significant but small part of the effect: 10-30%. They are not sufficient to explain the whole effect.

It's true that 95% of CO2 emissions are of non-human origin, but a bit misleading. First, the bulk of the carbon cycle has been running throughout earth's history without human impact, but it was in equilibrium, balanced so that the *net* increase in CO2 was zero (leaving aside perturbations from things like volcanoes - no-one is suggesting a perfectly steady state). In a cycle in equilibrium, a 5% increase in one side with no corresponding increase in the other side is a *huge* deal: just think of the effect of 5% per year compounding... doubling in 15 years.

As with almost everything else, those who are convinced one way or the other will manage to find 'evidence' to support their conviction. And to be fair, these are very complex issues. But saying that a single cold day, or a single cold season, debunks global warming is just displaying a misunderstanding of the entire phenomenon.

[fccool]

Bravus, forgive me if I offended you, but it was tongue in cheek blurb. Yet, addressing what you have said above:

As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0384%. That's right... it's .04% , and the one that is caused by humans is less than 5% of it, which would be 0.0015%.

The people who push global warming somehow leave these two important details out of the picture.

1) Solar radiation is the reason that we even have climate on Earth... how can solar activity changes account for 10-30% of the warming, when it is the Sun that warms up the earth to begin with? It's like saying that water causes only 30% of all floods.

2) CO2 is not a pollutant, but an important element in atmosphere that sustains plant life. Today hearing some of the teachers speaking about polluting the atmosphere with CO2, I'd like to scream. Plants thrive in CO2 "polluted" environments.

We can call led a pollutant, we can call Ammonia that causes acid rains a pollutant, but calling CO2 a pollutant is quite a new and interesting idea.

3) C02 amounts in the atmosphere are insignificant to cause any kind of green house effect, especially if we assume humans to be the cause. Water vapor, which holds much bigger volume in the atmosphere, would have much bigger green house impact then CO2 would.

[Bravus]

No offense taken at all, fccool - I may sometimes get a bit snippy on this issue simply because I've debated it way too many times in way too many venues, but I'm really very relaxed about it. People will believe what they want to believe, and as I said, the issues are complex and the science uncertain by its nature. So my apologies too if I came across as upset or offended: just the shortcomings of text-only communication.

[Bravus]

All the points you raise, though, miss the initial point I made above - there was a system that was in balance, and now it has been rapidly put out of balance. That has consequences.

On solar radiation, I spoke imprecisely: it's the *change* in solar radiation that is estimated to cause a small part of the *change* in global temperatures. Of course all our energy (except geothermal and nuclear) originates in the sun, but the claim made is that the increase in solar radiation explains all of the increase in temperature... and those who understand the science reject that.

[Bravus]

And on CO2 as a pollutant: different terms can be used, of course, but too much of something that is good in moderation can be bad. If the earth's atmosphere contained much more life-giving oxygen wildfires would rage out of control all across the planet. Ozone is a nasty pollutant that causes illness at ground level, but in the upper atmosphere ozone is crucial for our survival. It's *excess* carbon dioxide that is the problem: and the key number to look at is not the total amount, but the increase. Historical (during human history, the last few thousand years) CO2 levels in the atmosphere were around 300 parts per million (ppm). Current measured values are around 390 ppm, a 30% increase. A 30% increase in oxygen concentration would kill all life on earth.

[Woody]

Hey ... look what I started. I knew Bravus couldn't resist me.

[fccool]

And on CO2 as a pollutant: different terms can be used, of course, but too much of something that is good in moderation can be bad. If the earth's atmosphere contained much more life-giving oxygen wildfires would rage out of control all across the planet. Ozone is a nasty pollutant that causes illness at ground level, but in the upper atmosphere ozone is crucial for our survival. It's *excess* carbon dioxide that is the problem: and the key number to look at is not the total amount, but the increase. Historical (during human history, the last few thousand years) CO2 levels in the atmosphere were around 300 parts per million (ppm). Current measured values are around 390 ppm, a 30% increase. A 30% increase in oxygen concentration would kill all life on earth.

I understand the equilibrium point that you are trying to make. I do disagree that humans have wrecked havoc on ecosystems of the world over the past century. Developed countries today are large garbage factories, that turn products into garbage.

Yet I don't see how this concerns "green house effect", and especially CO2 being the cause of this. The science of it is illogical because it goes something like this:

1) The temperature is rising

2) The CO2 levels are higher in the atmosphere

3) The weather is changing

Based on the top three, we can assume that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are responsible for it.

You can have many "experiments" and scientific data, generating proof of this correlation. And why would not they? Nowerdays, all you have to do to get a research grant for mating of the squirrels, is to rephrase the research premise: "Effect of global warming on mating of the squirrels". It's a business for scientific community. The bigger the problem, the better.

Now, if we do look at it objectively and logically, and study both sides of the argument... then we can come up with different explanations. For example:

1) There is a relationship between the temperature and CO2, but it's inverse. The the hotter it is, the more CO2 is released from the oceans. The cooler it is, the more CO2 stored in the oceans.

2) The climate goes in cycles... with or without humans emitting the CO2. Example would be the Medieval Warm period. It was substantially warmer, yet there were not factories or cars to warm it up. What is responsible for that climate change? Horses?

3) This issue is not settled in scientific community. Some scientists complaining about rigged models, and that in some models the sun is completely left out of the equation.

While I'm all for more conservation, and better/cleaner/smarter usage of the natural resources. I don't support some of the impositions on the third world countries that would make sure that these countries would stay poor. Especially if the claims are based on highly questionable research reasoning.

It's ironic that these impositions are proposed by people who fly around on personal private jets, and live in oversized mansions.

So, I think there's a motive behind these ideas, both on the side of the policy makers, and the scientific community.

[carolaa]

Redwood, I'm sure we all agree you are irresistible!!

:smile:

[carolaa]

The global climate is an extremely complex system, so changes in one part of it cause changes in other parts in complex ways. In particular, huge currents in the oceans and the atmosphere distribute warmth around the globe. Disruption of those currents causes changed climate - as we see with the El Nino and La Nina effects with ocean current circulation in the South Pacific. For this reason, a net increase in global temperature will not lead to a simple and proportional net increase of temperature at all places and times. Rather, it will lead to disruption of existing climate patterns, leading to more extreme weather. So an unusually extreme winter may well be a consequence of global warming - the extra energy is here, it's just not evenly distributed. To measure global warming you have to average global temperature measurements, some of which will be cooler than average and some warmer... and the warmer will outweigh the cooler, which is what we actually observe.

One explanation I heard said something about how the polar ice melts and makes the water colder which somehow can make parts of the world get more cold weather.

And another explanation said more like what you were talking about, that it just disrupts weather patterns all over the world.

[Bravus]

Quote:

Yet I don't see how this concerns "green house effect", and especially CO2 being the cause of this. The science of it is illogical because it goes something like this:

1) The temperature is rising

2) The CO2 levels are higher in the atmosphere

3) The weather is changing

Based on the top three, we can assume that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are responsible for it.

But those are not all of the relevant observations: we *know*, from extremely simple calculations on the burning of fossil fuels, just how much humans are directly contributing to the increased CO2 levels. We also have very good models of exactly how atmospheric CO2 leads to warming, based on well understood science.

Quote:

Now, if we do look at it objectively and logically, and study both sides of the argument... then we can come up with different explanations. For example:

1) There is a relationship between the temperature and CO2, but it's inverse. The the hotter it is, the more CO2 is released from the oceans. The cooler it is, the more CO2 stored in the oceans.

This may well be true, but ignores the CO2 being produced by humans, which we know about.

Quote:

2) The climate goes in cycles... with or without humans emitting the CO2. Example would be the Medieval Warm period. It was substantially warmer, yet there were not factories or cars to warm it up. What is responsible for that climate change? Horses?

This is also true - there are other factors, including the radiation from the sun. Humans are only one of many effects - but we have had the dramatic effect of increasing the atmospheric CO2 level by 30% in about 50 years. That is a huge new factor laid on top of the existing climate cycles.

Quote:

3) This issue is not settled in scientific community. Some scientists complaining about rigged models, and that in some models the sun is completely left out of the equation.

If you can bring me a critical report from a reputable climate scientist who does not have serious funding ties to fossil fuel industries, I will be very impressed. I have so far seen none, and I have looked hard.

It's true that the science is not settled to 100% certainty - but that is too high a standard. We are already doing the largest unsupervised experiment in the history of this planet, by releasing the amount of CO2 (and methane from cows) that we are. Certainty will arrive about the time the most severe effects of climate change arrive... and then it will take well over 100 years for any changes we make to take effect. We need to act NOW.

Quote:

While I'm all for more conservation, and better/cleaner/smarter usage of the natural resources. I don't support some of the impositions on the third world countries that would make sure that these countries would stay poor. Especially if the claims are based on highly questionable research reasoning.

It's ironic that these impositions are proposed by people who fly around on personal private jets, and live in oversized mansions.

So, I think there's a motive behind these ideas, both on the side of the policy makers, and the scientific community.

Agreed that it's those of us in the First World who have benefited massively in our lifestyles from the use of fossil fuels so far who need to make the most changes, and who have the most potential to create new technologies and find other ways to reduce emissions. Agreed that it would be completely unfair to shift the burden to the developing world. Agreed that there's often some taint of hypocrisy on the part of those drawing attention to the issues. But none of those things changes the facts.

In terms of a motive, what do you think it is, if it's not what's claimed? (i.e. cushioning the world from the worst consequences of climate change)

[fccool]

Again, when you and the scientists say "we know", it exactly means... "we assume". There's no precise way to *know*, and all you can do is to estimate.

There's no "ballance" between the intake/outake of the CO2. The plants emit CO2 when they are not illuminated, and when these are decomposing. In fact, most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the decomposing plants. This process comes in cycles. Likewise the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will ALWAYS vary from year to year.

To say that increase of the human emission by 30% would somehow alter this ballance is misleading, because on a large scale it would only increase the CO2 amount by whatever %.x amount. It's highly improbable to make any significant changes.

The warming of the oceans would release CO2 and would increase the concentration in the atmosphere. This warming could be cause by the climate changes that are independent of the pre-existing CO2 levels.

So what you are saying, now leads to a paradox. If the independent warming changes can lead to dramatic increase in CO2 levels, and thus subsequent warming. What do human emissions that consist less than 5% of the entire CO2 volume have to do with anything? Please don't try to say that plant decomposition volume is regular every year.

Can't you see the breakdown in logic here?

[Bravus]

Quote:

To say that increase of the human emission by 30% would somehow alter this ballance is misleading, because on a large scale it would only increase the CO2 amount by whatever %.x amount. It's highly improbable to make any significant changes.

No you don't understand. It is not that human emissions have increased by 30% - human emissions have increased by many thousands of % since before the industrial revolution. It is the actual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that has increased by 30%.

So human emissions each year might consist of 5% of the total, but the addition of extra CO2 has actually increased the total amount in the atmosphere dramatically. The increase is *not* all due to CO2 released from the ocean or from other natural processes. Some of it may be.

The plant decomposition volume is different each year, but is dramatically increased by deforestation. When areas are deforested all the carbon locked up in those trees is released into the atmosphere by burning or decomposition and not replaced, whereas in a living forest new trees are growing as old trees are decomposing.

The fact remains that without human involvement there was a balance between growth and decay, but that that balance has been upset. As I said above, it is completely uncontroversial to say that humans are releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide. I'd be very happy to calculate for you the exact amount that your own vehicle released this past year.

[Bravus]

..and

Quote:

Again, when you and the scientists say "we know", it exactly means... "we assume". There's no precise way to *know*, and all you can do is to estimate.

Not exactly. It means "based on the best evidence we have available now, on our best efforts to falsify that evidence using experiments and models, we believe this is the most probable and best-supported conclusion... but we hold that modestly and know we could be wrong". As I said above, certainty is not actually part of science, it's reserved for other parts of life...

But if I'm riding my motorbike in the early evening and see a kangaroo standing on the road, I will start braking and preparing to swerve immediately, before I'm 100% certain it's a kangaroo, because if I wait until I'm certain it could well be fatally too late. The same is true with climate change: it's looming on the horizon, it sure looks like a kangaroo... we need to start putting the brakes on before we hit it hard.

[Bravus]

Mind you, I'm extremely *close* to certain that I can calculate how much carbon dioxide my motorbike releases into the atmosphere - some problems are more tractable than others!

[fccool]

Again, I'm all for cleaner world. But I would not go about it by taxing people to death... which seams to be the proposed way of going about it. There should be pressure from consumers, especially on the automotive industry, to release clean and effective cars. Many developed countries have terribly inefficient public transit systems too outside of the large cities, and from city to city. Whatever happened to the railroad? I guess lifestyles are way too fast paced for people even think about sinking the time to travel across a continent by train.

[fccool]

Mind you, I'm extremely *close* to certain that I can calculate how much carbon dioxide my motorbike releases into the atmosphere - some problems are more tractable than others!

Yes, it's true. But what I'm talking about here is modeling by approximation. It's hard to know how much people travel at a given time.

The statistics is all about polling and sampling. While it give a good idea, sometimes the numbers thrown out there are just a fair approximation, that may or may not reflect the reality.

Either way, I think that the time of the 1000 miles salad from California is coming to an end.

[fccool]

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=145646

Just some reason for the cold winter that is ahead. The sun is the coldest it's been in a while.

[Kevin H]

Excellent posts Bravus!

"These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that shtteth on the throne shall dwell among them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; NEITHER SHALL THE SUN LIGHT ON THEM, NOT ANY HEAT" Revelation 7:14-16 (emphesses mine)

"And the fourth angel poured out his vail upon the sun; and power was given unto hm to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and plasphemed the name of God, whch hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory." Revelation 16: 8-9

Add to this that the 7 heads of the beast of Revelation 13 are:

1.) Babylon

2.) Medio-Persia

3.) Greece

4.) Rome

5.) The Holy Roman Empire / Papal supremicy

6.) The deadly wound with 10 horns and the crowns on the horns, a period of indepent nations (the toes of Daniel 2)

7.) The deadly wound healed: World unification, the toes attempting to join together (Note: Daniel 2 does not say they they will never join together, only that the attempt will not last and will end in utter chaos)

Revelation 18 gives a further discription of this last world empire in place of Christ: When Babylon falls the first to mourn are the merchants who have a long shopping list (how often do we find a shopping list in the Bible)of expensive items from all over the world, indicating a time of peace with relative prosperity dispite wars and roumers of wars. A world unification based on economic cooperation and international merchant (or corporate) cartels.

Looking at the Lamb like beast we find in the US the conflect between the Jeffersonian views of an agriculture self sufficient lifestyle, with a religion based on following Christ to be the best option (People talk about Jefferson's Bible without miricles, but it's been pointed out that it is not that he did not necessary believe them, but that he believed too many were having faith in the miricals instead of the person Jesus so wanted to emphessise the person Jesus, and that he was going to follow Jesus miricals or no miricals), and his fights and warnings against the banks and the military-indrustral complex where people served the corporations who would take care of the needs to one extent or another, and which is uniting the world into globalism and getting all sorts of informaton on us, which can give decrees that the whole world can implement at the same moment, where there are about 200 families of the superrich building a world wide empire, where economic crisis' draw us closer together in more dependency on the banks and military-indurstral complex on whether or not we can buy or sell. Did you realize that only one month ago, for the first time in history, all the major powers COORDINATED their financial moves to a single day and hour, so that the world was given liquid assets and lower prime rates by the central banks of all the major powers at the same moment in the hope of kick-starting the frozen credit markets. This sounds remarkably like the mechanics of Mrs. White's discription of the death decree has finally been set in place. Prophecy is being fulfilled before our eyes but we are not realizing it.

Jefferson said: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." --Thomas Jefferson in The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, 1809

We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds... [we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another ]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816

"Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction; to wit: by consolidation first and then corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the Federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821.

We talk about the tax and spend Democrats, but let's not forget the borrow and spend Republicans who run us into such debt and even deeper dependency on the military-indurstral complex globalism and the great European banking families, although of course they can use either a Republican or Democrat for their purposes.

People complain about the "Liberal Media" but in the 1990s the major media outlets were bought up by the conservative corporations so even the liberal ideas you hear in the press are what is oked and colored by their conservative owners. We no longer have a media that has room for Edwin R. Murrel and Walter Cronkite.

So when it comes to global warming, there is a challange as to who you will believe: The words of Revelation, or the words of the supporters of the 7th head.

fccool and Redwood: You may be speaking "tongue in cheek" but you are dangerously close to the military cadets who said to Elisha "Go up thou bald head" and dangerously close to blasphemy. Your'e tongue in cheek is taking out the words of the prophecy of this book and mocking God's words as surely as those mocking Jesus on the cross and if you don't back away from this you could well end up being caught up in this system and get the mark of the beast, and face the thirsting and sunlight and heat from global warming without the hope of this happening no more.

[fccool]

Kevin, where do I begin? I really appreciate your posts, and I agree with you for the most part. I don't know to what the extend of your knowledge of our financial system, but I can see you are on the right track. If you check all of my very first post in this forum... I actually warned of the eminent economic collapse that we are experiencing right now.

Secondly, Kevin. If you do have a slight idea about our government running up the debt... I doubt you have an idea why they are doing it if either administration is in house. If our government had no debt, we would not have any money in circulation if we go by the Fed act of 1913. Government borrowing is what fuels economy and allows you to drive that car, and buy that house that I suspect you are living in while paying off that 15 year mortgage, and lambasting the administration for doing the same. But, again, it's my speculation and I apologize in advance if I'm wrong.

Thirdly, did you just equate speaking out against global warming as blasphemy against God? If you read the posts carefully... I don't dispute the Global warming happening. But, as you have pointed out from the Bible, it might have to do more with the Sun activity, then with CO2 in the atmosphere. Wouldn't it be more blasphemous to say that we can stop this warming from happening by simply cutting down our CO2 output?

At the same time, my argument is that we should certainly do something about our overconsumption and pollution, but it should not be by means of taxing already starving countries for trying to feed their people, which is the real reason behind the GW scam... to keep the rich richer, and the poor in poverty.

Babylon comes to ruin as any empire does. Babylon is not the great US of A, although part of the USA is a part of Babylon. It's a politico-military-financial system, just like any empire was. Thus we can say that it is it's own country, which allows only certain people to belong to it... those who would not care to stomp over God's law and will.

Quote:

When Babylon falls the first to mourn are the merchants who have a long shopping list

You mean inventory list, right? Babylon does not produce any goods. It produces money an buys these goods with money that world takes in as actual goods... just as any empire did before it over consumed on military before collapsing. Notice that the producers were not a part of the Babylon when it came down in smoke... they just stood far away and mourned. US today is such a country ran by means of fiat money. Breton Woods agreement lays forgotten, and there's hardly any gold in Fort Knox. All of the wealth resulted because of Breaking the Brenton Woods contract and borrowing our way into prosperity, while the rest of the world agreed to accept the dollar as though it is still backed by gold.

The debt you are talking about is impossible to pay of... because it exists as money supply in the economy. If you pay off the debt, you will see America for what it really is, broke and destitute. That's what happened in 1929, when banks stopped issuing new loans and people were paying off the old ones.

That's why the government is borrowing and spending, because they know the moment they stop doing so in a system that is heavily depended on inflow of new money to pay interest will collapse. There's no other way to keep it going but by constant "injection of "capital""... and that's what Jefferson was talking about.

I suspect what's coming in near future is the same thing you may see in former Soviet Republics... wiping the slate clean and starting over with new currency... while the merchants of the world will be stuffed with worthless dollars that are no longer in use. The rules will change in the mean time.

If you really want to know what is the contingency plan for the US and the world to come... just google up "Treasury 6900 series of protocols". People who live by the sword will die by the sword. The same can be said about people who live by the money.