Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T
  The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 66)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version

This topic is 150 pages long:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150 
Previous Page | Next Page
next newest topic | next oldest topic
The evidence against anthropogenic global warming by fierobear
Started on: 06-07-2008 02:13 PM
Replies: 5991 (78183 views)
Last post by: rinselberg on 02-01-2021 12:55 PM
AusFiero
Member
Posts: 11513
From: Dapto NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2001


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 326
Rate this member

Report this Post04-26-2013 05:55 AM Click Here to See the Profile for AusFieroClick Here to visit AusFiero's HomePageSend a Private Message to AusFieroEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Ok this argument is moot now. I finally managed to perfect my time machine and went to the year 2050. Seems the Asteroid we missed wiped out 90% of us in 2037 anyway.
IP: Logged
Doug85GT
Member
Posts: 9466
From: Sacramento CA USA
Registered: May 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 121
Rate this member

Report this Post04-26-2013 05:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Doug85GTSend a Private Message to Doug85GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
CO2 and NO reflected 95% of the Sun's recent solar storm activity back into space. Greenhouse gases work in both directions. Who would have thunk it?

IP: Logged
TK
Member
Posts: 10013
From:
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 200
Rate this member

Report this Post04-27-2013 12:18 AM Click Here to See the Profile for TKSend a Private Message to TKEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero:

Ok this argument is moot now. I finally managed to perfect my time machine and went to the year 2050. Seems the Asteroid we missed wiped out 90% of us in 2037 anyway.


Whew! Dodged a bullet there didn't we!
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post04-27-2013 11:58 AM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by TK:


Whew! Dodged a bullet there didn't we!


Not necessarily. Maybe the disasters won't occur, but you can bet they will still implement the carbon dioxide tax, and it will never go away.
IP: Logged
AusFiero
Member
Posts: 11513
From: Dapto NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2001


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 326
Rate this member

Report this Post04-28-2013 04:03 AM Click Here to See the Profile for AusFieroClick Here to visit AusFiero's HomePageSend a Private Message to AusFieroEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


Not necessarily. Maybe the disasters won't occur, but you can bet they will still implement the carbon dioxide tax, and it will never go away.


Australias new Carbon tax has improved air quality and made Australias temperature drop rapidly over the last few weeks.

Oh wait, that is because I was up in the mountains and it is autumn.
IP: Logged
Mickey_Moose
Member
Posts: 7494
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 143
Rate this member

Report this Post04-29-2013 03:07 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Mickey_MooseClick Here to visit Mickey_Moose's HomePageSend a Private Message to Mickey_MooseEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero:


Australias new Carbon tax has improved air quality and made Australias temperature drop rapidly over the last few weeks.

Oh wait, that is because I was up in the mountains and it is autumn.


...and as of right now it is snowing here in Canada - and yes, we are below our normal temperatures...

IP: Logged
Arns85GT
Member
Posts: 11159
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post04-29-2013 04:57 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Arns85GTSend a Private Message to Arns85GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
It is finally warming up here in Ontario. It snowed last week, but didn't stick.
A longer winter is perfectly in order given the natural swings in the Global Weather patterns.

And let us remember that the GW Alarmists' prediction of increased numbers of hurricanes, drowning and starving polar bears, and inundated low lying islands made 15 years ago have still not come to pass. Let us also remember the IPCC weather models touted a decade ago to inspire fear in us also have not come to pass.

The whole thing is a put-up job by people interested in making a buck on the public purse.

Arn
IP: Logged
masospaghetti
Member
Posts: 2477
From: Charlotte, NC USA
Registered: Dec 2009


Feedback score:    (10)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post04-29-2013 05:25 PM Click Here to See the Profile for masospaghettiSend a Private Message to masospaghettiEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Ah come on...because its colder than seasonal right now, or because polar bears haven't gone extinct, therefore AGW isn't true? That's pretty bad science.
IP: Logged
Arns85GT
Member
Posts: 11159
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post04-29-2013 09:41 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Arns85GTSend a Private Message to Arns85GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
climate is always changing. I didn't say it does not. What I am saying is that the exaggerated claims of Gore and his friends are plainly false. Anthropologically induced doomsday is a figment of a fertile imagination. Will the weather continue to change? Yep.

Arn
IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post04-30-2013 08:49 AM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:

climate is always changing. I didn't say it does not. What I am saying is that the exaggerated claims of Gore and his friends are plainly false. Anthropologically induced doomsday is a figment of a fertile imagination. Will the weather continue to change? Yep.

Arn


And yet you seem to readily accept in Revelations and the end time theories of the Bible. (not that there is anything wrong with that )

Why doesn't it surprise me you don't trust the science?

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-30-2013).]

IP: Logged
Arns85GT
Member
Posts: 11159
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post04-30-2013 09:09 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Arns85GTSend a Private Message to Arns85GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
I do trust science. I don't trust wild projections and distorted observations. We just don't control the weather.

Arn
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post04-30-2013 09:12 AM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:

I do trust science. I don't trust wild projections and distorted observations. We just don't control the weather.

Arn


An agreeable statement, for sure!

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-30-2013).]

IP: Logged
fierosound
Member
Posts: 15141
From: Calgary, Canada
Registered: Nov 1999


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 286
Rate this member

Report this Post04-30-2013 09:57 AM Click Here to See the Profile for fierosoundClick Here to visit fierosound's HomePageSend a Private Message to fierosoundEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Andrew Weaver is a University of Victoria climate modeller, and has been a lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the “Bible” on Global Warming hysteria.

His latest study surprised even him. The Canadian "boogey-man" has been over-hyped. It turns out it is NOT Canada’s oilsands (tar-sands to opponents – sounds dirtier – tar is a by-product of coal by the way) that would be the undoing of the planet, but rather the burning of coal that is the greater threat.

"They found that if all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about .36 degrees C. That's about half the total amount of warming over the last century. When only commercially viable oilsands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only .03 degrees C."

“Burning all the oil in the world would only raise temperatures by less than one degree, the paper concludes.”

“…burning all the globe's vast coal deposits would create a 15-degree increase in temperature.”

Of course, there are no plans to reduce coal production/burning anywhere in the world – not even the US EPA will touch that one.
In the US, coal burning power plants are the major source of electricity. Must be a huge coal lobby backing Obama.

-

Climate Change: Coal, Not Oilsands The Real Bad Guy Says Study

One of the world's top climate scientists has calculated that emissions from Alberta's oilsands are unlikely to make a big difference to global warming and that the real threat to the planet comes from burning coal.

"I was surprised by the results of our analysis," said Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate modeller, who has been a lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "I thought it was larger than it was."

In a commentary published Sunday in the prestigious journal Nature, Weaver and colleague Neil Swart analyze how burning all global stocks of coal, oil and natural gas would affect temperatures. Their analysis breaks out unconventional gas, such as undersea methane hydrates and shale gas produced by fracking, as well as unconventional oil sources including the oilsands.

They found that if all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about .36 degrees C. That's about half the total amount of warming over the last century. When only commercially viable oilsands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only .03 degrees C.

In contrast, the paper concludes that burning all the globe's vast coal deposits would create a 15-degree increase in temperature. Burning all the abundant natural gas would warm the planet by more than three degrees.

Governments around the world have agreed to try to keep warming to two degrees.

"The conventional and unconventional oil is not the problem with global warming," Weaver said. "The problem is coal and unconventional natural gas."

He said his analysis suggests it is an increased dependence on coal — not the oilsands — that governments have to worry about. As well, there's so much gas in the world that it will also cause problems despite the fact it emits less carbon than oil.

"One might argue that the best strategy one might take is to use our oil reserves wisely, but at the same time use them in a way that weans us of our dependence on coal and natural gas," Weaver said. "As we become more and more dependent on these massive reserves, we're less and less likely to wean ourselves away from them."
Burning all the oil in the world would only raise temperatures by less than one degree, the paper concludes.

Weaver's analysis only accounts for emissions from burning the fuel. It doesn't count greenhouse gases released by producing the resource because that would double-count those emissions.

He said his paper is an attempt to bring some perspective to the often-fraught debate over oilsands development, which continues to cause major concerns about the impact on land, air and water. And emissions from producing oilsands crude are making it very tough for Canada to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets.
"We've heard a lot about how if we burn all the oil in the tarsands it's going to lead to this, that and the other. We thought, 'Well, let's take a look at this. What is the warming potential of this area?' and the numbers are what they are."

He said the real message is that the world has to start limiting its use of fossil fuels.

"This idea that we're going to somehow run out of coal and natural gas and fossil fuels is really misplaced. We'll run out of human ability to live on the planet long before we run out of them.

"I have always said that the tarsands are a symptom of a very big problem. The problem is dependence on fossil fuels."

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.c...93.html#slide=622469

[This message has been edited by fierosound (edited 04-30-2013).]

IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post04-30-2013 01:34 PM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierosound:

Andrew Weaver is a University of Victoria climate modeller, and has been a lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the “Bible” on Global Warming hysteria.

His latest study surprised even him. The Canadian "boogey-man" has been over-hyped. It turns out it is NOT Canada’s oilsands (tar-sands to opponents – sounds dirtier – tar is a by-product of coal by the way) that would be the undoing of the planet, but rather the burning of coal that is the greater threat.

"They found that if all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about .36 degrees C. That's about half the total amount of warming over the last century. When only commercially viable oilsands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only .03 degrees C."

“Burning all the oil in the world would only raise temperatures by less than one degree, the paper concludes.”

“…burning all the globe's vast coal deposits would create a 15-degree increase in temperature.”

Of course, there are no plans to reduce coal production/burning anywhere in the world – not even the US EPA will touch that one. In the US, coal burning power plants are the major source of electricity. Must be a huge coal lobby backing Obama.

-

Climate Change: Coal, Not Oilsands The Real Bad Guy Says Study

One of the world's top climate scientists has calculated that emissions from Alberta's oilsands are unlikely to make a big difference to global warming and that the real threat to the planet comes from burning coal.

"I was surprised by the results of our analysis," said Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate modeller, who has been a lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "I thought it was larger than it was."

In a commentary published Sunday in the prestigious journal Nature, Weaver and colleague Neil Swart analyze how burning all global stocks of coal, oil and natural gas would affect temperatures. Their analysis breaks out unconventional gas, such as undersea methane hydrates and shale gas produced by fracking, as well as unconventional oil sources including the oilsands.

They found that if all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about .36 degrees C. That's about half the total amount of warming over the last century. When only commercially viable oilsands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only .03 degrees C.

In contrast, the paper concludes that burning all the globe's vast coal deposits would create a 15-degree increase in temperature. Burning all the abundant natural gas would warm the planet by more than three degrees.

Governments around the world have agreed to try to keep warming to two degrees.

"The conventional and unconventional oil is not the problem with global warming," Weaver said. "The problem is coal and unconventional natural gas."

He said his analysis suggests it is an increased dependence on coal — not the oilsands — that governments have to worry about. As well, there's so much gas in the world that it will also cause problems despite the fact it emits less carbon than oil.

"One might argue that the best strategy one might take is to use our oil reserves wisely, but at the same time use them in a way that weans us of our dependence on coal and natural gas," Weaver said. "As we become more and more dependent on these massive reserves, we're less and less likely to wean ourselves away from them."
Burning all the oil in the world would only raise temperatures by less than one degree, the paper concludes.

Weaver's analysis only accounts for emissions from burning the fuel. It doesn't count greenhouse gases released by producing the resource because that would double-count those emissions.

He said his paper is an attempt to bring some perspective to the often-fraught debate over oilsands development, which continues to cause major concerns about the impact on land, air and water. And emissions from producing oilsands crude are making it very tough for Canada to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets.
"We've heard a lot about how if we burn all the oil in the tarsands it's going to lead to this, that and the other. We thought, 'Well, let's take a look at this. What is the warming potential of this area?' and the numbers are what they are."

He said the real message is that the world has to start limiting its use of fossil fuels.

"This idea that we're going to somehow run out of coal and natural gas and fossil fuels is really misplaced. We'll run out of human ability to live on the planet long before we run out of them.

"I have always said that the tarsands are a symptom of a very big problem. The problem is dependence on fossil fuels."

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.c...93.html#slide=622469



Interesting article indeed. Thanks.
IP: Logged
fierosound
Member
Posts: 15141
From: Calgary, Canada
Registered: Nov 1999


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 286
Rate this member

Report this Post04-30-2013 02:34 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierosoundClick Here to visit fierosound's HomePageSend a Private Message to fierosoundEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
A look at CO2 production by coal



Even the US isn't the "big boy" on the block for coal-powered electricity production.
It's shocking to look at things in perspective, isn't it?

[This message has been edited by fierosound (edited 04-30-2013).]

IP: Logged
Marvin McInnis
Member
Posts: 11599
From: ~ Kansas City, USA
Registered: Apr 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 227
Rate this member

Report this Post04-30-2013 03:33 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Marvin McInnisClick Here to visit Marvin McInnis's HomePageSend a Private Message to Marvin McInnisEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierosound:

Climate Change: Coal, Not Oilsands The Real Bad Guy Says Study




It's meaningless to compare carbon dioxide released from burning "all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands," "all the world's vast coal deposits," "all the abundant natural gas," and "all the oil in the world." At the very least, you would need to normalize each resource for its relative abundance in order to to develop rates suitable for comparison.
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post07-25-2013 11:12 AM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Newf scary article debunked by a published paper:


Methane Hydrates and Contemporary Climate Change
http://www.nature.com/scita...mate-change-24314790

Conclusions
Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years. Most of Earth's gas hydrates occur at low saturations and in sediments at such great depths below the seafloor or onshore permafrost that they will barely be affected by warming over even 103 yr. Even when CH4 is liberated from gas hydrates, oxidative and physical processes may greatly reduce the amount that reaches the atmosphere as CH4. The CO2 produced by oxidation of CH4 released from dissociating gas hydrates will likely have a greater impact on the Earth system (e.g., on ocean chemistry and atmospheric CO2 concentrations; Archer et al. 2009) than will the CH4 that remains after passing through various sinks.
IP: Logged
Arns85GT
Member
Posts: 11159
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post07-25-2013 11:20 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Arns85GTSend a Private Message to Arns85GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Many fokds have a skewed view of coal fired plants. The reason is they think they are all like Detroit Edison which was a filthy plant.

New coal fired plants produce mostly just steam. The low emissions technology makes new coal plants very low emissions producers.

I personally like nuclear but I can accept that modern coal is plentiful, cheap, on our shores, and does not pollute as in days gone by.

Arn
IP: Logged
dratts
Member
Posts: 8373
From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 119
Rate this member

Report this Post07-25-2013 11:37 AM Click Here to See the Profile for drattsSend a Private Message to drattsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
If your source is right we get to go on polluting with cheap fossil fuels at no risk. If they're wrong we will pay with $60,0000,0000,000 in global economic loss according to the other source. What the heck, let's just roll the dice. It's only a sixty million dollar question. Do I need to say sarcasm?
IP: Logged
dratts
Member
Posts: 8373
From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 119
Rate this member

Report this Post07-25-2013 11:40 AM Click Here to See the Profile for drattsSend a Private Message to drattsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

dratts

8373 posts
Member since Apr 2001
Do you have information on new technology for capturing and storing co2 from the coal plants that I haven't heard of? The last I heard the coal plant operators were saying that any feasible technology for addressing that problem are not economically feasible.
 
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:

Many fokds have a skewed view of coal fired plants. The reason is they think they are all like Detroit Edison which was a filthy plant.

New coal fired plants produce mostly just steam. The low emissions technology makes new coal plants very low emissions producers.

I personally like nuclear but I can accept that modern coal is plentiful, cheap, on our shores, and does not pollute as in days gone by.

Arn


IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post07-25-2013 11:58 AM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
You
 
quote
Originally posted by dratts:

If your source is right we get to go on polluting with cheap fossil fuels at no risk. If they're wrong we will pay with $60,0000,0000,000 in global economic loss according to the other source. What the heck, let's just roll the dice. It's only a sixty million dollar question. Do I need to say sarcasm?


It would cost trillions to fight it, with minimal effects.


Davos call for $14trn 'greening' of global economy
http://www.independent.co.u...economy-8460994.html
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post07-25-2013 12:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:

Newf scary article debunked by a published paper:


Methane Hydrates and Contemporary Climate Change
http://www.nature.com/scita...mate-change-24314790

Conclusions
Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years. Most of Earth's gas hydrates occur at low saturations and in sediments at such great depths below the seafloor or onshore permafrost that they will barely be affected by warming over even 103 yr. Even when CH4 is liberated from gas hydrates, oxidative and physical processes may greatly reduce the amount that reaches the atmosphere as CH4. The CO2 produced by oxidation of CH4 released from dissociating gas hydrates will likely have a greater impact on the Earth system (e.g., on ocean chemistry and atmospheric CO2 concentrations; Archer et al. 2009) than will the CH4 that remains after passing through various sinks.


Oh Bear it's cute when you contradict your own posts when posting whatever you find (I'll assume your original source is WUWT?).

So seeing as the paper accepts the fact the climate is warming and cites the IPCC 2007 report, is it safe to assume you do as well?
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post07-25-2013 12:07 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by newf:


Oh Bear it's cute when you contradict your own posts when posting whatever you find (I'll assume your original source is WUWT?).

So seeing as the paper accepts the fact the climate is warming and cites the IPCC 2007 report, is it safe to assume you do as well?


You and your posts are worse than useless. The point, which you always miss, is that EVEN THE WARMISTS ADMIT IT ISNT AN ISSUE.
IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post07-25-2013 01:02 PM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


You and your posts are worse than useless. The point, which you always miss, is that EVEN THE WARMISTS ADMIT IT ISNT AN ISSUE.


Actually looks like you missed the point as they are merely talking about methane hydrate being released as a slow tipping point. At least that's what I read, did you have something different to report?
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post07-25-2013 01:25 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by newf:


Actually looks like you missed the point as they are merely talking about methane hydrate being released as a slow tipping point. At least that's what I read, did you have something different to report?


Which contradicts the scare story you posted about $60 trillion in expected costs in the relative near term.

Is it really that difficult for you to understand?
IP: Logged
masospaghetti
Member
Posts: 2477
From: Charlotte, NC USA
Registered: Dec 2009


Feedback score:    (10)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post07-25-2013 03:38 PM Click Here to See the Profile for masospaghettiSend a Private Message to masospaghettiEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:

Newf scary article debunked by a published paper:
Conclusions
Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years.


All that is saying is methane release won't be catastrophic. It's not saying that other feedbacks won't occur (methane isn't the only one) and also isn't saying that global warming of 0.2 C per decade will be harmless.

Is your argument that AGW isn't happening, or that it's happening but doesn't matter?
IP: Logged
Marvin McInnis
Member
Posts: 11599
From: ~ Kansas City, USA
Registered: Apr 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 227
Rate this member

Report this Post07-25-2013 03:57 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Marvin McInnisClick Here to visit Marvin McInnis's HomePageSend a Private Message to Marvin McInnisEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti:

Is [fierobear's] argument that AGW isn't happening, or that it's happening but doesn't matter?



Flip a coin. It seems to change almost daily.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 07-25-2013).]

IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post07-25-2013 06:25 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti:


All that is saying is methane release won't be catastrophic. It's not saying that other feedbacks won't occur (methane isn't the only one) and also isn't saying that global warming of 0.2 C per decade will be harmless.

Is your argument that AGW isn't happening, or that it's happening but doesn't matter?


The methane argument is nullified. Spending trillions would be a waste.
IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 16118
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 147
Rate this member

Report this Post07-25-2013 08:14 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Federal climate change initiative unlikely to reduce CO2 emissions in any significant way, according to new study from National Research Council.

http://www.foxnews.com/poli...gests/#ixzz2ZWBpkp3S

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-25-2013).]

IP: Logged
chorcob
Member
Posts: 160
From: Calumet, MI
Registered: Jun 2013


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post07-25-2013 08:23 PM Click Here to See the Profile for chorcobSend a Private Message to chorcobEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
This thread is quite long, quite long indeed. :sleep:
Oh, smilies are disabled...

[This message has been edited by chorcob (edited 07-25-2013).]

IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post07-26-2013 07:08 AM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


The methane argument is nullified. Spending trillions would be a waste.


It's not nullified, it suggests it will not be catastrophic which hopefully is true. I agree with you though the article I posted DID have a sensational headline however their claim seemed to be "“The imminent disappearance of the summer sea ice in the Arctic will have enormous implications for both the acceleration of climate change, and the release of methane from offshore waters which are now able to warm up in the summer."

Also don't forget about the amounts of methane that the fracking is sure to cause! Those pesky well failures aren't solved AFAIK.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post07-26-2013 07:24 AM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

newf

8704 posts
Member since Sep 2006
Another scary one...

http://www.independent.co.u...etreats-6276278.html
 
quote

Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane - a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide - have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.

The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years
.
IP: Logged
Arns85GT
Member
Posts: 11159
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post07-26-2013 09:08 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Arns85GTSend a Private Message to Arns85GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Newf, read your article

"Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tons of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf."

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 07-26-2013).]

IP: Logged
masospaghetti
Member
Posts: 2477
From: Charlotte, NC USA
Registered: Dec 2009


Feedback score:    (10)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post07-26-2013 09:37 AM Click Here to See the Profile for masospaghettiSend a Private Message to masospaghettiEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
So called "permafrost" will melt if global temperatures rise. Agreed?
IP: Logged
masospaghetti
Member
Posts: 2477
From: Charlotte, NC USA
Registered: Dec 2009


Feedback score:    (10)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post07-26-2013 09:43 AM Click Here to See the Profile for masospaghettiSend a Private Message to masospaghettiEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

masospaghetti

2477 posts
Member since Dec 2009
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:

The methane argument is nullified. Spending trillions would be a waste.


No. The methane positive feedback loop, according to this paper, may not be catastrophic.

You would be a lot more convincing if you had an alternate, consistent, comprehensive argument to destructive AGW. Is AGW happening, or is it not? Is it destructive, or is it not? Your arguments, 66 pages into this thread, continue to change. You are throwing poop at the wall and seeing what sticks.

AGW has traction because its the only credible, comprehensive theory. Is it perfect? No. Is it devoid of self-interested parties and governmental bodies? No. But its much better than any other theory we have.

IP: Logged
Mickey_Moose
Member
Posts: 7494
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 143
Rate this member

Report this Post07-26-2013 10:05 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Mickey_MooseClick Here to visit Mickey_Moose's HomePageSend a Private Message to Mickey_MooseEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by newf:


Oh Bear it's cute when you contradict your own posts when posting whatever you find (I'll assume your original source is WUWT?).

So seeing as the paper accepts the fact the climate is warming and cites the IPCC 2007 report, is it safe to assume you do as well?


Actually if you read the article (and read between the lines) all it is really pointing out is that the sky is falling and we need to invest all this money NOW in the global warming field to "possibly" prevent this from happening in the future.

Here is another one: http://business.financialpo...-economic-time-bomb/

 
quote
It said that could bring forward the date at which the global mean temperature rise exceeds 2 degrees Celsius by between 15 and 35 years – to 2035 if no action is taken to curb emissions and to 2040 if enough action is taken to have a 50% chance of keeping the rise below 2 degrees.

Scientists have said the rise in global average temperatures this century needs to stay below 2 degrees Celsius to prevent devastating climate effects such as crop failure and melting glaciers.

However, the International Energy Agency warned last month that the world is on course for a rise of 3.6 to 5.3 degrees Celsius citing record high global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions last year.


Or translated, gives us a pile of money now so we can keep the temperature rise below 2° - this despite the fact that the rise is below 1°. Besides how is all this money going to stop China from polluting less? There is a big push on over there to become the world leader in manufacturing with little regards to the environment.

As for the IPCC, it's just another political entity: http://nofrakkingconsensus....-science-since-1988/

[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 07-26-2013).]

IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post07-26-2013 10:13 AM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:

Newf, read your article

"Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tons of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf."



I did read it, however it's not MY article just one I linked.
IP: Logged
newf
Member
Posts: 8704
From: Canada
Registered: Sep 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 116
Rate this member

Report this Post07-26-2013 10:15 AM Click Here to See the Profile for newfSend a Private Message to newfEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

newf

8704 posts
Member since Sep 2006
 
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose:


Or translated, gives us a pile of money now so we can keep the temperature rise below 2° - this despite the fact that the rise is below 1°. Besides how is all this money going to stop China from polluting less? There is a big push on over there to become the world leader in manufacturing with little regards to the environment.

As for the IPCC, it's just another political entity: http://nofrakkingconsensus....-science-since-1988/



That's your translation. Tell me who is asking for money?


In regards to China.... China to cough up $283 billion to clean up air pollution

http://www.cbc.ca/news/worl...for-air-quality.html
IP: Logged
Arns85GT
Member
Posts: 11159
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post07-26-2013 10:16 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Arns85GTSend a Private Message to Arns85GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Newf, take responsibility for what you post to make your point. Don't hide. I don't

Arn
IP: Logged
Arns85GT
Member
Posts: 11159
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jul 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post07-26-2013 10:19 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Arns85GTSend a Private Message to Arns85GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

Arns85GT

11159 posts
Member since Jul 2003
 
quote
Originally posted by newf:


That's your translation. Tell me who is asking for money?


In regards to China.... China to cough up $283 billion to clean up air pollution

http://www.cbc.ca/news/worl...for-air-quality.html


so you are taking this as an exemplary action, progressive and positive? China is the worst polluter on the planet. It's cities are a nightmare. We are not talking about CO2, but more like a soup of chemical smog. They are way overdue. If the Chinese had air like you and me, they'd be in heaven.

Arn

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 07-26-2013).]

IP: Logged
Previous Page | Next Page

This topic is 150 pages long:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150 
next newest topic | next oldest topic

All times are ET (US)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock