The Carbon Flame War
Display Avatars Sort By:
jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Spurious doubling of U.S. temperature trend. on 08/02/2012 07:31:11 MDT Print View

I agree we know little about climate changes over 10s or 100s of years and it's hard to know whether any weather changes we see are part of natural cycle or global warming, but

It is clear higher CO2 levels in atmosphere are because of burning fossil fuels and we are in huge science experiment to see what the effects will be.

It will take 100(s) of years

It would be ironic if this drought was because of natural causes but it got people to acknowledge global warming and start doing more about it

Craig Savage
(tremelo) - F

Locale: San Jacinto Mountains
Re: Spurious doubling of U.S. temperature trend. on 08/02/2012 08:30:39 MDT Print View

"To date the U.S. taxpayer has been required to spend over 120 BILLION DOLLARS on researching and combating 'global warming'"

given the complexity of the issue?

I can feel better about that than the billions I pay for unending wars. Carbon credits are almost as lame as unwavering perspectives, Al Gore is familiar with both those ideas... but of course that is not the only side of extremism in the debate IMHO

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
history review on 08/02/2012 12:09:32 MDT Print View

Rog, I think we should review some of the history of your climate duo of Christy and Spencer. It's always interesting to see who you drag out to do your whitewashing.....always the same limited group of suspects (very limited and discredited group of suspects);

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_R._Christy

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: history review on 08/02/2012 16:38:07 MDT Print View

Jerry, that canard doesn't fly any more. I found out that the IPCC has been basing it's estimate of how much of the extra co2 we are responsible for on an estimate of co2 emissions from volcanic sources which is orders of magnitude incorrect. The link to the article I wrote is back a page or two.
Attribution is a far more complex and uncertain issue than you have been led to believe.

Craig, If even a small proportion of the research money that has been poured in was allocated to exploring other possible explanations for the evolution of climates, we'd be a lot wiser than we are now regarding uncertainty and possibilities. The unwavering perspective that matters is that of the ruling committees of the mainstream scientific institutions, which nailed their colours to the mast years ago, and thus gave up science to enter politics.

Dan, resorting to smears against Christy and Spencer is your game, because you are unable to discuss the science. It's ugly and uninformative.

Edited by tallbloke on 08/02/2012 16:46:34 MDT.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
??? on 08/02/2012 16:57:12 MDT Print View

Rog, you said, " I found out that the IPCC has been basing it's estimate of how much of the extra co2 we are responsible for on an estimate of co2 emissions from volcanic sources which is orders of magnitude incorrect. "

Can you please elaborate Rog? Please quantify - you must have figures and you must know the orders of magnitude or is this just another empty statement with no backing? What is incorrect? Give us some figures since you found out........

The info about Christy and Spencer is public record. It's easy for people to see it is you that twists and spins people - like what you are doing to me. I did not attack you and I pointed out that Christy and Spencer are not the white shining knights you make them out to be. I read some of Christy's testimony from the Senate hearing - he certainly comes off like the least qualified person there.

Here's just part of what he said, " When thinking about policy regarding CO2, one cannot ignore the immense benefits
produced directly by CO2 or indirectly from in its relationship to low-cost energy. It is a
simple fact that CO2 is plant food and the world around us evolved when levels of CO2
were five to ten times what they are today. Our green world is a consequence of
atmospheric CO2. And, food for plants means food for people. The extra CO2 we are
putting into the atmosphere not only invigorates the biosphere, but also enhances......."

Throughout his talk, he mentions third world energy a number of times and the benefit of fossils fuels for the 3rd world. I don't think I saw any mention of any alternative energies and then he said this;

" The recent switch to natural gas represents a partial move to decarbonize our energy production
since methane has four hydrogen atoms for every one carbon atom. Thus, there are now
even less U.S. CO2 emissions to legislate away."

Edited by wildlife on 08/02/2012 17:08:47 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: history review on 08/02/2012 17:28:54 MDT Print View

"I found out that the IPCC has been basing it's estimate of how much of the extra co2 we are responsible for on an estimate of co2 emissions from volcanic sources which is orders of magnitude incorrect."

Just look at the plots of CO2 level vs time for the last 400,000 years from ice cores

It was in a rang of 180 to 280 PPM for that period, except it's gone up to 380 PPM in the last few decades.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: history review on 08/02/2012 17:35:24 MDT Print View

Rog

Do you get paid to make anti-global warming internet statements?

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: ??? on 08/02/2012 17:37:21 MDT Print View

Dan, pity you didn't read the following sentence of my reply to Jerry, "the link to the article I wrote is back a page or two". But no matter, I'll spoon feed the link to you:

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/uncertainty-the-origin-of-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/

Fill your boots, you'll find the facts and figures there.

Now, what in Christy's testimony that you have quoted do you disagree with?

It is a fact that since co2 levels increased, woodland has got denser. Research by pro global warming experts from my own university have confirmed that. Woody biomass has increased by some 7% over the last 30 years or so.

So what's your problem with what he said?

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: history review on 08/02/2012 17:39:09 MDT Print View

Jerry

Do you get paid to make pro-global warming internet statements?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: history review on 08/02/2012 18:09:49 MDT Print View

Without carefully calculating - 95% of the posts you make on this site are about global warming, and I suspect the 5% of non-global warming is just so that people can't claim all you talk about is global warming

Maybe 1% of my posts

But maybe that just shows I have no real life : )

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
100X wrong on 08/02/2012 18:26:05 MDT Print View

I don't know Rog, You're saying the climate scientists don't know about Casey et al and that the USGS figures of Human emissions being at least 100 times higher than volcanic emmisiions of CO2 is terribly off the mark? I would aggree with Casey's comments about deforestation and the depletion of that carbon sink. I have heard things here and there over the years about volcanism being a culprit in all this but it seems USGS would have been on top of it and when you look into Casey and see that he works for the oil industry, just what is his attraction to vulcanism? Is that to justify something for somebody? Clearly, humans are putting emense amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere - it is documented - and Casey seems to downplay this (I wonder why - oh, he's an oil guy), and it's not just deforestation creating the buildup of CO2 and it certainly is not just vulcanism. LOL.

You know Rog, your continuing attempts to humiliate me do not flatter you at all and are not really that great for your cause. How much time to you devote to your climate activities? You have a website devoted to it. I'm a layman that has very little time for any of it.

One thing that is wrong with Christies comments is the one about evolution happening when there where 5-10 times the amount of C02 that there is now. I can assure you that there was no Human evolution going on with those concentrations. Christy can probably fool some of the people some of the time in Alabama.

Edited by wildlife on 08/02/2012 18:49:27 MDT.

a b
(Ice-axe)
What can one person do? on 08/02/2012 18:49:19 MDT Print View

Okay, for the sake of my question, let's assume global warming is man made.

What can I do, as a person, to stop it?

I live on the west coast of the US where travel by vehicle is mandatory to make a living.
It would be impossible to move my 14,000 lbs of tools and equipment around the bay area any other way than by diesel truck.

When i am at home i often ride my bike to and from the market or the laundry mat.
Sometimes i take the local bus which is natural gas powered.

I don't have a tv and i rarely use more than one 15 watt cfl bulb at a time.

This computer uses about 150 watts when it's on and i kill it at the power strip when it is not on.

Aside from these things what can i do?

I ask this question rhetorically because it seems like I am supposed to feel all evil and shame for "destroying the earth" or something just for trying to make a living by plumbing houses.

What should i do.. sell my truck and tools, go into the forest to grow crops and maybe live in a cave?
Would that cause any less CO2?

I truly don't understand what is being asked of me to do to combat global warming.

Here is a tip: If you have an older gas stove top with a pilot light you can shut the gas off at the wall stop during times when you wont be using it. In the summer i don't like to cook in my 300 square foot place so it keeps the place cooler too.
this also works for wall heater and older model furnaces and gas fireplace inserts that have active pilot lights.
Saves a tiny bit on the gas bill each month and i suppose is less CO2 as well.

Edited by Ice-axe on 08/02/2012 18:55:07 MDT.

Craig Savage
(tremelo) - F

Locale: San Jacinto Mountains
Re: history review on 08/02/2012 19:26:35 MDT Print View

"The unwavering perspective that matters is that of the ruling committees of the mainstream scientific institutions, which nailed their colours to the mast years ago, and thus gave up science to enter politics"

your strawman's logic is making my brain melt... not that I'm complaining

It's truly entertaining watching you go back to these blanket statements about the scientific community

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
moving on on 08/02/2012 19:37:58 MDT Print View

Matthew, there are huge qualitative and quantitative differences in what a society does when it accepts the actuall reality of its position rather than hiding its head in the sand. Look at Germany getting rid of Nukes and getting so much of it's power from solar energy. Sounds like you have concluded much more than you assume. Good for you.

Edited by wildlife on 08/02/2012 19:51:52 MDT.

a b
(Ice-axe)
Re: moving on on 08/02/2012 19:52:05 MDT Print View

Thank You Dan for the response.

I am not trying to bring down this highbrow discussion or derail the thread.

What i have concluded is that; change is inevitable.

The real questions are; do we spend our resources preventing the change or adapting to the change?

Thus far in the 132 pages of this thread i see a lot of finger pointing.

While it is good to figure out what happened and who is responsible it is even more important to figure out what the end result will be.

I am a plumber.
I fix things and create sytems that must work in the real world.
Backing away from a problem is never an option for me regardless of the cost or time involved.

Maybe what is missing in the whole argument of global warming is personal responsiblity on a human scale.

What do we expect to happen in the next 50 years?
Can we prevent it?
Can we adapt to it?
What are the long term ramifications to our decendants?
If we stop using every ounce of fossil fuel today will it have any effect if China and India still continue to progess industrially?
What would our society be like in the event of such a drastic change?

These are questions no one can answer but they are still important to think about.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
understood on 08/02/2012 19:58:17 MDT Print View

I'm with you. We're up against a lot but I'm not going to blame increased volcanic activity for the Human condition - if you followed the thread recently you know what I mean. That seems so absurd at this point. You have to hope that the world can come together on this and do something and then at the other side of it all is population growth - looks like we found a way to shut down food supplies in a round about way - or did volcanoes do that? LOL! Ultimately the lesson might be that you can fool some of the people in Alabama but you can't fool Mother Nature.

I'm thinking what we have done to the climate will change the dumb politics of this country and may end the money flow from oil to the government. I think politics in the Midwest will change and that will change everything. People are going to realize they've been duped by all these climate change skeptics when their lives get destroyed. People like Senator Inhoffe have to go. We need smart people representing us.

Don't anyone get me wrong either. It's a miracle the way they keep us in oil - it really is. I marvel at it every day that it's always right there in front of us. I think about the industry and how huge it is and all the trucks running around delivering it every day - much of it we don't really see - but the dead Sperm Whales in the Gulf saw it head on during the big leak. Until we realize what we are doing to the planet we won't be able to give anything up.

Edited by wildlife on 08/02/2012 20:15:56 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: understood on 08/02/2012 20:27:24 MDT Print View

"What can I do, as a person, to stop it? ... What should i do.. sell my truck and tools, go into the forest to grow crops and maybe live in a cave?..."

Individually we can reduce energy use - like turning off pilot light - and getting more fuel efficient vehicle where possible, drive less, turn thermostat up or down, ... It also saves you money, reduces the amount we send to foreign countries that are sometimes unfriendly,...

Not productive to feel depressed about anything.

Collectively, the government could quit subsidizing oil companies. Exxon and Mobil are two of the top 10 U.S. companies yet pay no federal income taxes, at least in some years. We should pay enough tax on oil to pay for the military required to maintain it. And enough more tax to cover cost of the polution including CO2. We should spend more developing alternative fuels. etc.

But since we have "the best government money can buy" that's not going to happen until people realize they're being duped and vote for different politicians.

a b
(Ice-axe)
Re: understood on 08/02/2012 20:33:12 MDT Print View

"Don't anyone get me wrong either. It's a miracle the way they keep us in oil - it really is. I marvel at it every day that it's always right there in front of us. I think about the industry and how huge it is and all the trucks running around delivering it every day - much of it we don't really see - but the dead Sperm Whales in the Gulf saw it head on during the big leak. Until we realize what we are doing to the planet we won't be able to give anything up."

This is the point I am most interested in.

What are we, as working class people, supposed to change in our daily lives to effect (prevent) the production of greenhouse gasses?

This is THE disconnect between what we hear on the radio, what we say, and then how we go about our lives.

There is much talk, much conflict, much blame.

There are very few solutions we as individuals can make.

While I agree that on the macro scale countries and industries can make huge changes on a nearly global scale, the predominant "blame" seems to be on individuals in this country who are driving to work trying to make a living.

Every day the internet is telling us how evil we are for driving to work.
If I have to bike thousands of pounds of tools and parts to my job to save the earth i might as well quit.

In other words; at what point does the price we are asked to pay become such a burden as to make our lifestyle not worth the effort?

What lifestyle do we have CHANGE to?

I have not heard a peep about that.

Just blame and finger pointing.

"You evil working folks driving those cars are ruining the planet."

Okay, What would you have us do instead?

THAT is what everyone is waiting to hear... What is the price we have to pay and we don't mean dollars.

What is the "Life Cost" to the individual to prevent Global Warming?

Post Script: Thank You Jerry for the thoughtful reply. You must have been writing the same time as me!

Edited by Ice-axe on 08/02/2012 20:41:07 MDT.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
Rog on 08/02/2012 21:03:44 MDT Print View

I wonder what Rog would do? :>) We already know he rides a motorcycle, and electric bicycle, has a solar water heater, but he's trying so hard to find reasons for the heating other than human activity. I wonder what that's all about. Does he really think that scientists have underestimated volcanic activity and volcanic emissions by a factor of 100X? It seems like such a ruse! I would love to believe there is no climate change caused by humans but when I really look at who says what - I have no choice about what side to chose because I'm not stupid.

Even that saintly knight Dr. John Christy now admits to AGW but he has this idea that it will be good and we can adapt - I wonder whos feeding him that nonsense. These people keep evolving their ideas to keep up with their political needs - can't question the oil and gas - keep it flowing - don't conserve it - don't make cars smaller or slower - we're all entitled to eveything the planet can muster. Fracking is supposed to be the answer now - like it's clean or something. That's will F us up worse than anything with all of it's unacconted for costs.

Hey Matthew, this is funny, You must have been writing while I posted. I'll post below on scarifices.

Edited by wildlife on 08/02/2012 21:35:04 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Rog on 08/02/2012 21:22:24 MDT Print View

Now they discovered all this oil and gas in North Dakota and elsewhere, because of fracing.

The main problem with fracing is that it's exempted from regulatory control for the most part. If they studied water supply real well before they started fracing, made public what they're putting in the well, try to do it in the safest way possible, it might not be so bad.

They say that the U.S. will become the biggest oil producer again, overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia, because of fracing.

So, we'll go back to fuel guzzler vehicles, put on hold any alternative energy sources until we've burned through all the new oil and gas, and then the CO2 problem will be even worse.

People have to wake up to the fact that our government is bought - get rid of all those right wing wackos - get rid of the Supreme Court decision that says wealthy people and corporations can spend unlimited amounts on politicians.

Maybe this drought will do the trick, even if it's actually just a natural cycle and not because of global warming.