You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.
Which destroys more capital?
Submitted by Marla Singer on 12/04/2009 23:22 -0400
»
- 7964 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
How pissed would you be about fraud in the EAU?
http://www.uroweb.org/
urine on the scam?
"OMFG... Micheal, do you really believe 6+ billion people on this planet all burning hydro carbons is NOT going to cause some sort of climate event?"
Chill, already, with the Global Warming Alarmist rhetoric. The gig is up. Your "science" is crap. The public tuned in, smelled a turd, and decided where they stand:
Hide The Decline - Climategate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
You guys do realize that claiming climate change is some sort of massive worldwide conspiracy by tens of thousands of people makes the 911 truther "OMG! Cheney remote-controlled teh planes!!!" folks look rational, don't you?
conspiracy of ignorance guilt and gullability, coupled with sociopathic and corrupt leaders, set in motion by demonic elitists. those who don't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it. THE LEVEL OF ARROGANCE, COUPLED WITH IGNORANCE, CONTINUES TO AMAZE ME.
why did I never heard about any study on environmental effects of nuke tests? I think that decades massively boiling up the atmosphere should have some consequences like more hurricanes and chaotic climate.
Ooooh! Ooooh! I know!
<waves arm furiously>
Financial fraud in the USA.
Good questions. Which is more likely indicative of a mega-trend? Which would be more harmful over the long term?
Both morph to evade discovery and capture. Both drain/redirect vast amounts of capital. Both tolerate an unlevel playing field. Both result from unbridled greed.
And both illustrate the need for humans to take personal responsibility for their actions.
Good stewardship of financial resources, and natural resources.
No difference.
I just want to build a system where I can burn 10 thousand gallons of gas flying me and my friends to the super bowl without giving a crap while ordinary tiny little people sit at home in fear of shock troop attacks if they use a regular light bulb. Because I like to be fair.
You see. Everytime you tell us we make too much money and we are too greedy that somehow get's turned back on to the masses and you end up with thousands of people willing to sacrifice for the greater good.
You don't understand. We have no sympathy for you. We only care about our own unfeeling, uncaring, kind and spending hours and hours faking emotional reactions and learning to wave your hands around to make yourself look more dynamic and like you are always making a really good strong point. And the best way to survey your expectations and present to you that we care about them while doing whatever the hell we want. We're more interested in telling you various procedures of how to rebel and what is allowable to say or not say than we are in really communicating. Expression control is thought control. We just want to control you entirely. That's all we care about. That's all we'll ever care about. We like to call it governing or leading.
I believe in climate change, I don’t believe in man-made climate change.
I believe in global warming, I don’t believe in man-made global warming.
I believe in global cooling, I don’t believe in man-made global cooling.
How can I make this any clearer to people. It’s the way you say it, with regards to the words climat change and global warming. It’s a psychological mind trick they use to brainwash people.
Try to use these complete sentences and correct them when they use the words climate change and global warming out of context.
What percentage of the previous global warming was man-made? We have global cooling now. Can you give me a percentage range of man's contribution to the previous global warming that can be proven scientifically and what percentage was from natural causes? To say I feel the previous global warming is man’s fault is not good enough.
There is 250 million tones of water on Earth for every man, woman, and child on the planet. That would be the volume of roughly 90,711 Olympic size swimming pools each.
To think that puny little you has any even temporary influence on this volume of water, I seriously suggest you have your head examined.
Perhaps we need to bring PROXIMITY and TIME into the debate here. It would indeed be tough for one "puny little" me to screw up 250 million tones of water in a day, but....
"Oil has empowered each American worker the equivalent of 45 ‘virtual slaves’."
Give me 75 years, multiply me by 45 and see what effect I have on the limited amount of water that I actually live near. I'll let you drink from that cesspool first.
More thoughts on "causation."
"Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.
One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.
Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.
Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.
Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***
In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.
For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79"
"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.”
- Maurice Strong*, opening speech at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit | The Green Economy – A Global Economic Suicide Pact
Fear is the weapon used by the Greens from Hell, the cap and trade profiteers and global controllers, to render the American people pliant enough to carry the yoke of global governance without complaint.
However, they don’t intend to restrict the causes of climate change—as if they could—they intend to restrict the peoples of the world.
And, now, it seems that decisive moment has arrived.
As Project Mayhem said November 30 on The Week in Mayhem, “[T]he issue at hand with the Cophenhagen global warming treaty atop the background of 'failed states' in the West is the construction of an entirely new quasi-corporatist global system, based around "global warming", where carbon-debt forms a core component of international trade.” PM’s gripping summary deserves serious attention; it is comprehensive and insightful, a clarion warning in the global governance debate.
Herman van Rompuy, the recently elected first European Union President leaves no doubt as to the agenda: “2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G-20 in the middle of a financial crisis…The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards global management of our planet.”
Even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who can’t balance a budget, has got into the act. According to yesterday’s SF Chroncle, he “has set an ambitious agenda to combat climate change…to prepare for the worst if human action cannot stop global warming and the rise of sea levels.” How? He is creating a panel of 23 California leaders to make recommendations. LOL
As to capital destruction, says the author of The Green Agenda: “One of the first targets of the green movement was the nuclear power industry. Even though nuclear energy offers enormous energy potential with no C02 emissions they still revile it. They also fiercely oppose any proposals to build new hydro-electric dams based on perceived negative environmental effects. The same argument is used to oppose any proposals to develop new oil fields. They intend to starve the beast not feed it. The only sources of power that the environmental movement is willing to allow are wind and sunlight. Humans will just have to adapt to living with very low volumes of unreliable energy.
”Of course the big prize has always been to find some way to control, or even eliminate, the use of fossil fuels. After all, it is fossil fuels that have allowed the human population to blossom from a mere one billion in 1850 to more than six billion today. A single barrel of oil contains 23,000 man-hours of energy. Hence the 20 million barrels that the USA consumes each day is equivalent to 15 billion additional human workers. Oil has empowered each American worker the equivalent of 45 ‘virtual slaves’. Globally it provides us with the equivalent daily energy of more than 70 billion human workers. Try pushing your car for a few miles to see just how much work oil does for us…
“The fact that modern ‘industrial’ agriculture would collapse without fossil fuels, and as a result hundreds of millions would starve, seems to be of minor consequence. It’s just a bit of short-term pain for long-term gain. Ted Turner, who donated over a billion dollars to the United Nations specifically to fund the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thinks that ‘A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.’
“Hence for the green movement Global Warming presents an opportunity to finally and completely destroy the voracious beast of capitalism. They are demanding the imposition of a massive reduction in global emissions of carbon dioxide accompanied by a freeze on such emissions at the sharply reduced level. This would immediately result in the elimination or radical reduction in the supply of all goods and services that depend on fossil fuel consumption. As Al Gore says it would be a ‘wrenching transformation of society.’ Every aspect of daily life would be dramatically altered…”
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong*, founder of the UN Environment Programme and on board of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation."
- Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies and Obama’s Science Czar
"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."
- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control."
- Professor Maurice King
"We need to get some broad based support to capture the public's imagination...So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports.
http://green-agenda.com/neweconomy.html
http://green-agenda.com/index.html
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=67
"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.”
Well, we solved the problem of the affluent middle-class alright. Damn, using appliances and furnaces too? Is a cardboard box sustainable living?
The quote from Maurice Strong "involving high meat intake" was directed toward Timothy Sykes.
As we all know little Timmy has a meat only diet and an entry through the exit policy.
This site is turning into a joke.
At least it's been interesting watching an insightful, thought-provoking site slowly degrade into steaming pile of poo.
Sad, but interesting.
The question should read:
1) Financial Fraud in the UAE
2) Financial Fraud in the USA
You have no sense of humor.
I love this site. Sometimes full of good market insight, but always full of crap when it comes to politics.
If you think man isn't causing climate change, please buy up some nice waterfront property in the Bahamas or the Maldives and see what happens in the next 20 years. Bring your hip-boots for when the sea levels rise a few feet.
You may also be interested in the correspondence of Galileo when he was coming up with his non-Ptolomeaic "theory" of planets revolving around the Sun. I'm still not convinced, as I have not seen direct evidence of this.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5595813/why-the-maldives-arent-si...
An open letter from Nils-Axel Mörner to the President of the Maldives assuring him that his country is safe:
Dear Mr President,
You are obviously very concerned about the effect that sea level rises may have on the Maldives. Your Cabinet has been photographed meeting underwater, and you have even declared that ‘we are going to die’ if the climate change summit in Copenhagen fails. I am now writing with what I hope will be some good news. The scientific side of the situation is quite different to that which you imagine. You are, in fact, not going to die.
Before I continue, I should perhaps state my credentials. I have been a sea-level specialist for 40 years. I launched most of its new theories in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. I solved the problem of the gravitational potential surface, the theory that it changes with time; the rotation of the earth, how it affected the redistribution of the oceans’ masses — and so on. Last year, I was awarded a prize from Algarve university for my ‘irreverence and contribution to our understanding of sea level change’.
...
Yours,
Nils-Axel Mörner
A former lead reviewer for the IPCC, Nils-Axel Mörner was head of Geodynamics at Stockholm University until his retirement in 2005.
And this guy'll be dead before having to own up to any mistakes in his calculations.
northern africa was a lush farmable region thousands of years ago. I don't think mans activities had anything to do with its desertification. weather is bigger than man, we may add a little influence, but originate cause, thats just hubris. look at the big picture, and do the math. if you can't see beyond your preconceived ideas, you will never know the truth, and that is the only thing that can set you free from ignorance. open your mind.
our industrial output has never had an effect on "nature?"
weather is bigger than man
and so are the Great Lakes, the Amazon Rainforest, etc
this has nothing to do with hubris and everything to do with chemistry and physics
the fact that the global climate has changed before proves nothing without measuring the data, observing the phenomena, and applying scientific principle.
one volcanic eruption can emit more atmospheric pollution, in a few days, than a years worth of human activity. I don't dispute the negative impact we have on the environment, or even some of the alarmist attitudes, we do need to enact changes. what I dispute are conclusions (assumptions) and solutions (imposed) coupled with enforcement (selective)
Large volcanoes also emit so much ash into the atmosphere that they cool the earth significantly, reducing solar influence.
When Mt St. Helens erupted, we had (up here in the NW) 3 very cool summers, well below average, and St. Helens was small scale stuff.
Sure we are adding hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, but we are definately not in the know of how this process will unfold.
ABOLISH GOVERNMENT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETKuoHlYuHM
You institutional investors should worry about when the silent majority wakes up, you're all part of the problem and I don't think the angry mobs will care much that you posted on ZHedge. Your job is a dead-end anyway, only a matter of time. Quit and do something beautiful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR9cDFSNV8E
Last I checked, the public (and school children) weren't being brainwashed on the benefits of investing their money in UAE. Children aren't having "Save the Sultan" bake sales. Maybe they should though, the ROI might be better.
For scientific fraud one gets a Nobel Prize, for financial fraud one gets a job at GS. For everyone else there is MasterCard.
New World Order greed
Nobel peace prize synergize
Disingenuous
HA! LOL! Nice one.
Scientific fraud gets one a Nobel Prize, finanacial fraud gets one a job at GS. For everyone else there is MasterCard.
I voted based on personal prejudices. Does that count?
You, always with 2 alternatives.
Well I want one more.
3)Shorting penny stocks found in your spam email.
Thank You Marla for this topic. Scientific Fraud was my vote.
Now I don't have to piss off people here with my OT comments on Climategate. So shut up and listen people. We'll start by following the money.
The Man-Made Global warming Scam is all about stealing money from the sheeple.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is one of the major reasons for promoting the fraud of man-made global warming. Billions of tax payer dollars are now being spent to make a select few filthy rich from this useless technology. Senator John D Rockefeller is the major player behind this scam.
Rockefeller is a longtime champion of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Earlier this year, he helped secure $3.4 billion for the Fossil Energy Research and Development programs, including CCS research, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=317677&
I found billions of taxpayer dollars pissed away here spent on pumping CO2 two miles into the ground for storage. This is just plain stupid. The biosphere loves CO2. People, can you find the other places where they are pissing away the sheeples money?
Here's a scientific fact for you to ponder; The Sun has been in a low output state for more than two years with very few sunspots indicating low sun activity. How many of you have heard about that little tidbit on the evening news? None, because it's an inconvenient truth. The Sun is the main driver of the Earth's climate. Put two and two together and you have a good explanation why the planet has been cooling in recent years. I enjoyed watching the snow in Houston today, earliest in recorded history there. Enjoy the coming winter sheeple, you deserve it.
There is even more to climategate and reporting in other places in the world too.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/good-morning-worker-drones-week-mayhem-...
The big profits for some cephalopods are probably in carbon trading, carbon capturing employs few engineers.
Right on, Michael! And those 65,000 plus synthetic chemicals that have been spread all over the environment since Reagan was the prez, never having been tested for toxicity, are SUPER for humans!
And those nasty pharmaceutical companies that consistently interdict studies to ascertain the involvement of contraceptives in causation of breast cancer --- surely they must be right as well?
All sarcasm aside, dood, I agree with you on one point: anybody with the name Rockefeller is genetically predisposed to corruption!
The most easily understood talk I ever attended on climate change and man's effect on the environment was given by a prof with three doctorates: one in climatology, one in oceanography and the third in engineering.
Sometimes highly complex subjects require complex backgrounds.
I believe in climate change, I don’t believe in man-made climate change.
I believe in global warming, I don’t believe in man-made global warming.
I believe in global cooling, I don’t believe in man-made global cooling.
How can I make this any clearer to people. It’s the way you say it. It’s a psychological mind trick they use to brainwash people.
Try to use these complete sentences and correct them when they use the words climate change and global warming out of context.
What percentage of the previous global warming was man-made? We have global cooling now. Can you give me a percentage range that can be proven scientifically and what percentage was from natural causes? To say I feel the previous global warming is man’s fault is not good enough.
There is 250 million tones of water on Earth for every man, woman, and child on the planet. That would be the volume of roughly 90,711 Olympic size swimming pools each.
To think that puny little you has any even temporary influence on this volume of water, I seriously suggest you have your head examined.
actually man made climate change is facilitated, on a regional scale, by the H.A.R.P. array in alaska, by the usaf.
Actually, H.A.R.P. is only affective on a very limited area and it's affects are very temporary. The climate system is too big for us puny humans to damage on a permanent basis.
possible use of H.A.A.R.P. to re-inforce warming propaganda maybe cyclical global warming, is the cause of elevated CO2 levels. I wouldn't claim we don't contribute, but I would definitely state, we are not the sole cause. the pollution we expose ourselves to is a bigger threat to our wellbeing.
CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI
"all of the recent CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due to human activities, in spite of the fact that both the oceans and the land biosphere respond to global warming. There is a lot of evidence to support this statement which has been explained in a previous posting here and in a letter in Physics Today . However, the most convincing arguments for scientists (based on isotopes and oxygen decreases in the atmosphere) may be hard to understand for the general public because they require a high level of scientific knowledge. I present simpler evidence of the same statement based on ocean observations, and I explain how we know that not only part of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to human activities, but all of it.
On time-scales of ~100 years, there are only two reservoirs that can naturally exchange large quantities of CO2 with the atmosphere: the oceans and the land biosphere (forests and soils). The mass of carbon (carbon is the “C” in CO2) must be conserved. If the atmospheric CO2 increase was caused, even in part, by carbon emitted from the oceans or the land, we would measure a carbon decrease in these two reservoirs.
Number of observations of carbon decreasing in the global oceans: zero.
Number of observations of carbon increasing in the global oceans: more than 20 published studies using 6 independent methods.
The methods are:
(1) direct observations of the partial pressure of CO2 at the ocean surface (Takahashi et al. 2002),
(2) observations of the spatial distribution of atmospheric CO2 which show how much carbon goes in and out of the different oceanic regions (Bousquet et al. 2000),
(3) observations of carbon, oxygen, nutrients and CFCs combined to remove the mean imprint of biological processes (Sabine et al. 2004),
(4) observations of carbon and alkalinity for two time-periods combined with an estimate of water age based on CFCs (McNeil et al. 2002), and the simultaneous observations of atmospheric CO2 increase and the decrease in (5) oxygen (Keeling et al. 1996), and (6) carbon 13 (Ciais et al. 1995) in the atmosphere.
The principle of the last two methods is that both fossil fuel burning and biospheric respiration consume oxygen and reduce carbon 13 as they produce CO2, but the exchange of CO2 with the oceans has only a small impact on atmospheric oxygen and carbon 13. The measure of atmospheric CO2 increase together with oxygen or carbon 13 decrease gives the distribution between the different reservoirs.
All the estimates show that the carbon content of the oceans is increasing by ~ 2±1 PgC every year (current burning of fossil fuel is ~7 PgC per year). One method is able to go back in time and shows that the carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118±19 PgC in the last 200 years. There is some uncertainty about the exact amount that the oceans have taken up, but not about the direction of the change. The oceans cannot be a source of carbon to the atmosphere, because we observe them to be a sink of carbon from the atmosphere.
What about the land biosphere? We know that deforestation has contributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Yet because carbon needs to be conserved, observations of the carbon increase in the atmosphere and the oceans combined with estimates of fossil fuel burning tell us that deforestation has been largely compensated by enhanced growth by the land biosphere. For example, during 1980 to 1999, fossil fuel burning was 117±5 PgC, and the carbon increase in the atmosphere and the oceans were 65±1 and 37±8 PgC, respectively. Thus that leaves 15±9 PgC that has been taken up by the land. This 15±9 PgC includes deforestation (and other land-use changes) which reduced the land biosphere by 24±12 PgC, and an additional land uptake of 39±18 PgC in response to elevated CO2 and climate changes (Sabine et al. 2004). Here also there is some uncertainty about the exact amount, but there is no uncertainty that the land biosphere has taken up a quantity of CO2 that is roughly equivalent to the deforestation.
Why are the ocean and land taking up carbon, when we know that warming of the oceans reduces the solubility of CO2 and warming of the land accelerates bacterial degradation of the soils? The answer is that warming is not the only process that influences the oceans and land biosphere. The dominant process in the oceans is the response to increasing atmospheric CO2 itself. If the oceans had not warmed, they might have taken up even more carbon, although we cannot say for sure because warming may have other impacts, for example on marine biota. On land, bacterial degradation of the soils may have increased in response to warming, but for the moment this effect is smaller than the land response to other processes (for example fertilization by CO2 and nitrogen, changes in precipitation, etc).
Is this consistent with what we know of the glaciations? Yes. During glaciations, the balance of processes was very different. Cooling and other climate changes occurred first. The response of the oceans and land biosphere to climate caused the atmospheric CO2 to decrease, which caused more cooling (more on the feedbacks between temperature and CO2 can be found here). During glaciations, there were no external changes in atmospheric CO2 and the oceans and land biosphere responded primarily to climate change. In the last 200 years, there have been large changes in atmospheric CO2 as a result of human activities, and the oceans and land biosphere respond primarily to rising CO2.
In summary, we know that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation because many independent observations show that the carbon content has also increased in both the oceans and the land biosphere (after deforestation). If the oceans or land had contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, they would hold less carbon. Their response to warming may be real, but it is less than their response to increasing CO2 and other climate changes for the moment."
"We have global cooling now."
It's sentences like that really speak volumes about your state of mind man...
Once again, sure little old me won't have any impact on the earths climate, but 6+ billion of us? Each trying to attain the same standard of living here in west... common, you've gotta be nuts NOT to believe we are having a serious impact on this planet. Yes climate change occurred throughout the earths history, the were times in the earths past when we had no ice caps and the weather was MUCH warmer then it is today. You know what happened during those times of extreme? mass extinction... entire ecosystems died out and you had a domino effect across all types of life... simply put, whatever we do the earth will survive the question is, will we???
It comes down to this, should we allow the current crop of politician and business "leaders" to fuck up our collective future so that THEY can be comfortable today???
With no shortage of REAL environmental issues to focus on, why do so many still waste their breath defending this flagrant scam?
Al Gore has certainly done a smashing job of mindfucking you all.
Sunspot number: 0
Updated 03 Dec 2009
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 12 days
2009 total: 255 days (76%)
Since 2004: 766 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days
Solar wind
speed: 365.9 km/sec
"The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.
However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
In other words, the study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global warming today."
However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level
Pretty ignorant scientists if that is what they think. Solar activity is a heat flow, not a temperature. Once the solar activity is at a given level, it will take time for the earth's temp to come to equilibrium. Anybody who's heated a pot of water knows this. The level of the heat and the temp in the pot are not directly correlated, there's always a time lag.
And when the sun's turns down the heat, it'll takes a while for the earth's temp to start dropping. As it has. It's the difference between the earth's current temp, and the equilibrium point that would be reached if the current solar output was constant that determines the direction and speed of change of the earths temperature.
Davey,
your counter-argument is not up to date.
The Finnish TV had few days ago at prime time a broadcast that dendrochronology and the sediment in a lake in Finland do NOT support warming in the last few years.
The sediment graph was simply turned upside down to produce the hockey-stick and the trees to measure temperature were a very small sample size. A different type of trees in a bigger sample size in the same area pointed to a lower temperature in the last few years.
The most important 'correction' of the warming makers was the coupling of CO2 and water vapour.
At higher temperatures more water evaporates, more water vapour adds to the greenhouse effect and the warming will be really bad.
But in reality more water vapour formed more clouds that reflect the sun and cool the earth.
For the whole transcript see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/09/mcintyre-and-lindzen-to-appear-on-...
michael, what's most amusing about all the cashish going down the carbon capture hole is that carbon capture is about the easiest & cheapest thing to accomplish. all you gotta do is burn it in a low oxygen environment...anyone can do it. not only that but if you mix in bio-char into the soil instead of burying it 2 miles down, you can create terra preta which is what is found in the amazon river basin, the most fertile land on earth.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Make_your_own_BioChar_and_Terra_Preta/
the true skill of a shyster is to make the most simplest of things too complex for most people to comprehend.