Which destroys more capital?
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
-
Leo Kolivakis03/19/2010 - 17:00
-
George Washington03/19/2010 - 16:17
-
Reggie Middleton03/19/2010 - 10:03
Search
The Zero Hedge Debate Society
Latest News From The Fly On The Wall
03-19 16:22:
AmerisourceBergen awarded $110M government contract
03-19 15:54:
Goldcorp files to sell 8.4M shares of common stock
Latest News From RAN Squawk
Poll
The Zero Hedge Team
Tyler Durden - Founder
Marla Singer - Foil
Travis - Author
Cornelius - Author
Sacrilege - Senior Researcher
tips [ at ] zerohedge [ dot ] com - Our Reader Tips Mailbox
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
ads [ at ] zerohedge [ dot ] com - Advertising Inquiries.
abuse [ at ] zerohedge [ dot ] com - Abuse / Infringement Issues
It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer, our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure.
Zero Hedge Offices:
United States:
888.qui.zero (888.784.9376)
Zurich:
+41 43 501 6717
London:
+44 20 3318 4753
copyright ©2009 zero hedge - limited reproduction (with attribution) permitted by request
zero hedge's redundancy powered by:
on Fri, 12/04/2009 - 22:28
#153596
This is not a fair question. UEA would create enormous amounts of capital thus draining capital all over. They are both big unsustainable operations that benefit only a few people so they are both a waste to everyone who doesn't benefit from them. But hey people are starving and you gotta keep yourself distracted someway.
on Fri, 12/04/2009 - 22:36
#153607
UAE could go poof and it would be a non-event as rest of the world would go on. Oh look, them shitty oil countries went bust, let's go take all the US has been paying for in protection over the years. Energy problem fixed for 6 months
on Fri, 12/04/2009 - 22:45
#153614
Ya but just think of all the emotional scarring. Do you really want your children growing up in a world where they believe building an indoor ski resort in a desert is scientifically possible but not really feasible. We could raise a whole generation of kids completely unfascinated by being he first to construct a perpetual motion machine. It could be bad. And hey it's the thought that counts. Pharoh doesn't know you really love him till your willing to get smashed by a rock to build his tomb. The guy needs proof.
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 00:12
#154287
3 Ben Bergambe
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 20:49
#154173
CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI
on Fri, 12/04/2009 - 22:33
#153605
Marla, Did you know that 5 out of 2 people are dyslexic?
on Fri, 12/04/2009 - 22:43
#153609
ottiD
on Fri, 12/04/2009 - 22:43
#153613
dyslexics untie!
on Fri, 12/04/2009 - 23:10
#153631
May turn out as reliable as the BSL unemployment number. Just saying.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 00:40
#153683
At this hour, inebriated.
on Fri, 12/04/2009 - 22:53
#153619
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 00:12
#153669
Heres another $79 billion of the sheeples money wasted.
"It’s unthinkable. Big Government has spent $79 billion on the climate industry, 3000 times more than Big Oil."
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012692.html
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 03:07
#153743
ClimateGate Here Comes the Judge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trNkyzrHDs0
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 06:35
#153772
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? Marla, seriously... this site is really going down hill...
btw, in regards to whose profiting from this, COMMON how many TRILLIONS are made by industries attached to our current fossil fuel regime??? The people in power DON'T want to change and are simply paying lip service to the problem. If nuclear war or some pandemic doesn't get us, some global environmental catastrophe will... cause people, simply don't give a fuck enough to change...
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 11:31
#153882
Even if it's not going to change the climate, it's still gross and will probably lead to health problems in the long term for many Americans. I'm sure that breathing in brown/gray air that will leave a film on your car within a week can't be good for our lungs, among other things.
My dog had to go to the vet three times for getting sick because I let him swim in Clear Creek. (LOL. Talk about Orwellian) Of course, after the third time he got sick and I was sure it was the creek I didn't let him swim in there anymore...
The point is that we shouldn't have to worry about the air we breathe and the water we drink. I think that that's going to be more of a problem than the ice caps melting and flooding Los Angeles, personally.
on Tue, 12/08/2009 - 18:48
#157223
WTF!? There is inverse correlation. Life expectancies have risen as pollution has gone up.
Im not saying the correlation is causation.
I'm just sayin......
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 12:17
#153902
I have to agree: the climate change denial comments are bringing this site downhill.
Climate change science has been around and has been accumulating evidence about climate change for far longer than the bankers and powers-that-be have been co-opting climate change for their own profit motives.
Despite anything the politicians may say, I'm fairly certain we'll burn every last hydrocarbon we can get our hands on. And that we will pay for in ways that cannot be easily measured in fiats.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 12:41
#153923
"I have to agree: the climate change denial comments are bringing this site downhill."
Ban the heretics Marla! Remember, two legs bad, four legs good.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 14:41
#153984
YES!
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 simming pools each.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 18:20
#154100
Can you identify which crackpot talks about all the water as the basis for his Denial Theory? I can look him up on Realclimate.org and get the scientific refutaion. That way I never have to think about it again.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 19:35
#154137
too bad 99% of it is salt water. enjoy!
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 17:01
#154056
what about the underground coal seam fires, that have been burning for decades, human use of fossil fuels pales in comparison to these 24/7 pollution emiters. although, we did start the fires. don't buy into a 2 choice arguement. look at the problem with eyes wide open. we are potentially smarter than they want us to believe. if you really, really want to understand whats going on, make it your most important priority, and think about it every day. your mind will deliver the insight you seek, you just have to keep asking.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 22:17
#154221
Al Gore ? Is that you ?
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 00:54
#154307
Biodome-
Any discussion of resources available or legitimate pollution have nothing to do with the promotion of the current cap and trade man made global warming scam - so don't embarass yourself, stick to the topic at hand. We are all against legitimate pollution, but CO2 is beneficial to the planet and levels were higher before the industrial revolution (hence Greenland). This is an analytical site that focuses on the facts, you are most likely an emotional expressive personality type that has 100 bumper stickers on your vehicle, you are easily manipulated, and believe the sky is falling and the world will end because that is what you were told by Al Gore, keep reading and I'll make you feel better.
Should we be good stewards and address our needed transition to natural gas from cheap middle eastern oil because peak cheap oil has passed, sure. Should we reduce pollution of mercury and other chemicals into our environment, absolutely. Should we tell a lie that CO2 is bad for the environment and causes global warming when the facts (unadjusted data) show that we have been cooling for the last decade, the polar ice caps have extended for the last few years, the sun is mostly responsible for fluctuations and that these fluctuations are natural, and many periods before the industrial revolution were warmer - NO. Hitler was an effective liar:
Tell a lie often enough, loud enough, and long enough and people will believe you. - Hitler
A few relevant quotes from Rousseau:
Scientists and organizations have been pressured into accepting this false science and in cases acadamia has been bribed (grants, promotions, positions) to support it with money from the bankers. If the bankers could buy off key authority figures, they could convince the world to back their carbon trading schemes and implement the structure for global governance (including global taxes) tying together the command structure of banks and corporations.
You are trying so hard to try this case in the court of public opinion because you would fail in a real court. In fact, a truck driver in the UK sued because his child was shown the video in school and he argued it was not true. This is what the court had to say:
How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?
In the end, a climate change skeptic in the States must hope that an American truck driver files such a lawsuit here so that a U.S. judge can make similar determinations.
A list of 32,000 scientists that disagree with man made global warming, including 9,000 PHDs: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_...
They are manufacturing imaginary global problems where the answer to the imaginary created problem is "global government - global governance". They want a new world order run by billionaires, and this would be a global tax to support global governance including a transfer of wealth from these United States and a surrender of our sovereignty to global governance - Al Gore told Europeans that cap & trade was a vital first step in global government. Our leaders are compromised, bought or blackmailed into submission so the people must fight against this - we don't want more taxes and we don't want world government.
I get the feeling that the same groups that were paid big bucks to support this are also out in full force on blogs trying to influence with emotional hysterical statements that have no basis in facts. Another theory I have is that the elites need to have us divided and fighting against each other in splintered groups so that there is no majority. This would be a great way to distract us while they continue pilfering. This has nothing to do with real pollution (chemicals, flouride, mercury) and everything to do with control. If you actually believe the man made global warming propaganda after the leak of emails outlining falsified data, you have a low IQ - it's true I'm sorry to say.
This will most likely go through, if it does natural gas over time could significantly benefit (especially if they can find a way to use it for transportation) and it is at an all time low. (UNG and CHK investment options). I want to transition off of middle east oil and into natural gas, I just will not accept a lie that man is a plague on the earth and that CO2 is pollution contributing to global warming - do you want higher taxes to pay for global governance and oligarchs, and regulation of your every movement (police state)?
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 02:15
#154321
"Should we tell a lie that CO2 is bad for the environment and causes global warming when the facts (unadjusted data) show that we have been cooling for the last decade, the polar ice caps have extended for the last few years, the sun is mostly responsible for fluctuations and that these fluctuations are natural, and many periods before the industrial revolution were warmer"
And a little alcohol is good for you. Statements like "CO2 is [good] for the environment" are meaningless (and misleading) to the global warming analysis. So too is the assertion that the earth has been warmer without honestly evaluating the scientific data and principles. As for sun spots, see below. Comparing short term weather change to long term climate change is also misleading and scientifically meaningless. Finding "eleven innacuracies" in one flim on the subject as proof that all the science, scientists and data is a bogus conspiracy is equally poor logic. The 32,000 "scientists" and 9000 "PHDs" have been discussed elsewhere. The recent emails reveal ugly politics for sure but do not make the evergrowing amount of data go conveniently or inconveniently away. I think you are just as much guilty of the phenomenon you accuse. Has this issue been politicized? absolutely - on both sides like every other major issue with huge economic consequences. Especially an issue that threatens the very basis of our energy and economic structures. Is cap and trade a scam? The fact that the scientific community concludes it will have no beneficial effect is a strong piece of evidence. Of course criminals and con men will try to exploit it. What else is new? But if you are trying to suggest that the "other" side of the argument doesn't have something huge to gain or lose by manipulating the data or ignoring the data or denying the data, you too are exercizing hypocricy and naivete. You are right, "this is[ supposed to be] an analytical site that focuses on the facts." But if you think sun spots, emails, Al Gore and very recent weather settles this complex issue and proves a conspiracy then you too may need a few more bumper stickers.
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 05:15
#154349
DJ Locker-
A little red wine can be good for you. There is a perfect symbiosis between plants and animals as you probably know, we take in oxygen and give off CO2. Your serpentine, meandering, mumbling run on paragraph provided no details, and no facts except referring to this imaginary "the evergrowing amount of data". The source data was intentionally deleted while a freedom of information act was outstanding, and this is an intentional criminal act if you read the emails the whistleblower released. Look around you, or don't you believe your own eyes - we are having record cold weather (global warming ha ha?).
You accused me of ignoring or denying the data, why don't you just look at the emails that were released which show blatant fraud, manipulation, and ACTUAL CONSPIRACY at the top of the global warming movement. There is no OTHER SIDE of this argument, there is only truth and falsehoods. If the "we must all accept global government or face world destruction from global warming" propaganda theme was true I would believe it. I have no interest in big oil and support alternative energy for real reasons. Why are they refusing to release source data, what are they hiding?
I will tell you what is "scientifically meaningless", and it has to do with the modeling - GIGO, Garbage in garbage out. The emails stated "we can't explain the lack of warming and it's a travesty" - so they changed the data with "the nature trick" to make it look like the planet was warming. It is all in writing, it's a massive scandal called climategate. You can try to ignore it all you want, but the truth won't go away. The truth is climate change is driven primarily by sunspot activity (higher = warmer, lower = colder), we are inactive right now with sunspots and therefore we are having significant cooling with some record cold temperatures - it is highly correlated in both directions - that is science sir based on facts and data.
Tell a lie often enough, loud enough, and long enough and people will believe you. - Hitler If you can convince the world that people are a plague on the earth (emitting CO2 - somehow classified as pollution) then with moral relativity you could justify mass slaughter of the polluters and the malthusians want this. Understand the slippery slope and the desire for control over humanity - control CO2 and control the world, it's worse than the worst evil genius plot from any james bond movie. If you can't see two moves ahead like in chess, you'll just have to trust me.
A few relevant quotes from Rousseau:
Ask the 5 W's - who, what, when, where, and why.
The corrupt bankers are funding this movement and Kenneth Lay of Enron helped set this up with Goldman Sachs partners along with Al Gore - I referenced his movie because he is the spokesperson for the movement and received a nobel prize and academy award for his movie that is not based on facts but on a false positive of correlation versus causation and a fraudulent hockey stick graph that even Al Gore had to admit was inaccurate. The irony is that if Al Gore hadn't invented the internet, we would not have learned of the false propaganda in his movie "an inconvenient truth"! No wonder Congressman Rockefeller stated it would have been better if they had never created the internet.
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 12:22
#154469
Thanks for these excellent posts with the facts that you’ve researched and made available to us. If the world is to come to a policy on what to do with this question, it is the accumulation of provable facts that will light the way. I am disappointed in the arrogance of people who override facts of all kinds with their emotional and political and, yes, industry-connected bias.
Obviously, the first order of business is to discard the pretended facts that many so-called scientists have used in their arguments. I’m particularly disturbed by the use of peer review findings that arrive from “pre-selected peers.” Obviously, this is not science.
October 2009 will go down as the 3rd coolest October on record for the United States, according to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Records go back to 1880.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&year=2009&month=10
In Denver it was reported that an arctic cold front moved in and broke a cold temperature record that stood for 104 years. In fact on the 9th of October Denver saw temperatures plunge 23 degrees in five hours setting the stage to make that record low. There were record lows in many parts of the country like Wyoming, Utah, Illinois and Iowa and if records were not broken in many areas it was extremely close.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20091012/energy-report-monday-october-12.htm
Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Bellingham, WA, comes to the conclusion, “Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years. The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycles. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.”
http://dprogram.net/2009/11/29/the-day-global-warming-stood-still/
Says Mark Sircus in The Day Global Warming Stood Still (November 30, 2009): “Throughout history we have had men and women leaders from the earliest times leading humanity toward destruction and ruin and it is not hard to understand their motives of corruption, power and greed. In December leaders from all over the world are gathering in Copenhagen and the good news about this meeting is that God himself did an end run around them mocking the meeting and exposing these men and women who work for the world’s elite; who just cannot seem to get it straight what it means to be a human being…
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/sircus1.1.1.html
“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 12:46
#154487
You're right, it's that damn internet or.... those folks who developed the computer no...electricity, yeah that's it. It's all Edison's fault, maybe Franklin. Oh Jesus, our founding fathers were in on it!
If the "top of the global warming movement" ( I assume you mean scientists) are "in" on the conspiracy for a global warming government then why are they critical of cap and trade?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/the-tragedy-of-climate-commons/
http://masterresource.org/?p=2355
As for sunspots, read the conclusion of one of the most skeptic cited works: "NOTE: that the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations. During the last thirty years, the total solar irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not show nay significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source" - I.G. Usokin et al
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 16:15
#154612
DJ Locker-
Your first paragraph is maniacal ranting and makes no sense. I was quoting a US Senator, Jay Rockefeller, who stated it would be better if the internet had not been created. To say "you're right" and then follow it with ridiculous mumbo jumbo that has nothing to do with anything I said further undermines your credibility. You sound like a raving lunatic. You seem pretty frustrated with the truth and logic I'm sharing.
As far as leading climate researchers being in on it, just follow the money. You may have missed the memo but billions in research grants, media propaganda, and acadamia promotion have been spent while this same clique ridiculed any "warming deniers" and individuals asking reasoned questions based on data were marginalized. Why do the arguments from global warming groups sound so circuitous and not adhere to the typical straight forward argument outlining premise, data, and conclusion? - because there is no data leg to stand on so they can only say the science is established and shout. If there are a few brave souls that have not been bought out, I salute them.
Your paragraph: "As for sunspots, read the conclusion of one of the most skeptic cited works: "NOTE: that the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations. During the last thirty years, the total solar irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not show nay significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source" - I.G. Usokin et al" has a very simple explanation, are you ready for it? The source of so called warming episode was the manipulation in the data!! Eliminate the "adjustments" in the data and you find the importance of the sun and sunspot activity - it's so important that we revolve around it and it gives life to earth.
Now, I could create the same crazy argument around an asteroid in space that is going to collide with earth and insist that it is real and if we don't reduce CO2 emissions it will impact the magnetic field of earth which helps to deflect cosmic rays and small debris. I could state that the science is settled and that I won't release the source data. This would be no different that where we are today.
I don't like war mongerers or warm mongerers.
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 23:54
#154942
AN, how come anyone who questions your theories (and sources) on climategate is an emotional disjoint with a bumper sticker fetish or a raving lunatic? My sarcasm is one thing. Rules of adult debate are another.
You attempt to counter the inconvenient conclusion of the Usokin article by pointing to "a manipulation in the data!" That might work if the the UEA were the only folks with a temperature database but the problem is they're not and their data coincides with other completely independent scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre and others. You're going to need a few more scandals in a few more places.
"just follow the money" - that goes (and always has gone) in both directions. Are you trying to suggest that the oil companies have not financed skeptics? Have not offered to finance skeptics? Everyone is financed one way or another. Let's stick to the science
here's some thoughts of a few other "lunatics:"
http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2009/10/climate-of-fraud-part-2.html
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Solar-ClimateLAUTPREPRINT.pdf
on Thu, 12/10/2009 - 04:18
#158739
Anyone that provides a reasoned response using the rules of "adult debate" is treated with respect, your comments were as I described them.
You really should watch the video to the link I provided, as it will enlighten you. In addition, you asked for another scandal - here is one from NASA refusing to provide data despite an FOIA request:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hid...
Fresh off the press for your viewing pleasure.
The point is there is no science here - it's merely politics and the power of money interests, the AGW hypothesis was not proven and the data has been manipulated as has been disclosed. As a general rule, don't trust Ken Lay (Enron) and Goldman Sachs - the creators of this cap and trade system. This will be a tax on air - it's almost as if the elites decided let's see how stupid the people are. I challenge you to convince these morons that they are being threatened and that taxing the air they breathe will save them.
Seriously, I thought this site was for the intellectuals.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 01:11
#153705
The list of beneficiaries from the climate swindel is long.
On the very top would be the royal family of the UK.
The Queen herself is heavily invested in making hay from the climate fraud.
Raping and pillaging as usual but with the noblesse that only the British Royals can deliver.
What do us commoners really know.
Nothing has changed. Sham democracy or not, the old guard is in charge.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 04:03
#153756
the royals on one side of the pond, the rockafellas on the other.
the sun never sets on the British Empire...until it does.
on Fri, 12/18/2009 - 13:30
#169029
Swindels are a hobby.
Climate change is physics.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 04:57
#153754
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 14:10
#153971
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 14:53
#153988
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 16:46
#154049
"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???
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 18:31
#154103
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
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 00:26
#154296
"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."
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 14:06
#154548
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-...
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 21:57
#154857
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 20:14
#154161
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 17:19
#154072
actually man made climate change is facilitated, on a regional scale, by the H.A.R.P. array in alaska, by the usaf.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 17:48
#154085
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 20:50
#154174
CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 00:37
#154299
"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."
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 14:49
#154569
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 18:06
#154097
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.
on Fri, 12/04/2009 - 23:11
#153634
You, always with 2 alternatives.
Well I want one more.
3)Shorting penny stocks found in your spam email.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 00:54
#153694
I voted based on personal prejudices. Does that count?
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 08:56
#153796
Scientific fraud gets one a Nobel Prize, finanacial fraud gets one a job at GS. For everyone else there is MasterCard.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 09:01
#153799
For scientific fraud one gets a Nobel Prize, for financial fraud one gets a job at GS. For everyone else there is MasterCard.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 16:51
#154052
HA! LOL! Nice one.
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 10:20
#154417
New World Order greed
Nobel peace prize synergize
Disingenuous
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 11:01
#153860
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 11:46
#153885
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.
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 13:16
#154502
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR9cDFSNV8E
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 12:39
#153920
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 14:15
#153974
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.
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 01:08
#154313
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.
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 15:14
#154585
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)
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 16:15
#154613
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 17:18
#154071
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 19:34
#154136
And this guy'll be dead before having to own up to any mistakes in his calculations.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 13:38
#153957
The question should read:
1) Financial Fraud in the UAE
2) Financial Fraud in the USA
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 21:55
#154213
You have no sense of humor.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 13:41
#153960
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 14:33
#153983
"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
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 15:28
#154002
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 22:29
#154227
"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?
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 17:54
#153989
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.
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 00:50
#154306
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"
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 11:40
#154424
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 16:47
#154050
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 21:22
#154185
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 17:51
#154092
Ooooh! Ooooh! I know!
<waves arm furiously>
Financial fraud in the USA.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 22:21
#154225
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.
on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 23:05
#154241
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?
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 15:33
#154588
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.
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 00:45
#154304
"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
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 11:49
#154451
How pissed would you be about fraud in the EAU?
http://www.uroweb.org/
on Sun, 12/06/2009 - 22:30
#154884
urine on the scam?