DennisHeld wrote: I suspect that man's percentage is between 20% and 80%. CO2 data seems to indicate the larger percentage.
Again I ask. Are you pulling these numbers out of thin air, or can you provide some reference so that we can audit your claims?
You're gonna hate this:
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/IPCC_deception.pdf
"UN IPCC MAN-MADE EMISSIONS GROSSLY OVERSTATED
Reports by the US Dept of Energy (DOE) indicate that 97% of the annual carbon dioxide emissions come from Nature itself. The report also indicates that more than 98% of all the carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed again by Nature. It means that since the start of the Industrial Revolution the increase in carbon dioxide levels of about 103ppmv are 97% due to Nature itself, that is to say that only about 3ppmv of that increase is due to man-made emissions."
Ouch! That's gotta hurt all you AGW disciples!
The current warming appears to be long term. But that doesn't mean it'll continue. The real problem may not be the warming, but the imbalance.
By "long term" I assume you mean over a few millenium, because as of this date there is no "current warming", only current cooling. But you are correct in that such things are cyclical - not how your phrased it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Problem is, since this current warming/cooling trend fits nicely into the long term historical record of cyclicalism, what gives you or anyone else any reason to claim that there is an "imbalance"? Or are you clinging to the now 100% discredited Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph?
sfcouple wrote: Michael,Your ad hominem attack is amusing. However, at the end of the day we are still left with a mountain of evidence that the natural variability of climate change has finally been punctuated by human activity. Wayne
Michael,
Your ad hominem attack is amusing. However, at the end of the day we are still left with a mountain of evidence that the natural variability of climate change has finally been punctuated by human activity.
Wayne
I think the attitude is ridiculous, and particularly the supposition of a "mountain of evidence." There was "little doubt" then, and there is "little doubt" now, even though the positions have reversed. My point on this thread is to point out that I met you people when I was working on my PhD in Biochemistry in the 1970s, working for the US Government in R&D, an associate member of the National Academy of Sciences and a member of the American Chemical Society, and you were all walking confidently in one direction with the attitude that everyone that disagreed was wrong. And not just wrong, but morally impaired because we refused to see. And for the problem of Global Cooling, that the Government needed to step in and fix it, even if we really didn't know what the problem was ... or if there was a problem ... or if it was man-caused.
You are the same people, walking in the opposite direction today, fully loaded with the same moralistic, patronizing attitudes. And for the problem of Global Warming, that the Government needs to step in and fix it, even if we really don't know what the problem is ... or if there is a problem ... or if it is man-caused.
My attitude then is the same as now, and the same as I hold for any press release from a railroad: skepticism. Not disbelief. Skepticism.
Modeling HO Freelance Logging Railroad.
DennisHeld wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Oh please. Not this "you didn't produce enough examples ...". I guess I didn't fully understand your "rules." I did think that an example, from the most mainstream of the mainstream media, citing a variety of sources and representing that the idea represented a near unanimity among climate scientists, would be a sufficient example.You got me there. Now I remember! There was rioting in the streets. Panic on the stock market. Don't know how I could have forgotten that. Once again, the focus of 70's environmentalism was water and air pollution, pesticides and chemical waste. Some global warming/cooling hypothesis' were offered, but little attention was paid to them. The ONLY popular media that picked it up was one weekly news magazine. I was heavily in the scientific community at the time. I completely missed the global cooling frenzy.
MichaelSol wrote: Oh please. Not this "you didn't produce enough examples ...". I guess I didn't fully understand your "rules." I did think that an example, from the most mainstream of the mainstream media, citing a variety of sources and representing that the idea represented a near unanimity among climate scientists, would be a sufficient example.
Oh please. Not this "you didn't produce enough examples ...". I guess I didn't fully understand your "rules." I did think that an example, from the most mainstream of the mainstream media, citing a variety of sources and representing that the idea represented a near unanimity among climate scientists, would be a sufficient example.
Once again, the focus of 70's environmentalism was water and air pollution, pesticides and chemical waste. Some global warming/cooling hypothesis' were offered, but little attention was paid to them. The ONLY popular media that picked it up was one weekly news magazine. I was heavily in the scientific community at the time. I completely missed the global cooling frenzy.
I had a feeling that Newsweek, Science, the National Academy of Sciences and the Washington Post wouldn't be enough either.
OK, add this one: Time, "Another Ice Age?" June. 24, 1974.
How about these:
Washington Post January 11, 1970 Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age
International Wildlife July-August 1975 In the Grip of a New Ice Age?
National Geographic November 1976 What's Happening to Our Climate?
Christian Science Monitor August 27, 1974 Major Crop Failures Foreseen
Fortune, February, 1974. Fortune magazine actually won a "Science Writing Award" from the American Institute of Physics for its own analysis of the danger. "As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed."
New York Times August 8, 1974 Climate Changes Endanger World's Food Output
New York Times December 29, 1974 Forecast for Forecasting: Cloudy
New York Times January 19, 1975 Climate Changes Called Ominous: "There seems to be little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate."
New York Times May 21, 1975 Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead.
Science News Nov 15, 1969 Earth's Cooling Climate
Science News March 1, 1975 Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities
Time November 11, 1974 Weather Change: Poorer Harvests
Lowell Ponte, The Cooling (1974): "The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations."
U.S. News & World Report May 31, 1976 Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend
It was even lamented in popular music: "The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming inEngines stop running, the wheat is growing thin, A nuclear era, but I have no fear'Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river. -- The Clash, "London Calling," released in 1979
If there were widespread hysteria over 'Global Cooling' in the 70's, why is it that you can only produce one magazine article on the subject?
The ONLY popular media that picked it up was one weekly news magazine.
And how were you "heavily in the scientific community at the time"?
sfcouple wrote:Why did I leave your highlighted portion out of my quote? Easy, that highlighted paragraph has an "if" this then "that" and "maybe" something else....it didn't add anything at all to the overall flavor of the article. The article in question was, and is, about brightness and your highlighted paragraph says if brightness can be correlated to temperature then planetary climate change may be related to the solar system environment. There was absolutely nothing in that highlighted paragraph that says the brightness of Uranus is related to temperature. Why would you want me to include something that at best is a speculation?
The quotation was from an abstract. Abstracts generally don't indulge in speculation unrelated to the content of the article.
And come on Michael, as I later mentioned it takes 165 years for Uranus to make one revolution around the sun. This means that at best we have studied Uranus' climate for their equivalent of January and February. Would you not agree that we have pitifully little information about this planet's climate? Would you not also agree that the closer this planet gets to the sun that just maybe its temperature might increase? To make the statement that our equivalent of global warming is taking place on Uranus cannot be substantiated and shows a reckless disregard for the truth.
Pretty tough language. Your focus on Uranus misses the the point of the compilation was to be suggestive that, at the same time that Earth is allegedly warming, several planets in the solar system are doing likewise. Coincidence? Possibly, but many arguments suggesting that Global Warming on Earth is man-caused are likewise subject to coincidence with a variety of causation factors. The interesting part of the articles, as a whole, was the inability to offer much explanation of why several planets/moons seem to be undergoing wide-scale warming at the same time. Context, context.
You're the one guilty of maliciously misrepresenting the facts, not me. I would like for you explain to me how the one paragraph that you so cleverly highlighted changes anything about my original statement. You can't. This article simply deals with the brightness and not the temperature of Uranus.
Wow, you are really trying to pick a fight, aren't you? I will point out again, the citation is to an abstract, not an article. In my relatively lengthy experience in professional academic publications, abstracts rarely just speculate idly about something unrelated to the specific contents of the article.
I left out nothing that indicates otherwise and your implication that I've resorted to your level of cherry picking information to pass on to others is unfounded and untrue.
Whew! You aren't coming to this discussion without any preconceived notions, are you?
How would you like to debate the other articles in your list about planetary global warming? You pick one, you review it, you summarize it, and then let me respond.
Lots of attitude. But, why? Taken together, the articles suggest exactly what I intended: a series of global warming events throughout the solar system, mostly with "well, we really don't know why ...".
Here's one plausible explanation:
'In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.
"The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
"The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.
""This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.
"In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era."
MichaelSol wrote:Oh please. Not this "you didn't produce enough examples ...". I guess I didn't fully understand your "rules." I did think that an example, from the most mainstream of the mainstream media, citing a variety of sources and representing that the idea represented a near unanimity among climate scientists, would be a sufficient example.
Bucyrus wrote: DennisHeld wrote:[That means that either CO2 levels cause temperature changes or temperature changes cause CO2 levels to change. They are strongly linked. But is it the chicken or the egg?Your point on the oceans being the source of the CO2 has been proposed. Problem: What's heating the oceans? Finding sources of CO2 in the atmosphere is easy. Finding a source of oceanic heating (other than CO2) is not. Is it possible that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising because CO2 is being released from the oceans because they are being warmed by a natural atmospheric warming period?
DennisHeld wrote:[That means that either CO2 levels cause temperature changes or temperature changes cause CO2 levels to change. They are strongly linked. But is it the chicken or the egg?Your point on the oceans being the source of the CO2 has been proposed. Problem: What's heating the oceans? Finding sources of CO2 in the atmosphere is easy. Finding a source of oceanic heating (other than CO2) is not.
Your point on the oceans being the source of the CO2 has been proposed. Problem: What's heating the oceans? Finding sources of CO2 in the atmosphere is easy. Finding a source of oceanic heating (other than CO2) is not.
Is it possible that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising because CO2 is being released from the oceans because they are being warmed by a natural atmospheric warming period?
Don't worry about $7 a gallon Gas.
People are running out of money. It won't be a Recession, we will be in the Second Great Depression by then. Look what happened to the Railroads and Car Companies in the 1930s.
I do believe in Capitalism, it has built this Country. But, both your and my towns have but ONE Cable system (they sell TV, Phone, and Internet), ONE Phone Company (they sell Phone, Internet, and TV). I have Cox Cable and AT&T. Can't get Verizon, can't get Comcast, it's Regulated and awarded by the City or State as vital service to the public. Same with Electric, CL&P, and the Gas company, Yankeegas. Rates approved by the State.
Now, do youall really believe the Oil Companies COMPETE with each other? The price is always within a few cents for all companies in town, go to the next town, all are a few cents (more or less) within that area?????
If you abuse the "Pricing Privilege" of Capitalism, then it's time for action. In Capitalism, if a Shortage of product builds, Companies increase production to make more money and fill the short fall. If you hold or cut production while increasing Price, what's that called.
I am reminded when the price of SILVER was pumped to 4 times True Market Value 25 years ago.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
DennisHeld wrote: MichaelSol wrote: The current hysteria and the forcefulness of its advocates resembles to me exactly the hysteria by many of the same advocates today as accompanied the "Global Cooling" scare of the 1970s, explempified by Newsweek's "The Cooling World" which reads, in both tone and sanctimonious appeal to action, much like the literature of today's "Warming World" proponents.If there were widespread hysteria over 'Global Cooling' in the 70's, why is it that you can only produce one magazine article on the subject?
MichaelSol wrote: The current hysteria and the forcefulness of its advocates resembles to me exactly the hysteria by many of the same advocates today as accompanied the "Global Cooling" scare of the 1970s, explempified by Newsweek's "The Cooling World" which reads, in both tone and sanctimonious appeal to action, much like the literature of today's "Warming World" proponents.
The current hysteria and the forcefulness of its advocates resembles to me exactly the hysteria by many of the same advocates today as accompanied the "Global Cooling" scare of the 1970s, explempified by Newsweek's "The Cooling World" which reads, in both tone and sanctimonious appeal to action, much like the literature of today's "Warming World" proponents.
Here's some more.
The Washington Post: U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming, 'The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University says that ..." July 9, 1971. "in the next 50 years" - or by 2021 - fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas."
S.I. Rasool and S.H. Schneider, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science 9 July 1971: Vol. 173. no. 3992, pp. 138 - 141 [S. I. Rasool and S. H. Schneider, Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, New York 10025]: "Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age."
The Impact Team, The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (New York: Ballantine, 1977)
U. S. National Academy of Sciences. The US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report on Climate Change (1975): "there seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate, but there is no consensus as to the magnitude or rapidity of the transition. The onset of this climatic decline [nb: colder temperatures is automatically a decline? any change is a decline? WMC] could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next 100 years".
MichaelSol wrote:The current hysteria and the forcefulness of its advocates resembles to me exactly the hysteria by many of the same advocates today as accompanied the "Global Cooling" scare of the 1970s, explempified by Newsweek's "The Cooling World" which reads, in both tone and sanctimonious appeal to action, much like the literature of today's "Warming World" proponents.
MichaelSol wrote:Greenhouse gases are 95% water vapor. The remaining 5% is mostly Carbon Dioxide. Of that, less than 2% is man-generated -- approximately 3/10ths of 1% of all greenhouse gases are man caused. If "Greenhouse Gases" are the driver of climate change in a direct ratio, Man could double the output of CO2 and raise temperatures by 1/10 of a degree, F.Generally, atmospheric CO2 rises as Oceans warm -- the immense reservoir of CO2 present in the Oceans is what controls atmospheric CO2. As temperature increases in the Oceans, atmospheric CO2 will increase. That's what happens. Martin and Archer, "Role of Deep Sea Temperatures in the Carbon Cycle During the last Glacial.
Greenhouse gases are 95% water vapor. The remaining 5% is mostly Carbon Dioxide. Of that, less than 2% is man-generated -- approximately 3/10ths of 1% of all greenhouse gases are man caused. If "Greenhouse Gases" are the driver of climate change in a direct ratio, Man could double the output of CO2 and raise temperatures by 1/10 of a degree, F.
Generally, atmospheric CO2 rises as Oceans warm -- the immense reservoir of CO2 present in the Oceans is what controls atmospheric CO2. As temperature increases in the Oceans, atmospheric CO2 will increase. That's what happens. Martin and Archer, "Role of Deep Sea Temperatures in the Carbon Cycle During the last Glacial.
DennisHeld wrote: Why did I leave your highlighted portion out of my quote? Easy, that highlighted paragraph has an "if" this then "that" and "maybe" something else....it didn't add anything at all to the overall flavor of the article. The article in question was, and is, about brightness and your highlighted paragraph says if brightness can be correlated to temperature then planetary climate change may be related to the solar system environment. There was absolutely nothing in that highlighted paragraph that says the brightness of Uranus is related to temperature. Why would you want me to include something that at best is a speculation?And come on Michael, as I later mentioned it takes 165 years for Uranus to make one revolution around the sun. This means that at best we have studied Uranus' climate for their equivalent of January and February. Would you not agree that we have pitifully little information about this planet's climate? Would you not also agree that the closer this planet gets to the sun that just maybe its temperature might increase? To make the statement that our equivalent of global warming is taking place on Uranus cannot be substantiated and shows a reckless disregard for the truth. You're the one guilty of maliciously misrepresenting the facts, not me. I would like for you explain to me how the one paragraph that you so cleverly highlighted changes anything about my original statement. You can't. This article simply deals with the brightness and not the temperature of Uranus. I left out nothing that indicates otherwise and your implication that I've resorted to your level of cherry picking information to pass on to others is unfounded and untrue. How would you like to debate the other articles in your list about planetary global warming? You pick one, you review it, you summarize it, and then let me respond. I don't think that I could have said it any better. Except the planet in question was Neptune. I would add a point. Why would Neptune brighten? Did the Sun brighten? No? The light we see is merely the reflected light of the Sun. And, if the Sun didn't brighten, but the light from Neptune did, that would mean that Neptune was not absorbing as much light and, therefore, must be cooling. But the argument is moot. One cannot calculate the average global temperature of the gas giants. All we see are clouds. All there is is clouds. Besides that, the Sun is not the primary source of heat for any of the gas giants. Their interior is. The article referenced earlier that Jupiter may be warming because of a new red spot shows a remarkable lack of understanding of Jupiter or the gas giants. The storms (red spot(s), white spots, and bands) are all generated from the planet's interior. The Sun is no factorwhatsoever.
Why did I leave your highlighted portion out of my quote? Easy, that highlighted paragraph has an "if" this then "that" and "maybe" something else....it didn't add anything at all to the overall flavor of the article. The article in question was, and is, about brightness and your highlighted paragraph says if brightness can be correlated to temperature then planetary climate change may be related to the solar system environment. There was absolutely nothing in that highlighted paragraph that says the brightness of Uranus is related to temperature. Why would you want me to include something that at best is a speculation?And come on Michael, as I later mentioned it takes 165 years for Uranus to make one revolution around the sun. This means that at best we have studied Uranus' climate for their equivalent of January and February. Would you not agree that we have pitifully little information about this planet's climate? Would you not also agree that the closer this planet gets to the sun that just maybe its temperature might increase? To make the statement that our equivalent of global warming is taking place on Uranus cannot be substantiated and shows a reckless disregard for the truth. You're the one guilty of maliciously misrepresenting the facts, not me. I would like for you explain to me how the one paragraph that you so cleverly highlighted changes anything about my original statement. You can't. This article simply deals with the brightness and not the temperature of Uranus. I left out nothing that indicates otherwise and your implication that I've resorted to your level of cherry picking information to pass on to others is unfounded and untrue. How would you like to debate the other articles in your list about planetary global warming? You pick one, you review it, you summarize it, and then let me respond.
Why did I leave your highlighted portion out of my quote? Easy, that highlighted paragraph has an "if" this then "that" and "maybe" something else....it didn't add anything at all to the overall flavor of the article. The article in question was, and is, about brightness and your highlighted paragraph says if brightness can be correlated to temperature then planetary climate change may be related to the solar system environment. There was absolutely nothing in that highlighted paragraph that says the brightness of Uranus is related to temperature. Why would you want me to include something that at best is a speculation?
You're the one guilty of maliciously misrepresenting the facts, not me. I would like for you explain to me how the one paragraph that you so cleverly highlighted changes anything about my original statement. You can't. This article simply deals with the brightness and not the temperature of Uranus. I left out nothing that indicates otherwise and your implication that I've resorted to your level of cherry picking information to pass on to others is unfounded and untrue.
Dennis,
Oops, sorry about getting my planets confused. Thanks for pointing that out to me, and for your reasoned and educated statement of facts.
MichaelSol wrote: sfcouple wrote:Perhaps you and Mr. Sol should review your own sources before listing them. Once again, I took one at random, the first one, and here is what it says: "correlations between Neptune's brightness and Earth's temperature anomaly—and between Neptune and two models of solar variability—are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant" This article deals with the "brightness" of neptune not the planet's temperature. You have just provided one more questionable list to defend the indefensible. Oddly enough, the reason for the citation was the remainder of the abstract:"Although correlations between Neptune's brightness and Earth's temperature anomaly-and between Neptune and two models of solar variability-are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant due to the limited degrees of freedom of the various time series. Nevertheless, the striking similarity of the temporal patterns of variation should not be ignored simply because of low formal statistical significance. If changing brightnesses and temperatures of two different planets are correlated, then some planetary climate changes may be due to variations in the solar system environment. "Now, why would you have left that part out?It is the cautionary nature of many of the current studies that many seem to not just disregard, but maliciously misrepresent, as the post confirms: a misrepresentation of the full contents of the abstract while ignoring the remaining citations entirely. A debater's game-playing at the sacrifice of understanding important issues.The problem for those old enough to know better is that these movements inevitably have political tailwinds -- indeed, the movements often arise from political movements -- that often are so forceful as to completely obscure both contrary data and legitimate discussion.The current hysteria and the forcefulness of its advocates resembles to me exactly the hysteria by many of the same advocates today as accompanied the "Global Cooling" scare of the 1970s, explempified by Newsweek's "The Cooling World" which reads, in both tone and sanctimonious appeal to action, much like the literature of today's "Warming World" proponents.See: http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htmFor a remarkable representation of the aggregative power of the internet, there is a useful site that compiles references to both sides of the debate:http://climatedebatedaily.com/
sfcouple wrote:Perhaps you and Mr. Sol should review your own sources before listing them. Once again, I took one at random, the first one, and here is what it says: "correlations between Neptune's brightness and Earth's temperature anomaly—and between Neptune and two models of solar variability—are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant" This article deals with the "brightness" of neptune not the planet's temperature. You have just provided one more questionable list to defend the indefensible.
"correlations between Neptune's brightness and Earth's temperature anomaly—and between Neptune and two models of solar variability—are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant"
This article deals with the "brightness" of neptune not the planet's temperature.
You have just provided one more questionable list to defend the indefensible.
Oddly enough, the reason for the citation was the remainder of the abstract:
"Although correlations between Neptune's brightness and Earth's temperature anomaly-and between Neptune and two models of solar variability-are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant due to the limited degrees of freedom of the various time series. Nevertheless, the striking similarity of the temporal patterns of variation should not be ignored simply because of low formal statistical significance. If changing brightnesses and temperatures of two different planets are correlated, then some planetary climate changes may be due to variations in the solar system environment. "
Now, why would you have left that part out?
It is the cautionary nature of many of the current studies that many seem to not just disregard, but maliciously misrepresent, as the post confirms: a misrepresentation of the full contents of the abstract while ignoring the remaining citations entirely. A debater's game-playing at the sacrifice of understanding important issues.
The problem for those old enough to know better is that these movements inevitably have political tailwinds -- indeed, the movements often arise from political movements -- that often are so forceful as to completely obscure both contrary data and legitimate discussion.
See: http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
For a remarkable representation of the aggregative power of the internet, there is a useful site that compiles references to both sides of the debate:
http://climatedebatedaily.com/
I was getting at your idea that the price will drop if we drill there. Geologist have said once we start to peak running after the oil thats harder to get at and more expencive to pull up wont do any good. Same goes for trying to increase production to get the price to drop. Its a sad reality thats not going away. All the signs are there, people just dont want to think its happening or some how we'll pull our way out soon. Just aint gonna happen, there is no way out.
$7.00 a gallon for gas in two years.... id guess it's gonna be more then that. If things keep the way they are now it might be that low, but as oil keeps moving and demand rises which it's doing, its gonna keep jumping up higher and faster in later years.
DennisHeld wrote: I suspect that man's percentage is between 20% and 80%. CO2 data seems to indicate the larger percentage. The current warming appears to be long term. But that doesn't mean it'll continue. The real problem may not be the warming, but the imbalance.
Generally, atmospheric CO2 rises as Oceans warm -- the immense reservoir of CO2 present in the Oceans is what controls atmospheric CO2. As temperature increases in the Oceans, atmospheric CO2 will increase. That's what happens. Martin and Archer, "Role of Deep Sea Temperatures in the Carbon Cycle During the last Glacial," Paleoceanography, 20. 2005.
UPRR engineer wrote: Bucyrus wrote: They would love to have $7-10 per gallon gasoline in the U.S. except they would want the price to be inflated by taxes rather than by income to the oil producers as is the case today. So a big part of the reason for high gas prices is the fact a lot of people in congress, and their constituents, want high gas prices. And because they want high gas prices, they don't want our oil companies drilling for oil and bringing new supplies on line. Therefore, to support their argument against new oil supply and the resulting lower price, they tell us the following things:1) Drilling for oil won't lower the price for a long, long time. 2) When it does finally lower the price, it won't be enough to matter.3) There is not much oil to find anyway.4) Oil companies should not be allowed to drill in new areas because they are not drilling in all the areas they already have. Their agenda is pretty danged transparent if you ask me.Hey buddy, mind if i ask you a question. I take it you believe the CO2 warning coming from climate scientists..... but you dont seem to want to eat what the petroleum geologist are dishing out? If they go after that oil its not gonna be cheap to pull out, its only gonna make it worse in the future, its probibly not gonna be the same high quality sweet crude we get from the middle east.
Bucyrus wrote: They would love to have $7-10 per gallon gasoline in the U.S. except they would want the price to be inflated by taxes rather than by income to the oil producers as is the case today. So a big part of the reason for high gas prices is the fact a lot of people in congress, and their constituents, want high gas prices. And because they want high gas prices, they don't want our oil companies drilling for oil and bringing new supplies on line. Therefore, to support their argument against new oil supply and the resulting lower price, they tell us the following things:1) Drilling for oil won't lower the price for a long, long time. 2) When it does finally lower the price, it won't be enough to matter.3) There is not much oil to find anyway.4) Oil companies should not be allowed to drill in new areas because they are not drilling in all the areas they already have. Their agenda is pretty danged transparent if you ask me.
They would love to have $7-10 per gallon gasoline in the U.S. except they would want the price to be inflated by taxes rather than by income to the oil producers as is the case today. So a big part of the reason for high gas prices is the fact a lot of people in congress, and their constituents, want high gas prices. And because they want high gas prices, they don't want our oil companies drilling for oil and bringing new supplies on line. Therefore, to support their argument against new oil supply and the resulting lower price, they tell us the following things:
1) Drilling for oil won't lower the price for a long, long time.
2) When it does finally lower the price, it won't be enough to matter.
3) There is not much oil to find anyway.
4) Oil companies should not be allowed to drill in new areas because they are not drilling in all the areas they already have.
Their agenda is pretty danged transparent if you ask me.
Hey buddy, mind if i ask you a question. I take it you believe the CO2 warning coming from climate scientists..... but you dont seem to want to eat what the petroleum geologist are dishing out? If they go after that oil its not gonna be cheap to pull out, its only gonna make it worse in the future, its probibly not gonna be the same high quality sweet crude we get from the middle east.
You misunderstand me, but I am not exactly sure how the misunderstanding came about. The four items I listed above are what is being said by people who want high oil price, want oil scarcity, and believe we are destroying the planet by creating global warming. When I referred to "their" agenda being transparent, I meant the agenda of those who say the four items; the agenda of those wanting high oil prices. I was not referring to oil companies (in item #4) as having an agenda by my use of the words, "their agenda..."
Oooh, a big Dob...or medium size dob.
My little 90mm was often made fun of (by friends) for it's small size, but I could set up on my patio table within 5 minutes, and if the atmosphere was stable would be viewing. The portability of the scope was amazing. I would grab the scope and eyepiece case, plus my star charts, notebook and pencil and turn out the lights and be focused in no time.
My buddy with a 10" dob who made fun of me ended up with a 125mm Mack and really likes it. Dobs are great light buckets, but unfortunately the light pollution is tougher on them. It has been about 8 years since I did some serious observing and I should get back outside.
20% to 80% estimates for man's effect. On the high end that is more than I would have thought. But then again...how would I know?
ed
MP173 wrote:Dennis:In addition to your degree in astronomy, are you an amatuer astronomer, or better yet, an observing astronomer? For several years I spent probably 40 -50 evenings a year in my back yard with a 90mm Meade ETX until the light pollution pushed me indoors. Great times. I appreciate your discussion on this. You mentioned that GW is due to man and other factors. Is that a common conclusion among people of science these days? Are there any estimates as to what percentage is caused by man? Most of what I read is that it is 100% man.What other factors are causing the earth to warm? Is the warming a long term or short term trend.Dennis, probably the best thing you could do for me is direct me to a source to read which would be a my level of comprehension (typical layman science).It does appear most of Big Oil has jumped onto the GW platform. As I see it tho, controlling India and China and other developing industrial economies will be very difficult.thanks, ed
Dennis:In addition to your degree in astronomy, are you an amatuer astronomer, or better yet, an observing astronomer?
For several years I spent probably 40 -50 evenings a year in my back yard with a 90mm Meade ETX until the light pollution pushed me indoors. Great times.
I appreciate your discussion on this. You mentioned that GW is due to man and other factors. Is that a common conclusion among people of science these days? Are there any estimates as to what percentage is caused by man? Most of what I read is that it is 100% man.
What other factors are causing the earth to warm? Is the warming a long term or short term trend.
Dennis, probably the best thing you could do for me is direct me to a source to read which would be a my level of comprehension (typical layman science).
It does appear most of Big Oil has jumped onto the GW platform. As I see it tho, controlling India and China and other developing industrial economies will be very difficult.
thanks,
DMUinCT wrote: You sould not be able (or allowed) to price a VITAL COMMODITY that will distroy your Country's Economy based on what "MIGHT HAPPEN" 5 or 10 years from now.
Who should determine what price is allowed? How would they prevent sellers from selling at a price that is higher than what is allowed?
DMUinCT wrote: DON"T BELIEVE WHAT YOU SEE ON TV!!! Shortage??? You can buy all the gas you want at there price!!! No Gas Station lines, no Stations "Out Of Gas", no 10 Gallon limits, no odd/ even buying days, many of you remember the 1970s. You have a hole in the ground, pump out the oil, load it in a tanker, deliver it to New York, add a Profit, and sell it for $36 a Barrel. That's the way it was 3 years ago. Now add a 33% drop in the value of the Dollar, add 7% inflation in 3 years, fair market value $69 a Barrel. Right now, this morning, $142.20, that's $73 extra profit someone is making. You sould not be able (or allowed) to price a VITAL COMMODITY that will distroy your Country's Economy based on what "MIGHT HAPPEN" 5 or 10 years from now. No one can predict how much oil will come online that far in the future. Oil is here today, figure 5 to 12 years to develope new technologies that will do the same work for the same price as oil. Also, it will take 16 years to retire all the cars that on the road today, dependent if the general public has the money to buy new, energy efficint, cars
DON"T BELIEVE WHAT YOU SEE ON TV!!!
Shortage??? You can buy all the gas you want at there price!!!
No Gas Station lines, no Stations "Out Of Gas", no 10 Gallon limits, no odd/ even buying days, many of you remember the 1970s.
You have a hole in the ground, pump out the oil, load it in a tanker, deliver it to New York, add a Profit, and sell it for $36 a Barrel. That's the way it was 3 years ago. Now add a 33% drop in the value of the Dollar, add 7% inflation in 3 years, fair market value $69 a Barrel.
Right now, this morning, $142.20, that's $73 extra profit someone is making. You sould not be able (or allowed) to price a VITAL COMMODITY that will distroy your Country's Economy based on what "MIGHT HAPPEN" 5 or 10 years from now. No one can predict how much oil will come online that far in the future.
Oil is here today, figure 5 to 12 years to develope new technologies that will do the same work for the same price as oil. Also, it will take 16 years to retire all the cars that on the road today, dependent if the general public has the money to buy new, energy efficint, cars
I think they used to call eliminating or controlling profit in alignment with cost a stategy akin to the poisons of socialism. Profit makes the hungry capitalist world go round although it may be the killing of the goose that laid the golden egg ,meaning you and I in economic terms as the whole current situation is perhaps a pyramid scheme that would eventually will and has collapsed back on itself. If you and I cant make it economically the whole schmere collapses...when we have literally nothing left to invest except our worn pantaloons...and Im not giving up mine for no get rich quick scenario ...ever again...so say those who didnt jump off ledges in 1929....This country has a rich history of hucksterism and boondoggling....flim flam and inflated over heated diatribes....
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal (Monday June 30) had an excellent (IMO) editorial entitled Obama's Dry Hole which discussed the 68 million acres of Federal land which has been leased to oil companies. I strongly recommend it's reading. Key points made:
"the existence of a lease does not guarantee that the geology holds recoverable resources".
"The U.S. Minerals Management Services notes that only one of three wells results in a discovery of oil that can be recovered economically. In deeper water, its one of five."
"In 2006, Chevron discovered what is likely to be the largest American oil find since Prudhoe, drilled in 7000 feet of water and more than 20,000 feet under th sea floor. The Wilcox formation may have an upper end of 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil and should begin producing by 2014."
Further, the WSJ had a complete 4th section on Energy, discussing at length the pros and cons of nuclear, wind, solar, nat gas, and the boom times that Midland Tx is experiencing.
I highly recommend the reading the of editorial and the section.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.