Trapping Carbon Dioxide Or Switching To Nuclear Power Not Enoug...

This is a silly argument. The heat emitted from fuel consumption is trivial compared to the solar radiation absorbed by the planet. The concern is with greenhouse gasses that trap the solar heat.

tjostemj wrote:

This is a silly argument. The heat emitted from fuel consumption is trivial compared to the solar radiation absorbed by the planet. The concern is with greenhouse gasses that trap the solar heat.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.”

Geoffrey G. Duffy,
a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

==

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…

When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”-

UN IPCC Japanese Scientist
Dr. Kiminori Itoh,
an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

“It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink

to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime

to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model

that purports to show

that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere.

It is all a fiction.”

former expert reviewer with the UN IPCC
Geologist/Geochemist
Dr. Tom V. Segalstad,
a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

I have recently read the book, Deniers, by Solomon. It makes a strong case for global warming from sources other than fossil fuels. The arguments against anthropogenic global warming are made carefully by reviewing the works of several solid science authorities. It quite clearly makes the case that Al Gore overstates the global warming threat. I recommend this book. It gives reasons for questioning strongly pro anthropogenic global warming rhetoric. I personally try to keep an open mind. I see only good, in shift away from fossil fuels. Over dependence on foreign sources for oil and gas as well as the adverse health effects of soot from coal are good reasons to leave fossil fuels. Global warming is perhaps a debatable reason. I do find it hard to completely dismiss the expert opinions of climate scientists. As a scientist in another discipline, I would not want take seriously a climate scientist pouring cold water on views widely held by leaders in my discipline, so how can I rule out the majority view of climate scientists?

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.”
Geoffrey G. Duffy,
a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
==
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…
When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”-
UN IPCC Japanese Scientist
Dr. Kiminori Itoh,
an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...
“It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink
to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime
to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model
that purports to show
that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere.
It is all a fiction.”
former expert reviewer with the UN IPCC
Geologist/Geochemist
Dr. Tom V. Segalstad,
a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

tjostemj wrote:

I have recently read the book, Deniers, by Solomon. It makes a strong case for global...ely held by leaders in my discipline, so how can I rule out the majority view of climate scientists?
<quoted text>

"so how can I rule out the majority view of climate scientists? "
----------

First of all we must ask the obvious questions: Did anyone actually count them And if so who?

The answer to the first question is that no - they were not counted. There was no vote sent out asking do you or don't you agree. Thus the answer to the second question is that no one did the counting.

There are some angles from which this "consensus" can be evaluated. Rather than describe at length the angle I will just provide quotes and leave the angle up to the reader.

----------

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”-

U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist
Stanley B. Goldenberg
of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

==

I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions...

the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm.

Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed...
The political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too.

I was on that gravy train,...There is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation we would have found something...
http://mises.org/story/2571

continued

continued

==

Enforced political correctness:

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology,

"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you
say,'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted.

http://www.debunkers.org/Library/files/block_...

==

“The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying.

Why are some scientists worried?

Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,”

Czech-born U.S. climatologist
Dr. George Kukla,
a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

==

MIT Climate Scientist Lindzen, a past UN IPCC contributor, also explained

how only a dozen scientists were involved in writing the 2001(Third Assessment Report) IPCC media hyped Summary For Policymakers

that purported to speak for thousands of scientists
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-wa...

==

Having just returned from the annual meeting of the American Association of State Climatologists (for which I will be President for the next year), I can tell you that there is a great deal of global warming skepticism among my colleagues. For every outspoken scientist like Pat Michaels there are dozens of less verbose but equally committed men and women who do not buy into the Administration's point of view. Far from being a "done deal," the global warming scenarios are looking shakier and shakier...
George Taylor, State Climatologist

http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p628.htm

==

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

==

I could go on and on but Topix has word limits.

India attacks British and Western 'hypocrites' over cutting emissions

"No one is prepared to touch their living standards," he said. "If you say,â You're producing Tata Nanos [India's new £1,200 car], what will that do to the world?' but not talk about your two or three cars per family, it's hypocritical.

Measures would be taken in India's national interest, he said, but the government would not yield to pressure from the "hypocritical" West.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asi...

btw wrote:

India attacks British and Western 'hypocrites' over cutting emissions
"No one is prepared to touch their living standards," he said. "If you say,â You're producing Tata Nanos [India's new £1,200 car], what will that do to the world?' but not talk about your two or three cars per family, it's hypocritical.
Measures would be taken in India's national interest, he said, but the government would not yield to pressure from the "hypocritical" West.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asi...

If India gets cars then they need fuel and other resources.
Competition drives up the price.
The rich don't want to pay more - so just prevent the competition from being the competition.

==

Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death

Reveals a dark secret of the ideological environmental movement. The movement imposes the views of mostly wealthy, comfortable Americans and Europeans on mostly poor, desperate Africans, Asians and Latin Americans. It violates these people's most basic human rights, denying them economic opportunities, the chance for better lives, the right to rid their countries of diseases that were vanquished long ago in Europe and the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-imperialism

http://www.amazon.com/Eco-Imperialism-Green-P...

----------

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….

Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…

Global warming, as a political vehicle,

keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”-

Dr. Takeda Kunihiko,
vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

==

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…

The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.”-

Environmental Scientist
Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal,
the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group,
has more than 150 published articles.

==

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.”-

Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker
Jack Schmitt
who flew on the Apollo 17 mission
and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

tjostemj wrote:

IAs a scientist in another discipline, I would not want take seriously a climate scientist pouring cold water on views widely held by leaders in my discipline, so how can I rule out the majority view of climate scientists?

There is no reason to rule out a "majority view," but a "majority view" is not science.

btw wrote:

India attacks British and Measures would be taken in India's national interest, he said, but the government would not yield to pressure from the "hypocritical" West.

And so goes the end of:

"Whatever happen we have got
The maxim machinegun
And they have not"

Maybe this will end GloblWhoring silliness and RayDeeAyShun scaremongering?

IMHO (as one of them) for yuropeeans & descendants, 2nd bananas in a technologically astute and developed world beats 1st bananas in a backward hell.

koz wrote:

<quoted text>There is no reason to rule out a "majority view," but a "majority view" is not science.

I agree that a majority view is not science. The global warming debate takes our eye off the ball. The fact is that during this century we will need to replace much of our dependence on fossil fuel with other energy sources.

Born on a South Dakota farm in the depression and drought of the 1930s, I know that people can live happy lives with much less available energy. I have always found innovating second uses for worn out equipment to be an enjoyable hobby. While I personally could find satisfaction in a world that rations energy, I do not advocate that approach. In 1930 the world population was 2 billion and now it is 6.75 billion. This population growth has happened because of an energy dependent highly productive agriculture. The Haber process for making nitrogen fertilizer has been a main component for achieving crop productivity. Methane supplies the hydrogen for the ammonia. When natural gas peaks later this century are we going to see a mass genocide of 4 billion when we are forced to return to a 1930s type of agriculture? High temperature reactors can produce hydrogen for ammonia at greater than 50% efficiency by a thermo-chemical reaction. We know that birth rates fall when industrialization occurs. Abundant mineral resource can be found with abundant energy. Energy is the limiting factor. Let's stick with a growth model for our world economy and invest the development of high temperature generation IV reactors before we go broke buying foreign oil. Al Gore may be wrong about the global warming threat, but even if he is his position does not negate the urgency to leave the fossil fuel paradigm.

tjostemj wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree that a majority view is not science. The global warming debate takes our eye off the ball. The fact is that during this century we will need to replace much of our dependence on fossil fuel with other energy sources.
Born on a South Dakota farm in the depression and drought of the 1930s, I know that people can live happy lives with much less available energy. I have always found innovating second uses for worn out equipment to be an enjoyable hobby. While I personally could find satisfaction in a world that rations energy, I do not advocate that approach. In 1930 the world population was 2 billion and now it is 6.75 billion. This population growth has happened because of an energy dependent highly productive agriculture. The Haber process for making nitrogen fertilizer has been a main component for achieving crop productivity. Methane supplies the hydrogen for the ammonia. When natural gas peaks later this century are we going to see a mass genocide of 4 billion when we are forced to return to a 1930s type of agriculture? High temperature reactors can produce hydrogen for ammonia at greater than 50% efficiency by a thermo-chemical reaction. We know that birth rates fall when industrialization occurs. Abundant mineral resource can be found with abundant energy. Energy is the limiting factor. Let's stick with a growth model for our world economy and invest the development of high temperature generation IV reactors before we go broke buying foreign oil. Al Gore may be wrong about the global warming threat, but even if he is his position does not negate the urgency to leave the fossil fuel paradigm.

So you are for constant population growth as a way to push US debt into the future instead of choosing inflation? Fertilizer effect on marine ecosystems?

I apologize for interrupting this very insightful discussion with this message. Please ignore us.

----------

Seriously,'Death to USA is Required' or,'Required, Karsnäs,' or whatever you call yourself

The way you are stalking people, your paranoia, your incoherent blabbering about off-topic issues, and the anger you don't seem to be able to control are issues not to be taken lightly.

Anyone reading your posts can tell you are not well. This is not to discredit you, or to get into arguments with you. But I can hear that you are suffering.

Please trust me -- you don't need to carry that package all by yourself. There is help for people like you that will make your life much, much better.

Think how good it would feel to be able to focus on your school or work instead of silly rows in internet forums with people who don't even exist.

I am sure there are mental health clinics you can access in Karsnäs, Sweden. call them and check them out, for your own well being's sake. please.

I asked a question in a polite manner to what seemed to be a intelligent person. If necessary I´m sure he can explain to me why I´m an idiot. I´m not the one doing the stalking here Jessica.

Required wrote:

I asked a question in a polite manner to what seemed to be a intelligent person. If necessary I´m sure he can explain to me why I´m an idiot. I´m not the one doing the stalking here Jessica.

The global warming theory’s predictions of crisis over the last 23 years prove once again just how fallible modern man is and how humans will be for quite some time to come. Of course just as witch burning’s influence of power was unsustainable, thankfully, so is this CO2 Phobia or as I like to now call it, the Y2Kyoto Urban Legend From Hell (Y.U.L.F.H). History is laughing at it now. Why did the Globull Warmer cross the road? Because she was being chased by BigFoot in a UFO.
Global warming isn’t about pollution and pollution isn’t about global warming so get that CO2 silliness out of your head right now. Get ahead of the curve so you can stop denying my kids futures. How dare you. How dare we? Stop scaring my kids and instead proudly proclaim to your inner self and then to the world ; “THANK GOD THE WORLD’S LONGEST EMERGENCY IS OVER! NO MORE DOOMSDAY! NO MORE DOOMSDAY!” Like why would anyone hope for this misery and accept it like sheep being led at gun point over rock cliff? How did we get to this point? What the theory predicted and still does predict, is the equivalent to a slow moving catastrophic comet hit. It’s been 23 years for Kripe’s Sake and La Nina kicked and “delayed” Globull Warning’s ass, twice. Can you say self fulfilling prophecy?
Be a responsible and progressive person who dares to ride the wave of emerging and up to date science that clearly proves in the absence of the predicted climate crisis to PRESERVE, not SAVE our poor little 5 billion year old planet from death by Catalytic Converter gas and nature’s very own plant food; CO2.
Preserve, not rescue and face the future with optimism and bravery, not ignorance and fear from a myth.
http://climatedebatedaily.com/

tjostemj wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree that a majority view is not science. The global warming debate takes our eye off the ball. The fact is that during this century we will need to replace much of our dependence on fossil fuel with other energy sources.
Born on a South Dakota farm in the depression and drought of the 1930s, I know that people can live happy lives with much less available energy. I have always found innovating second uses for worn out equipment to be an enjoyable hobby. While I personally could find satisfaction in a world that rations energy, I do not advocate that approach. In 1930 the world population was 2 billion and now it is 6.75 billion. This population growth has happened because of an energy dependent highly productive agriculture. The Haber process for making nitrogen fertilizer has been a main component for achieving crop productivity. Methane supplies the hydrogen for the ammonia. When natural gas peaks later this century are we going to see a mass genocide of 4 billion when we are forced to return to a 1930s type of agriculture? High temperature reactors can produce hydrogen for ammonia at greater than 50% efficiency by a thermo-chemical reaction. We know that birth rates fall when industrialization occurs. Abundant mineral resource can be found with abundant energy. Energy is the limiting factor. Let's stick with a growth model for our world economy and invest the development of high temperature generation IV reactors before we go broke buying foreign oil. Al Gore may be wrong about the global warming threat, but even if he is his position does not negate the urgency to leave the fossil fuel paradigm.

I have a theory as to why people insist that we "leave the fossil fuel paradigm."

It is because it angers them every time they have to have to pay for fuel to power their car. When that money could be better spent on vices. Beer, cigarettes, lottery tickets. But no, they have to spend their money on energy.

There is no logical reason to leaving the wonderful world of "the fossil fuel paradigm."

other than

the various fantasy worlds

in which people live.

----------

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

Maurice Strong (U.N. environmental leader).

==

"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion -- guilt-free at last!"

Stewart Brand writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue

==

"No matter if the science is all phony, there [are] collateral environmental benefits...climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart,
Canadian Environment Minister,
Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998

http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/ENDANGERED/esahi...

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no logical reason to leaving the wonderful world of "the fossil fuel paradigm."

I can think of one, which i never heard mentioned: The fossil 'fuels' are wonderful and complex carbon molecules of which we have not even begun to understand the full benefits. Just think how plastics alone have changed the world and improved our lives!

The new and upcoming carbon based materials and products can improve the world more than we can conceive -- materials so strong that it will one day be possible to build elevators to upper atmosphere, our cities can expand upward by orders of magnitude, the carbon nanotubes can be used as light sensitive antennas to replace present day optics... and so on. these things are only what we already know we will one day be able to make out of the fossil 'fuels.'

The real innovation is yet to come - it may well be the next big thing that, will bring the civilization to the next level.

I think the humanity of the future will regard us as most ignorant savages for having burned up the bulk of the most important industrial raw material that this planet has to offer.

Anders wrote:

<quoted text>
I can think of one, which i never heard mentioned: The fossil 'fuels' are wonderful and complex carbon molecules of which we have not even begun to understand the full benefits. Just think how plastics alone have changed the world and improved our lives!
The new and upcoming carbon based materials and products can improve the world more than we can conceive -- materials so strong that it will one day be possible to build elevators to upper atmosphere, our cities can expand upward by orders of magnitude, the carbon nanotubes can be used as light sensitive antennas to replace present day optics... and so on. these things are only what we already know we will one day be able to make out of the fossil 'fuels.'
The real innovation is yet to come - it may well be the next big thing that, will bring the civilization to the next level.
I think the humanity of the future will regard us as most ignorant savages for having burned up the bulk of the most important industrial raw material that this planet has to offer.

I completely agree that we should retain our fossil fuels for feedstock. They have more value for use in carbon based materials than they do for burning as fuels. We could make plastics from our crops I suppose, but the first use for crops should be food. Synfuels is another possible source of feedstock. With high temp reactors we can create hydrogen from water at high efficiency. Hydrogen can be used to reduce carbon dioxide to hydrocarbon so we could manage without fossil fuel but that would likely be an awkward and likely expensive solution. Experts tell us that during this century oil and gas will get too expensive to use as fuel. If we substitute with coal gassification, even coal will be running out by the end of the century.

tjostemj wrote:

<quoted text>
I completely agree that we should retain our fossil fuels for feedstock. They have more value for use in carbon based materials than they do for burning as fuels. We could make plastics from our crops I suppose, but the first use for crops should be food. Synfuels is another possible source of feedstock. With high temp reactors we can create hydrogen from water at high efficiency. Hydrogen can be used to reduce carbon dioxide to hydrocarbon so we could manage without fossil fuel but that would likely be an awkward and likely expensive solution. Experts tell us that during this century oil and gas will get too expensive to use as fuel. If we substitute with coal gassification, even coal will be running out by the end of the century.

You need to seriously consider a complete make over of your very weird views THAT YOU ARE LISTENING TO \ HAVE LISTENED TO.

----------
"Experts tell us that..."
----------

They say increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere will

slow the Earth's rotation.

This will make every day a little longer than it is already.

But for the next century the increase will be so small that if you blink, you'll miss it.

The scientists, from Belgium's Royal Observatory and the Catholic University of Louvain, report their work in this month's issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

They used computer models ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/181...

----------
"Experts tell us that... "
----------

Global warming will make Earth spin faster

as the oceans warm up, Earth will start rotating a wee bit faster, reducing the length of a day.

Landerer and his colleagues

modelled the changes

that would occur if the most realistic estimates made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11555

----------
"Experts tell us that... "
----------

KABOOM!

Consequences of global warming are far more serious than previously imagined. The REAL danger for our entire civilization comes not from slow climate changes, but from overheating of the planetary interior.

Overheating the center of the inner core reactor due to the so-called greenhouse effect on the surface of Earth may cause a meltdown condition, an enrichment of nuclear fuel and a gigantic atomic explosion.

In particular, obtained results strongly depend on the initial values assigned to parameters

of the model

and hence are strongly biased by assumptions and expectations of the person who defines such initial values. Tomography, as an iterative multi-parameter estimation method, can produce a multitude of ”local” minima for any chosen least square error function. There is no guarantee and no proof that it finds the ”global” minimum
or even a realistic solution. To complicate things even more, there exist almost an infinite number of ways to define the ”error” function that is minimized by a least-square fit criterion. Needless to say, each such
function produces a different result.
2. The Earth’s interior model, parameters of which.....

Can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming?

Dr
Tom J. Chalko 1 ,
MSc,
PhD

http://nujournal.net/core.pdf

"Experts tell us that... "

Anders wrote:

I can think of one, which i never heard mentioned: The fossil 'fuels' are wonderful and complex carbon molecules of which we have not even begun to understand the full benefits. Just think how plastics alone have changed the world and improved our lives!

Not all of it for the better, scrap plastic is becoming an ever increasing nuisance.
Initially, it was a boon, but has been turned into a frivolous monster.

Anders wrote:

The new and upcoming carbon based materials and products can improve the world more than we can conceive -- materials so strong that it will one day be possible to build elevators to upper atmosphere, our cities can expand upward by orders of magnitude, the carbon nanotubes can be used as light sensitive antennas to replace present day optics... and so on. these things are only what we already know we will one day be able to make out of the fossil 'fuels.'
The real innovation is yet to come - it may well be the next big thing that, will bring the civilization to the next level.

All of that is as yet science fiction, as was heavier than air flight when my father was a child.

Anders wrote:

I think the humanity of the future will regard us as most ignorant savages for having burned up the bulk of the most important industrial raw material that this planet has to offer.

Not true, just as (hopefully) you don't regard humanity of the past as savages.
We live in an ever progressing society that has always progressed forward and will never move backward until the day it beomes extinct.

We must have faith in whatever progress happens, for better or worse, there is no alternative, other than suicide.

Earthling wrote:

just as (hopefully) you don't regard humanity of the past as savages.

That is what they were, it is not a question of how they were regarded

We live in an ever progressing society that has always progressed forward and will never move backward until the day it beomes extinct.

Cambodia, Rwanda, Japan, Germany, Sudan, Korea, Iran. Pay a little attention to reality.