Climategate

1130131133135136153

Comments

  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:



    jg's cite



    The Resilient Earth-Ancient Evidence That CO2 Does Not Control Climate



    Quote:

    Studying the PETM, therefore, may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks. Just such a study, reported in Nature Geoscience, found that CO2 forcing alone was insufficient to explain the PETM warming. Scientists speculate that other processes and/or feedbacks, hitherto unknown, must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Paleocene?Eocene Thermal Maximum. Simply put, CO2 did not cause the PETM climate change.



    Paper Referenced in jg's cite:



    Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene?Eocene Thermal Maximum warming



    Quote:

    As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2*concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene?Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.



    FT cites and comments:



    Increased Atmospheric CO2 During the Middle Eocene



    Quote:

    Even without humans, there are many processes that can change the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere and affect global climate. On page 819 of this issue, Bijl et al. (1) provide the first direct evidence that very high CO2 levels occurred about 40 million years ago during the Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum (MECO), one of the hottest intervals in Earth's climate history. The hunt is now on for a geological cause for this event?and fingers are pointing at the Himalayan mountain belt.



    There seems to be a concurrence of data to suggest that the CO2 levels during the PETM was elevated. RE incorrectly states ?Simply put, CO2 did not cause the PETM climate change.? This is not what their cited paper states ?We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene?Eocene Thermal Maximum.? So there is an acknowledgement that CO2 was a contributing factor of about 1 and 3.5 °C according to their data.



    Rapid Acidification of the Ocean During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum



    Quote:

    The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) has been attributed to the rapid release of 2000 x 109 metric tons of carbon in the form of methane. In theory, oxidation and ocean absorption of this carbon should have lowered deep-sea pH, thereby triggering a rapid (<10,000-year) shoaling of the calcite compensation depth (CCD), followed by gradual recovery. Here we present geochemical data from five new South Atlantic deep-sea sections that constrain the timing and extent of massive sea-floor carbonate dissolution coincident with the PETM.....



    These findings indicate that a large mass of carbon (»2000 x 109 metric tons of carbon) dissolved in the ocean at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary and that permanent sequestration of this carbon occurred through silicate weathering feedback.



    As cited in an earlier posts, there is increasing evidence to suggest that the oceans are becoming increasingly acidic. What the total impacts this will have is anyone's guess. One of the consequences of acidification of the oceans is an effect on the carbon?carbonate cycle.



    The paper cited above also indicates that during PETM there was also massive release of methane (CH4), another greenhouse gas. What the science doesn't know, as far as I've been able to determine, is what the overall impact of increasing CO2 will have on the other portions of the carbon cycle. There will be biological impacts that so far have not been evaluated as what this will have on the atmosphere.



    Some of the SCIENTIFIC PAPERS that discuss PETM are @

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search...t=petm&x=0&y=0
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    I encourage you to challenge the originators of the content. I am merely providing links to their content for convenience.



    Trying to refute their claims here is pretty pointless.



    jg, what is pointless is that you keep going to the same old sites that take a portion of a scientific paper and draw their own conclusions and misquote the findings. It is not convenient for us to try to keep refuting these links. If you don't believe in them or refuse to back them up with sound scientific evidence, then don't post them in the first place.



    INSTEAD OF MORE OF THIS:



    TRY THIS AS YOUR SOURCE:

    Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says



    You might try this as a possible source for debunking AGW.



    CLIMATEGATE BUSTERS--DEBUNKING AGW
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Reposting links, quotes, and comics with large colored text is fun, isn't it?
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Reposting links, quotes, and comics with large colored text is fun, isn't it?



    I guess you do not want to take this thread seriously, and that's what's not funny--your thread. While I may have reposted the Skeptic and the toon--it's because you have failed to add anything new to this thread. Your sources are as tiring as the toon is getting to be. But as long as you keep posting the same drivel, I guess the toon is still on point.



    INSTEAD OF MORE OF THIS:



    TRY THIS AS YOUR SOURCE:

    Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says



    You might try this as a possible source for debunking AGW.



    CLIMATEGATE BUSTERS--DEBUNKING AGW
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member


    No longer taking you seriously---seriously!!!!!



    INSTEAD OF MORE OF THIS:



    TRY THIS AS YOUR SOURCE:

    Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says



    You might try this as a possible source for debunking AGW.



    CLIMATEGATE BUSTERS--DEBUNKING AGW

  • wormholewormhole Posts: 864member
    Quote:



    How can that be? The earth is only 6,ooo years old!!!
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post


    How can that be? The earth is only 6,ooo years old!!!



    Worm the problem is that people keep thinking in earth years and not in G_D years---there's a difference. And in 10 K to 20K years there's going to be another ice age so AGW is a myth.



  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Advancing the Science of Climate Change



    Quote:

    A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems, concludes this panel report from the America's Climate Choices suite of studies. As decision makers respond to these risks, the nation's scientific enterprise can contribute both by continuing to improve understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change, and by improving and expanding the options available to limit the magnitude of climate change and adapt to its impacts....



    Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change



    Quote:

    ..The report concludes that a carbon pricing system (either cap-and-trade, taxes, or a combination of the two) is the most important step for providing needed incentives to reduce emissions. There is also a need, however, for complementary policies aimed at ensuring rapid progress to: increase energy efficiency; accelerate the development of renewable energy sources; advance full-scale demonstration of nuclear power and carbon capture and storage systems; and retrofit or replace existing emissions-intensive energy infrastructure. Research and development of new technologies that could help reduce emissions further in the long term also should be strongly supported...





    Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millenia



    Quote:

    This new report from the National Research Council concludes that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels have ushered in a new epoch where human activities will largely determine the evolution of Earth?s climate. Because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe. Therefore, emissions reductions choices made today matter in determining impacts experienced not just over the next few decades, but in the coming centuries and millennia. Policy choices can be informed by recent advances in climate science that quantify the relationships between increases in carbon dioxide and global warming, related climate changes, and resulting impacts, such as changes in streamflow, wildfires, crop productivity, extreme hot summers, and sea level rise. The report quantifies several future impacts per degree (°C) of global warming. The report also demonstrates that emissions reductions larger than about 80%, relative to whatever peak global emissions rate may be reached, are required to approximately stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations for a century or so at any chosen target level.



    More @ http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate/Rep...emies-Findings
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post






    It's fun playing with straw men isn't it?
  • wormholewormhole Posts: 864member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    Cost of those panels was more like $50k, the government just paid most of it.



    Currently you get a 30% TAX CREDIT.

    This is a tax break ... lower taxes ... you know ... you hate to pay taxes ....Taxed Enough Already ... ja?.... instead of paying taxes you can buy solar panels ... ja?

    This only helps when you have to pay taxes in the first place, ja?

    The government does not pay anything, ja ....? It just says: "You owe me less, bro/sis...!" Get it, ja?
  • e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,047member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post


    Currently you get a 30% TAX CREDIT.

    This is a tax break ... lower taxes ... you know ... you hate to pay taxes ....Taxed Enough Already ... ja?.... instead of paying taxes you can buy solar panels ... ja?

    This only helps when you have to pay taxes in the first place, ja?

    The government does not pay anything, ja ....? It just says: "You owe me less, bro/sis...!" Get it, ja?



    A friend of mine just looked into it - total cost to power his 2500 sq foot house was 50k, which turned into 15k after government subsidies. That is Colorado, though.



    Finetunes - the PETM was caused by oceanic methane being released, if we warm the oceans enough it will happen again, but not anytime soon. CO2 warms the oceans, and once the oceans are warm at the edges of the continental plate where the methane is (hundreds of meters below the surface), it releases the methane and spikes the temperature up 10 degrees C, which kills all large animals. But that will happen much later, all the ice at the poles melts long before that happens.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Grim outlook for grizzlies in Yellowstone region



    Quote:

    With milder winters affecting their food and hibernation habits, they're forced into a meat-dependent diet ? putting them at odds with humans and livestock. They could end up as despised as wolves.



    A number of complex factors are believed to be working against grizzlies, including climate change. Milder winters have allowed bark beetles to decimate the white-bark pine, whose nuts are a critical food source for grizzlies. Meanwhile, there has been a slight seasonal shift for plants that grizzlies rely on when they prepare to hibernate and when they emerge in the spring, changing the creatures' denning habits.



    The result, some biologists say, is that bears accustomed to feasting on berries and nuts in remote alpine areas are being pushed into a more meat-dependent diet that puts them on a collision course with the other dominant regional omnivore: humans.



  • wormholewormhole Posts: 864member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    A friend of mine just looked into it - total cost to power his 2500 sq foot house was 50k, which turned into 15k after government subsidies. That is Colorado, though.



    Obama only allows for a 30% FEDERAL GOV tax credit. Everything else would have to come from the state or the local provider.



    Tell your friend to look at it this way:

    current interest rates are low and investing into stocks is still very much a gamble. If you put 15K, (which will be more like 23k out of pocket but you will pay less tax next year) on your roof you can make up to 13% apr guaranteed. Indeed rising E prices will improve your return. This pretty much beats any other investment. And: after the panels have paid for themselves they will still produce energy for an unknown time period. The warranty is 25 years!

    Also if you do sell your home and the buyer does not want solar you can take them with you or your home will sell much faster than a non solar home...

    just some thoughts to consider.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,250member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post


    Currently you get a 30% TAX CREDIT.

    This is a tax break ... lower taxes ... you know ... you hate to pay taxes ....Taxed Enough Already ... ja?.... instead of paying taxes you can buy solar panels ... ja?

    This only helps when you have to pay taxes in the first place, ja?

    The government does not pay anything, ja ....? It just says: "You owe me less, bro/sis...!" Get it, ja?



    We all get it. The global warming claims are a gigantic wealth tranfer scheme from the poor to the rich. The mandates allow the rich to live as they always have and allow the poor to die and go away.
  • wormholewormhole Posts: 864member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    We all get it. The global warming claims are a gigantic wealth tranfer scheme from the poor to the rich. The mandates allow the rich to live as they always have and allow the poor to die and go away.



    Yes, that's why it's great to be rich in the USA. We can buy elections and call the "rich" party tea party, we get massive tax breaks while the looser schmos have to work their asses off just to be able to go to the dentist. I love it!
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    We all get it. The global warming claims are a gigantic wealth tranfer scheme from the poor to the rich. The mandates allow the rich to live as they always have and allow the poor to die and go away.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post


    Yes, that's why it's great to be rich in the USA. We can buy elections and call the "rich" party tea party, we get massive tax breaks while the looser schmos have to work their asses off just to be able to go to the dentist. I love it!





    And with AGW the rich will be the only ones who will be able to keep their air conditioners on high. tm will still not answer questions until







    but with genetic engineering who knows maybe pigs will fly sooner than we think.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:



    Actually this is the first time that you posted something worth a serious discussion.



    Although "biofuels" might be considered solution to dependence upon fossil fuels, the full impacts of producing and using biofuels have not been fully studied. Some other considerations:



    Biofuel Impacts on World Food Supply: Use of Fossil Fuel, Land and Water Resources

    Quote:

    The rapidly growing world population and rising consumption of biofuels are increasing demand for both food and biofuels. This exaggerates both food and fuel shortages. Using food crops such as corn grain to produce ethanol raises major nutritional and ethical concerns. Nearly 60% of humans in the world are currently malnourished, so the need for grains and other basic foods is critical. Growing crops for fuel squanders land, water and energy resources vital for the production of food for human consumption. Using corn for ethanol increases the price of U.S. beef, chicken, pork, eggs, breads, cereals, and milk more than 10% to 30%.





    UN warns on impacts of biofuels

    Quote:

    A UN report warns that a hasty switch to biofuels could have major impacts on livelihoods and the environment.

    Produced by a cross-agency body, UN Energy, the report says that biofuels can bring real benefits.

    But there can be serious consequences if forests are razed for plantations, if food prices rise and if communities are excluded from ownership, it says.

    And it concludes that biofuels are more effective when used for heat and power rather than in transport.



    Impacts of Global Biofuel Boom Remain Murky

    Quote:

    The United Nations Environment Programme finds research into biofuels impacts on dead zones, biodiversity and a range of other environmental issues lacking.

    A U.N. panel said today that biofuels' effects on air and water have not been sufficiently explored despite growing global production.



    The U.N. Environment Programme's report concludes that so-called lifecycle assessments must go beyond calculating greenhouse gas emissions and consider how agricultural production of feedstocks affect the acidification and nutrient loading of waterways.



Sign In or Register to comment.