Main Menu
Google Search
Google
Current GWH News
Global Warming Hoax News From Around the Web

World Climate Report

» A Classic Tale of Global Warming Alarmism

» More Evidence Against a Methane Time Bomb

» Agriculture: Tropical Cyclones are Welcome Visitors

» Sea Level Acceleration: Not so Fast

» Hansen Is Wrong

» Earth’s Carbon Sink Still Strong and Growing

» Wild Speculation on Climate and Polar Bears

» Illiteracy at NASA

» The Heat Was On—Before Urbanization and Greenhouse Gases

» What’s to Blame for the Rains on the Plains?

***
NewsBusters - Global Warming

» CNN's Blitzer: 'I Don't Remember' Biden's Law School Plagiarism

» CNN's Chetry: 'Please Tell Me It's Not Lipstick Again'

» MRC Report Asks: Why No Fairness Doctrine for PBS?

***
Science and Public Policy Institute

» Growth Rates of Old Versus Young Forest Trees

» Water Use Efficiency of Agricultural Species

» Tropical Trees

» Global Temperatures and Biospheric Productivity

» Rewriting Sunspot History

» Analysis of the Second Order Draft of the Working I Contribution to IPCC 5AR

» The Economics of Biofuels

» The Warming-Induced Evolution of Terrestrial Plants

» Medieval Warm Period in Southern Europe

» Effects of Elevated C02 on the Stomatal Conductance of Agricultural Crops

» Response of Various Marine Animals to Ocean Warming

» Medieval Warm Period in Central Europe

» Growth Response of Grassland Species to Elevated C02 When Water Stressed

» Effects of Increased C02 on Herbaceous Plant Pests

» Medieval Warm Period in Northern Europe

» Loblolly Pines Defy the Progressive Nitrogen Hypothesis

» Response of Crustaceans to Ocean Warming

» Energy Inefficiencies of Biofuels

» Response of Marine Plants to Changes in Temperature

» Biofuels: The Carbon Debt They Owe

» Medieval Warm Period in Japan

» Response of Corals to Ocean Acidification

» Interactive Effects of C02 and Water Stress on the Growth of Woody Plant Species

» Biofuels: Land and Water Concerns

» Medieval Warm Period in Upper North America

***
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group

» Roger Pielke Sr. is now on Twitter!

» 2012 Climate Science Weblog in Review by Dallas Jean Staley – A Guest Post

» The Weblog Is Retiring

» Publication Of “Reply to “Comment On ‘Ocean Heat Content And Earth’s Radiation Imbalance. II. Relation To Climate Shifts’ ” by Nuccitelli Et Al. By Douglass and Knox 2012

» Q&A From A Group Of Retired NASA Personnel And Associates

» The Importance of Land Use/Land Practices On Climate – A Perspective From Jon Foley

» Interview With James Wynn In The English Department At Carnegie Mellon University

» University Of Alabama At Huntsville October 2012 Lower Tropospheric Temperature Analysis

» USA Election Day 2012

» New Paper “Climatic Variability Over Time Scales Spanning Nine Orders of Magnitude: Connecting Milankovitch Cycles With Hurst–Kolmogorov Dynamics” By Markonis And Koutsoyiannis

***


» Gavin Schmidt and the EPA Denial Decision

» Millennial Quebec Tree Rings

» Decomposing Paico

» New Article on Igaliku

» PAGES2K vs the Hanhijarvi Reconstruction

» PAGES2K: More Upside Down?

» Okshola: which way is up?

» Revisions to Pages2K Arctic

» Sliming by Stokes

» ClimateBallers and the MM05 Simulations

***
Watts Up With That?

» Video: Why science reporter Seth Borenstein at the Associated Press is more about ‘New Catch Phrases’ and less about science

» Slimed by Naomi Oreskes – In Defense of Dr. Fred Singer

» Red or Blue pill? Light sensitive diatoms may hold key to a big portion of the climate puzzle

» FEMA edict to U.S. states: ‘Provide a Climate Plan or Lose Funding’

» California trees ‘smart response’ to drought

» Fire at Didcot power station means the UK power grid is in for a rough ride this winter

» Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #154

» Study: Improved electricity access has little impact on climate change

» Secret Post Facto Changes in the IPCC AR5 Report

» Poland To Veto EU’s 40% CO2 Reduction Proposal

» Claim: Cheap energy stimulates the economy too much – Natural Gas will not reduce CO2

» World Disasters Report for 2013 – lowest number of catastrophies and deaths in 10 years

***
Global Warming News

» Which Is the Bigger Threat to People in Developing Countries: Climate Change or Energy Poverty?

» “Topsy-Turvy” Clean Power Plan Could “Substantially” Raise Electric Bills — Virginia State Corporate Commission

» EPA’s Clean Power Plan: Huge Electric Sector Impacts, Undetectably Small Climate Benefits — Study

» The Divestment Movement’s Heart of Darkness

» EPA’s Clean Power Plan: Strategy for One-Party Rule? (Updated 10-17-2014)

» Will eBay Stand with ALEC?

» Good News on Air Quality Not Featured on EPA’s Web Site

» How Unlawful Is EPA’s Clean Power Plan?

» Dressing Properly for Ben Santer’s Invitation

» Big Wind Encounters Turbulence in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas

***
Fox News - Climate Change Stories

***
Michelle Malkin - Enviro-Nitwits

» Fanboy of scare monger Al Gore accuses conservative of scare mongering about Ebola

» Predictable scapegoat for first ever diagnosis of Ebola in US

» New scare tactic highlights gravity of the ‘climate crisis’

» Obama fires up Air Force One, Marine One, huge motorcade to deliver climate change warning at UN

» Al Gore has lost so much weight that he makes a Prius look like a Chevy Suburban SUV

***
DailyTech Michael Asher`s blog

» Will the Real Antarctica Please Stand Up?

» Global Warming May Decrease Hurricanes, Research Suggests

» Japanese Report Disputes Human Cause for Global Warming

» Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

» A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the (Climate) Forum

» Climate Report Downgrades Ice Loss; Media Reports Opposite

» Princeton Physicist Calls Global Warming Science "Mistaken"

» Defying Predictions, Sea Level Rise Begins to Slow

» Electric Car Sales in Freefall; Industry Risks Collapse

» Glaciers in Norway Growing Again

***
C3 - Climate Cycles Change

» The Renewable Ears Market Potential: Low Frequency Noise From Wind Turbines Potentially Harmful Long-Term

» Climate headlines from other sources this past week...

» Americans Vote: Climate Change & Global Warming Still Not Important

» CO2's Impact On Global Temperature Trends: Minimal To Non-Existent, Per IPCC's Gold-Standard

» Peer-Reviewed Study: Canadian Climate Warming - Not So Much, eh?

» Climate headlines from other sources this past week...

» Can The All-Electric Nissan Leaf Save The World From A 0.01 Degree Warming? Yep & It Would Only Cost $40+ Trillion

» After 20 Years of Cumulative CO2 Growth, Global Warming Trend Creeps Towards +0.38°C by 2050AD

» Memo To GOP: Cut Def. Budget Until Idiot AGW-Warriors Retired From Service

» Climate headlines from other sources this past week...

» U.S. Wildfires Inversely Correlated With CO2 - The More CO2 The Less Acres Burnt, Per Empirical Evidence

» Comparison of NASA/Hansen Climate Model Vs. Climate Reality: As of August 2014

» Climate Headlines From Other Sources This Past Week

» NOAA Confirms With Empirical Proof: CO2 Changes Not Causing Dangerous Global Temperature Changes

» Climate Models Can't Predict Squat: Simulations of Critical ENSO Asymmetry Are Lame

***
CATO - Global Warming

» More Bad News for Airbnb

» China's Challenge: Growing the Market, Limiting the State

» Why Doctors Give Obamacare a Failing Grade

» America Adrift

» America's Fatal Blunder in the War against ISIS

» Securing Individual Education of Students and Teachers Simultaneously

» Budget Cuts and Ebola

» In Big Government, Breaking Up Is Always Hard to Do

» U.S. Now Reaping the Iraqi Whirlwind: Washington Should Back out of Iraq's New Civil War

» Mike Pence's Approach to Taxes Earns an 'A'

» Will India Destroy the WTO's Agricultural Reforms?

» Why So Many Are Unemployed for So Long

» The Right Wing Screams for the Wambulance over Gay Marriage Ruling

» The Forever-War President: Obama's 'Transformational' War Powers Legacy

» Why the Middle East Still Doesn’t Matter

» War with Islamic State Would be Obama's Folly

» School Tax Credits Are Good for Parents, Taxpayers

» The Left's Legal War on Children

» Immigration Bolsters American Freedom

» Rand Paul vs. Current Assaults on Monstrous ISIS

» Beijing's New Charm Offensive

» The Minimum Wage Struggle: Bootleggers and Baptists

» Land of the Free?

» Why North Carolina Got the Highest Grade on Cato's Fiscal Report Card

» Saudi Arabia: an Unsavory, Untrustworthy Member of the Anti-ISIL Coalition

***
CanadaFreePress - Global Warming

***
More Global Warming Hoax News Feeds

---
Since Exxon Hasn't Sent Us Our First Million Dollars Yet You're Welcome To Help Pay Our Bills Until They Do.









Headlines

»Watch: Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: ‘The Myth of Carbon Pollution’ – ‘Carbon pollution’ is a propaganda slogan…It is not science’
On October 15, 2014 Dr. William Happer, Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, discusse ...
»AP’s Seth Borenstein: ‘Some nonscientists claim no warming in 18 years, Fed scientist: ‘no one’s told the globe that’ 2014 likely hottest year’
Another month, another global heat record broken: Last month again set a new mark for global heat. A ...
»Even ignoring satellite data Year-to-date ‘record’ temps are 0.21C *below* climate model projections
»Warmists trying to tout ‘Hottest Year Ever’ – ‘Unfortunately, the satellite data does not agree’
As at the end of September, RSS is only ranking 7th hottest since 1998, and UAH tie 3rd. On both da ...
»Flashback: 1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.’
April 1990 - The Canberra Times: 'A report Issued by the U.S. space agency NASA...' 'The report's a ...
»Arctic Sea Ice Recovering Strongly – Extent is slightly above 2005’s level
»‘We all pay the price for climate hysteria as alarmist predictions fail’
»Analysis: ‘Obama’s foolish green agenda interferes with the military’s core mission’
»‘Computer modelling has failed climate science’
»New Oreskes Documentary Claims Dr. Fred Singer & Morano are ‘Liars for Hire’ – Morano called ‘star of this show’ – ‘The astonishingly charming rogue Marc Morano’
New Warmist film: 'But the star of this show is the astonishingly charming rogue Marc Morano, a freq ...


Date published: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 19:03:04 +0000
Details

»Solar Thursday USA: An Eclipse AND a Massive Sunspot Group
Residents of the eastern U.S. will be in a particularly good location to see a partial solar eclipse ...
»Dr. Roy’s Earth Today #12: Central Siberian Plateau
Lying mostly north of the Arctic Circle, the Central Siberian Plateau is enjoying sunshine today, bu ...
»From Russia, With Cold
Winter has gotten an early start in Russia, with much of the expansive country already covered in sn ...
»Gonzalo: 144 mph Gust Measured on Bermuda
As predicted, the eye of Hurricane Gonzalo passed directly over Bermuda last night. Most of the isla ...
»Target, Bermuda: Will Hurricane Gonzalo Rival Fabian?
UPDATE 7 am ET Oct. 18: As was forecast, the eye of Gonzalo passed over Bermuda last night. The high ...
»How Safe is the Air You Breathe in Planes?
With increasing concerns that Ebola apparently spreads more readily than we were told, I thought it ...
»Hurricane Gonzalo Intensifying North of Puerto Rico
Here’s the latest MODIS color image of Hurricane Gonzalo, currently a 110 mph (Category 2) sto ...
»Dr. Roy’s Earth Today #11: Dust Over the Arabian Sea
Clouds of dust blow southward out of Pakistan over the Arabian Sea today, as seen in this Terra MODI ...
»Dr. Roy’s Earth Today #10: Montreal, Quebec City, Maine, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick
Spectacular fall color was captured in this MODIS satellite image yesterday covering Maine, New Hamp ...
»Watch Out, Bermuda: T.S. Gonzalo Approaches Hurricane Strength
The various tropical cyclone track models have Tropical Storm Gonzalo tracking very near Bermuda on ...


Date published: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:32:15 +0000
Details

»Testing Blog Cross-Post 2
again
»Reconciling Conflicting Climate Claims
Cross-posted from Coyoteblog At Real Science, Steven Goddard claims this is the coolest summer on re ...
»Computer Models as “Evidence”
Cross-posted from Coyoteblog The BBC has decided not to every talk to climate skeptics again, in par ...
»Another Plea to Global Warming Alarmists on the Phrase “Climate Denier”
Cross-posted from Coyoteblog Stop calling me and other skeptics “climate deniers“.  No o ...
»My Thoughts on Steven Goddard and His Fabricated Temperature Data Claim
Cross-posted from Coyote Blog. Steven Goddard of the Real Science blog has a study that claims that ...
»The Thought Experiment That First Made Me A Climate Skeptic
Please check out my Forbes post today.  Here is how it begins: Last night, the accumulated years of ...
»Explaining the Flaw in Kevin Drum’s (and Apparently Science Magazine’s) Climate Chart
Cross-Posted from Coyoteblog I won’t repeat the analysis, you need to see it here.  Here is th ...
»If You Don’t Like People Saying That Climate Science is Absurd, Stop Publishing Absurd Un-Scientific Charts
Reprinted from Coyoteblog science a “myth”.  As is usual for global warming supporters, ...
»Update On My Climate Model (Spoiler: It’s Doing a Lot Better than the Pros)
Cross posted from Coyoteblog In this post, I want to discuss my just-for-fun model of global tempera ...
»Climate Goundhog Day
I posted something like this over at my other blog but I suppose I should post it here as well.  Fol ...


Date published: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:33:21 +0000
Details

»Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the ‘Consensus’
By James Delingpole - One of the world’s most eminent climate scientists – for several d ...
»Global Warming and Settled Science
By Andre Lofthus The AGW community would have you believe that the science in favor of AGW is settle ...
»The Tragedy of Earth Day
By Doug L. Hoffman - It is Earth Day today, a chance for all tree huggers, green activists and other ...
»Climate scientist’s emails are shielded from disclosure, Virginia Supreme Court says
By Debra Cassens Weiss - The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that a climate scientist’s emails are ...
»Global Warming’s Upside-Down Narrative
By Bjorn Lomborg - When politicians around the world tell the story of global warming, they cast it ...


Date published: Thu, 08 May 2014 20:29:04 +0000
Details

»Gavin Schmidt and the EPA Denial Decision
About eight weeks ago, Jean S postulated that Gavin Schmidt had been involved in writing the documen ...
»Millennial Quebec Tree Rings
In today’s post, I’m going to discuss an important new 1000-year chronology from norther ...
»Decomposing Paico
In today’s post, Jean S and I are going to show that the paico reconstruction, as implemented ...
»New Article on Igaliku
Shortly after the publication of PAGES2K, I pointed out that the Igaliku lake sediment proxy, had be ...
»PAGES2K vs the Hanhijarvi Reconstruction
The PAGES2K (2013) Arctic reconstruction of Kaufman et al has attracted considerable attention as a ...
»PAGES2K: More Upside Down?
Does it matter whether proxies are used upside-down or not? Maybe not in Mann-world (where, in respo ...
»Okshola: which way is up?
The recent revisions to PAGES2K included a dramatic flipping of the Hvitarvatn varve series to the o ...
»Revisions to Pages2K Arctic
Kaufman and the PAGES2K Arctic2K group recently published a series of major corrections to their dat ...
»Sliming by Stokes
Stokes’ most recent post, entitled “What Steve McIntyre Won’t Show You Now”, ...
»ClimateBallers and the MM05 Simulations
ClimateBallers are extremely suspicious of the MM05 simulation methodology, to say the least.  A rec ...


Date published: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 00:15:06 +0000
Details

»Growth Rates of Old Versus Young Forest Trees
The planting and preservation of forests has long been acknowledged to be an effective and environme ...
»Water Use Efficiency of Agricultural Species
In some cases, the water-use efficiency increases caused by atmospheric CO2 enrichment are spectacul ...
»Tropical Trees
Going back in time to the final few years of the 20th century, Schaffer et al. (1997) grew two mango ...
»Global Temperatures and Biospheric Productivity
Among the many climate-alarmist fears of CO2-induced global warming is the concern that the producti ...
»Rewriting Sunspot History
In 2006, when I first made the mistake of writing publicly of my doubts about the Party Line on manm ...
»Analysis of the Second Order Draft of the Working I Contribution to IPCC 5AR
This new review is unlike the previous analysis because it focuses not only on a statistical analysi ...
»The Economics of Biofuels
Aside from rejecting biofuel expansion and use for environmental reasons (see Biofuels (Land and Wat ...
»The Warming-Induced Evolution of Terrestrial Plants
One of the grandest of catastrophes that climate alarmists contend will result from CO2-induced glob ...
»Medieval Warm Period in Southern Europe
Was there really a global Medieval Warm Period? The IPCC used to acknowledge there was; but they hav ...
»Effects of Elevated C02 on the Stomatal Conductance of Agricultural Crops
As the air's CO2 content continues to rise, nearly all plants will respond by reducing their leaf st ...


Date published: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 23:36:18 +0000
Details

»BBC reporting the UN World Health Organisation is under fire for bungled response to Ebola crisis
Odd that I have not seen this in any Australian news – I see about three TV news channels each ...
»Proposed Bango Wind Farm near Boorowa NSW – an example of five years of multiple regulatory hurdles
The Bango Wind Farm proposal initiated in 2009 extends from north of Yass to SE of Boorowa and is a ...
»Six members of the EU resist moves to 40% emissions cut by 2030
The Polish PM says “…she would block any move that would increase energy bills for Polis ...
»ACT(Canberra) Government plans to source 90% of electricity from renewables by 2020 is in tatters if the Federal Government succeeds in slashing the extravagant Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme
This map from The Dec 2013 AECOM report Pathways to Wind Power Development in the Australian Capital ...
»Stunning breakthrough in oxygen storage using a cobalt based salt
The Metal Bulletin reports – Cobalt at Centre of Breathtaking Scientific Discovery – the ...
»Six years of electricity price history at the coal-face in Canberra and statements by Minister Corbell
I was curious to chart the recent reduction in electricity costs due to the Carbon Tax being abolish ...
»Where is the technology for this post carbon world that will leave our electricity grids still working 24/7 ?
I see Professor Ian Young – Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University has this Can ...
»Australian National University divests itself of Australian resource companies
This news has been out a few days and has been discussed at Catallaxy. The seven companies are ...
»I had no idea that Australian Labor Leader Bill Shorten is worried that the Abbott Government is “…a Government of climate sceptics…”
Yesterday top management called out that Bill Shorten had just referred to the Abbott Govt as a ...
»Australian Bureau of Meteorology 3 month Outlooks July to September far too hot again
Once again the BoM puts out these useless temperature Outlooks where NOT ONE square centimetre of Au ...


Date published: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:44:56 +0000
Details
Latest Forum Posts
Posted by  The statement is a
  /  The other week, we saw the top player ranking[more ...]
10/01 02:26

Posted by Anonymous
Search AGWunveiled to discover the two drivers tha[more ...]
08/18 07:00

Posted by Anonymous
[ REQUIRES ADMIN APPROVAL ]
07/28 02:48

Posted by Anonymous
Yes
07/25 01:42

Posted by Joel Carlson
What do all the green plants on earth need to prod[more ...]
07/17 12:10

Posted by Anonymous
http://cpubuilds.com offers some insight into glob[more ...]
06/15 13:46

Posted by Anonymous
Global warming - this is old news for everyone! I [more ...]
02/27 12:28

Posted by Anonymous
Interesting blog about Global Warming in space. Th[more ...]
02/22 09:27

Posted by Anonymous
I want to thank you for this wonderful blog. And I[more ...]
02/22 08:21

Posted by Anonymous
Interesting blog about climate and global warming.[more ...]
02/22 08:18

Relevant Sponsors

Donations
Any Amount helps support improvements





* or *


Advertise on this site

Road Gear

License Plate Frames
Support the Truth

Skeptic License Plate Frame
"SKEPTIC"

It's Natural License Plate Frame
"It`s Natural"

Liberty License Plate Frame
"Liberty"

* MORE *
Strong and durable metal license plate holder. Uses full color high resolution images. UV and Water Protection. Satisfaction Guaranteed
RSS Feeds
Our news can be syndicated by using these rss feeds.
rss1.0
rss2.0
rdf
Welcome
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
Mobile Version
e107mobileYou can now visit us on your mobile phone! Simply goto http://GlobalWarmingHoax.com on your mobile phone or PDA to get started!

Forums
<< Previous thread | Next thread >>   
Finite Oil

Begin New Thread
Author Post
David
Fri May 21 2010, 06:19PMQuote
GuestUnless you're one of the devote apostles of abiotic oil, then you weil know from your grade school teacher in Geography, that there are somethings called limited and renewable resources. Those resources like oil/coal are limited. When you take a closer look at that it means or would mean that the amount of oil on this planet is limited. If everything is burned off then, it's gone. While this not entirely true, because if we waited a couple tens of millions of years some of it would be replenished.
So if we are sitting on a finite amount of oil/coal/peat, whatever, then these reservoirs are one of the many world's carbon deposits. The others are the carbonates, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the carbon in the biosphere. Of course, there are other sources and stashes of carbon in this world, but to keep it simple let's remain by what are considered the largest amounts. Carbonates are the stones that are formed when water and Carbon Dioxide out of the atmosphere mix with minerals like Calcium and carbonates are formed. You know hard water right. Well these carbonates when not used by the biosphere get caught in the earth's crust, these carbonates slowly reach the mantel and eventually are released as CO2 from volacnoe, hot springs, black smokers, geysers and other geological wonders. This cycle is probably one of the most important at making sure that the planet doesn't and didn't turn into a huge iceball.
The CO2 in the atmosphere is reservoir that is connected to all the others, CO2 is released and taken up by the biosphere, released and taken up by the carbonates and finally released by the burning of fossil fuels like oil/natural gas/coal. Long ago these fossil fuels were CO2 in the atmosphere were taken up by the biosphere, those plants, bacteria and animals were pushed underground in the wetlands by newer plants and animals and eventually these huge biomass reservoirs were closed off by sedimentation and over millions and millions of years, this biomass was turned into oil/coal/peat/natural gas. A lot like what will happen with out garbage dumps if we don't open them up sometime in the future.
All of the CO2 that was in the atmosphere back then is no trapped in the crust as oil/coal. It would have eventually reached the surface through natural burning off (natural coal burns, Kazachstan burning fields), release through geological events see carbonates or release through anthropogenic activities.
When oil is finite and it was earlier in the atmosphere, then that means that before life on this planet all of this CO2 was in the atmosphere. Let's take at what the atmosphere was like back then. CO2 was the main part of the atmosphere, the earth was warm, really warm and was really rainy. During this time alot of carbonates were made as would be expected but that only washed out a small part of the CO2, that was a good thing too, because the warm, wet and cloudy weather is probably one of the main reasons why life could take hold on an otherwise inhospitable rock. 3 billion years ago the earth was a different place, so too was the sun is was only 70% as strong as it is today. In fact, the sun get's stronger from year to year. So when the first life blicked the light of day, it was in a very inhospitable enviroment, but at the same time through a lack of Oxygen, something that is dangerous for all life including humans, a welcoming world for the first photosynthetic bacteria. They started taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere, and made carbon molecules and Oxygen out of it. It took almost 1 Billion years until enough CO2 was taken out of the atmosphere that the atmosphere was similiar to that today. Well, this wasn't the best thing, because the earth turned into an almost complete ice-ball for a few million years. Thank God it didn't stay like that, those bacteria died and were eaten by other bacteria and turned into CO2 again, warming up the earth again. Well after this near ice-ball experience, life went chugging along for many many years keeping an equilibrium so that we didn't run into this problem again. Of course there were asteroids and supernovae that almost wiped life off the face of this planet, but it somehow survived and kept this most important of all equilibriums going.
It kept this equilibrium by keeping trapped CO2 in the biosphere and in the crust. Every now and again the planet would get hot, more plants would grow and die and trap the CO2, the planet would cool. If an ice-age came then plants and animals would die and fewer plants would grow and the planet would warm up. Well if you know how long some of these periods took then you know that CO2 takes along time to influence the climate sometimes 100's or thousands of years.
The biggest regulator of our climate is well, mother earth/Gaia for the Greek's.
That was until we started the energy revolution, utilizing cheap fossil fuels to do the work of animals and men.
Ever since then, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased along with a reduction of the biosphere. So we are at the same time warming up the earth and destroying earth's ability to regulate itself.
If I think this is as threatening as a lot of people say, no not really, but there is a chance of something going horribly wrong (might discuss this in a later post). What I do believe is that a lot of the earth's enviroment will change. Are we as a race in danger, not at all, but I do believe that due to desrtification, loss of habitat and other immense changes along with a loss of cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels, alot of the world's population will be decimated in famines, droughts, wars and other conflicts.
I think that is a high price to pay, just so that we can use cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels.
Please pardon the writing style I didn't take time to correct it.
Back to top
Denny
Fri May 21 2010, 07:56PMQuote
Registered Member #140
Joined: Sun May 11 2008, 12:38PM
Posts: 2178
Finite Oil??? This is has been stated for a very long time...I mean Long Time!!!



Otherwise, David, not a bad post...yes, could use a little better structure...I know you will do better...Thanks for the posting! I hope you will continue to visit here...If you have any questions let Us know...;-)
Back to top
David
Sat May 22 2010, 06:18AMQuote
Registered Member #535
Joined: Sat May 22 2010, 06:14AM
Posts: 10
Unless you're one of the devote apostles of abiotic oil, then you well know from your grade school teacher in Geography, that there are somethings called limited and other called renewable resources. Those resources like oil/coal are limited. When you take a closer look at that it means or would mean that the amount of oil on this planet is limited. If all fossil fuels are burned off then, it's gone. While this is not entirely true, because if we waited a couple tens or hundreds of millions of years some of it would be replenished.
So if we are sitting on a finite amount of oil/coal/peat, whatever, then these reservoirs are one of the many carbon deposits of our earth. The others are the carbonates, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the carbon in the biosphere. Of course, there are other sources and stashes of carbon in this world(the methane sitting on ocean floors and in tundras, etc.), but to keep it simple let's remain by what are considered the largest deposits. Carbonates are the stones that are formed when water and CO2 out of the atmosphere mix with minerals like Calcium and carbonates are formed. You know hard water right. Well these carbonates when not used by the biosphere get caught in the earth's crust, these carbonates slowly reach the mantel and eventually are released as CO2 from volcanos, hot springs, black smokers, geysers and other geological wonders. This cycle is probably one of the most important at making sure that the planet doesn't and didn't turn into a huge iceball.
The CO2 in the atmosphere is the reservoir that is connected to all the others, CO2 is released and taken up by the biosphere, released and taken up by the carbonates and finally released by the burning of fossil fuels like oil/natural gas/coal. Long ago these fossil fuels were CO2 in the atmosphere until they were taken up by the biosphere, those plants, bacteria and animals in the wetlands were pushed underground by newer plants and animals and eventually these huge biomass reservoirs were closed off by sedimentation and over millions and millions of years, this biomass was turned into oil/coal/peat/natural gas. A lot like what will happen with out garbage dumps if we don't open them up sometime in the future, we probably will to get at those wonderful resources we used to throw away.
All of the CO2 that was in the atmosphere back then is now trapped in the crust as oil/coal/etc.. It would have eventually reached the surface through natural burning off (natural coal burns, Kazachstan burning fields), release through geological events (see carbonates) or unnaturally through anthropogenic activities.
When oil is finite and it was earlier in the atmosphere, then that means that before life on this planet all of this CO2 was in the atmosphere or in the crust/mantel. Let's take a look at what the atmosphere was like back then. CO2 was the main part of the atmosphere, the earth was warm, really warm and was really rainy. During this time alot of carbonates were made as would be expected but that only washed out a small part of the CO2, that was a good thing too, because the warm, wet and cloudy weather and high CO2 concentration is probably one of the main reasons why life could take hold on an otherwise inhospitable rock. 3 billion years ago the earth was a different place, so too was the sun it was only 70% as strong as it is today. In fact, the sun get's stronger from year to year(may talk about this in a later post). So when the first life blicked the light of day, it was in a very inhospitable enviroment, but at the same time through a lack of oxygen, something that is dangerous for all life including humans(may also be in a post later), a welcoming world for the first photosynthetic bacteria. They started taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere, and made carbon molecules and Oxygen out of it. It took more than 1 Billion years until enough CO2 was taken out of the atmosphere that the atmosphere was similiar/not the same but similar to that today. Well, this wasn't the best thing, because the earth turned into an almost complete ice-ball for a few million years. Thank God it didn't stay like that, those bacteria died and were eaten by other bacteria and turned into CO2 again as well as the volcano activity that increased(later post), warming up the earth again. Well after this near ice-ball experience, life went chugging along for many many years keeping an equilibrium so that we didn't run into this problem again. Of course there were asteroids and supernovae that almost wiped life off the face off this planet, but it somehow survived and kept this most important of all equilibriums going.
It kept this equilibrium by keeping trapped CO2 in the biosphere and in the crust. Every now and again the planet would get hot, more plants would grow and die and trap the CO2, the planet would cool. If an ice-age came then plants and animals would die and fewer plants would grow and the planet would warm up. Well if you know how long some of these periods took then you know that CO2 takes along time to influence the climate sometimes hundreds or thousands of years.
The biggest regulator of our climate is well, mother earth/Gaia for the Greek's.
That was until we started the energy revolution, utilizing cheap fossil fuels to do the work of animals and men.
Ever since then, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased along with a reduction of the biosphere. So we are at the same time warming up the earth and destroying earth's ability to regulate itself.
If I think this is as threatening as a lot of people say, no not really, but there is a chance of something going horribly wrong (might discuss this in a later post). What I do believe is that a lot of the earth's enviroment will change. Are we as a race in danger, not at all, but I do believe that due to desertification, loss of habitat and other immense changes along with a loss of cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels, alot of the world's population will be decimated in famines, droughts, wars and other conflicts.
I think that is a high price to pay, just so that we can use cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels.
This is a second draft, still not complete I might correct it again tomorrow.
Back to top
David
Sat May 22 2010, 07:10AMQuote
Registered Member #535
Joined: Sat May 22 2010, 06:14AM
Posts: 10
@ Denny, first thanks for the link.
Second, I know that alot of people talk about peak oil, and alot of people say that we are soon approaching it if not already past it.
I can certainly agree that when it comes to predicting the future, it really is an uncertain buisness. Although you must admit, that some of the connections being made in that article are more than precarious.
The truth is, and that no one denies, oil reservoirs that are easy to tap, are gone. Those that were near the surface and readily found and even started the first big oil multis (quaker state/standard) are long gone. In Pennsylvania my home state you can see the old oil derricks rusting away, the same goes for much of texas and california. Those pumps with alittle oil below the surface only get turned on when the oil price jumps up to near $100 the barrel, because otherwise they are just loosing money.
It's getting harder and harder to find oil, just look at the most recent oil catastrophe in the Gulf. A well about a mile underneath the surface on top of sedimentation zone of the Mississippi delta and in one of the most dangerous areas for ocean based drilling(hurricanes). It doesn't really get more risky than that now does it.
We are attempting to find even more deposits, even deeper and even smaller, while attempting to satiate a hunger that has grown at an almost exponential rate.
Looking at the way oil skyrocketed before the recession, and how even with decreased demand it has remained at about $70, begs the question if we have not reached peak oil have we at least plateaued. For years now the production has not increased. Of course, we could open up drilling in Alaska, which is not as big as people would lead you to believe, it's easy to get at compared with today's technology but it's production wouldn't even make a dent in oil prices, we consume too much. And so I would leave Alaska untouched and let it be that what it was once called, a strategic reserve. Who knows when we really might need it, and not just for making gas 10 cents cheaper.
Have we reached peak oil, who knows, we won't really know until oil starts getting more expensive and the production decreases, so like I said we can't predict the future, we will only really know when we are going down into the valley that we were at the top.
My opinion is that we have reached peak ouput at this price. When the price goes up we will be able to start tapping alot of wells that are right now technically/economically out of bounds or start extracting energy intensive deposits like in Texas, California and in Alberta(tar sands). The only way around peak oil might be the free market, the more expensive the energy the more people start looking for it, it's like gold.
The real question behind all of this is can our country and the western world for that matter, really afford to tap these new deposits. Will the economies be able to cope with these costs. I think it's pretty obvious, that is no. Again the free market will see that conservation and efficiency will bring more than looking for more expensive oil. You see that today, people buying hybrids, SUV's and the Hummer going extinct, wind farms popping up like daisies, the first commercial solar plant being built in the U.S.
So if these trends stick, than no we won't see peak oil but rather plateau oil. My only fear is that the free market isn't fast enough when responding to infrastructure demands especially in a globalized market. Privatized water for instance trucks water to customers rather than build pipes, because in the short run it's more profitable. Privatized electricity doesn't build new masts and lines, see what happened in the west a couple of years ago and in the greater metro area of manhattan, even in winter or after a thunderstorm.
Let's be honest our energy needs belong to our infrastructure and even if we haven't theoretically reached peak oil, I'm sure we technically haven't, we have almost certainly reached peak oil economically. I don't think consumers will be able to swallow $100-150 oil any time in the near future unless inflation takes off along with salaries.
And seeing as how infrastructure, planned infrastructure, is not a real strength of private companies, I think we might be in for a real treat if the economy starts getting better.
While I don't think your link totally misses the point I think it not only oversimplifies both sides of a complex argument, but ignores important facts of the issue. Like many who preach peak oil, this article preaches the other side of the coin. While both have certain truths in their argument, both also have certain falicies, and when earlier one side was nearer the truth now the other side is reaching the middle.
Peak oil was never a question of technology, when you take a look at my first post I attempted to explain that the earth used to have a hell of alot of CO2 back in the day, now most of that CO2 is trapped in the crust and mantel. There is probably enough oil in the crust to power our civilization for a thousand years. The question really is when will the power of a man or a horse be cheaper than the equivalent of that in oil, the answer I believe is not too far in the future.
Back to top
David
Sat May 22 2010, 07:21AMQuote
Registered Member #535
Joined: Sat May 22 2010, 06:14AM
Posts: 10
@Denny I used the argument of finite oil, only because unless those reading the post believe that oil is finite, then they couldn't follow my argument, however if they believe in abiotic oil, then there is no way that my post could be followed as they reject the premise on which it is based. Another argument using an abiotic oil premise could come to the same conclusion but instead of finite oil, finite carbon. That is of course unless they are believers in the earth fusion hypothesis. Just a short post about this one: They believe that the center of the earth is actually a small star that produces all the elements that we need continously, so that we would never run out of carbon, oxygen, iron, etc.
I wonder if there are people here who believe in that.
Back to top
ron
Sat May 22 2010, 07:24AMQuote
Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
A well-written post but with some scientific errors. The warming effect of CO2 is predominately in the first 50 to 80 ppm. It is like a some sunglasses. Let's say the first pair cuts down 50 percent. Another pair doesn't take out the remaining 50 percent. It takes out half of the remaining 50. And so on and so on. Even that is inaccurate. The response of CO2 is actually logarithmic in orders of magnitude, rather than parabolic by halves.

As for land use changes, well, you have Venezuela to thank for that. They are cutting down rain forests to make room to grow corn to make ethanol so they can be independent of "oil." Also, the process of oil production in the Earth's mantle and crust is thought to be from the fossilized remains of plants and animals but that has never been proven. Carbon is carbon and it could just as easily be a process of vulcanization. I think it is within our technology and science to harvest carbon fragments and componds such as CO2 and create more oil. If all the components are still here (law of conservation of mass and energy), then we've lost nothing and merely need to reclaim it. How is burning corn any more legitimate than burning down trees for heat and cooking?

CO2 doesn't bring or hold in the heat. It feeds plants and therefore it feeds us animals that feed on plants and on animals that eat plants. As a planet warms, more CO2 is released to the atmosphere, which feeds more plants, etc. If there is a connection fo positive feedback to CO2, it is in the support of life. That is, as the planet becomes warmer, more creatures survive and these creatures exhale CO2. Also, thanks to Henry's Law (chemistry), as the oceans warm, they release CO2. CO2 concentration is a by-product of warming, not a cause of it. And the name Greenhouse Gas is a misnomer. The gases can only vary the heat exchange rate and irradiance but they cannot stop the exiting radiation or the process of convection. Even an actual greenhouse cannot stop the escape of heat through a hard barrier such as glass or plexiglass. They only slow the rate of heat exchange from inside to outside. The only other advantage of an actual greenhouse is in blocking off the wind, which helps to convect heat away.

The Earth will survive. If we ruin our food supply by burning it as fuel, we will die as a species and Nature will grow trees once again, thanks to birds and squirrels and it will grow back.

But far more creatures die in ice ages from cold, bacteria, and lack of food than in warm times of abundance and higher temperature. Your body runs a fever because heat kills bacteria. I've read of bacterial infections from Viet Nam, a veritable jungle. But I'm not hearing of rampant bacterial infections in the desert southwest.

No, I'm afraid this article is still striving to place the control of the planet in the hands of man, a rather overreaching arrogance and just not logically or experientially possible. Politics ruin the day. The Gulf Oil Spill has not reached the amount of the Exxon Valdez yet some are calling it the greatest disaster known, as justification to nationalize the oil industry. Everything becomes a reason to advance socialism.
Back to top
ron
Sat May 22 2010, 07:27AMQuote
Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
David, I live in Texas. My father-in-law can point to a number wells in south Texas that are sitting idle, not because it has become to difficult to get the oil. The deposits are full and often so are the storage tanks in Texas City, near Houston. No, they are locked down and idle because of the fed saying we can't process our own and must, instead, buy foreign oil, which places us at the mercy of the middle east. Hence, we get involved in wars over there to ensure the flow of oil. If we could develope our own, we could get out of the middle east to a large extent.
Back to top
ron
Sat May 22 2010, 07:57AMQuote
Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
Also, the price of oil is not reflective of the costs of exploration and drilling, though that does increase a small amount depending on difficulty. No, the price of oil is reflective of it being a traded commodity controlled, for now, by OPEC. Though you are well-spoken, I think that you have already reached a conclusion that leads to nationalization and more socialism and merely seek to support your ideas with the straw boss of how difficult it may or may not be to get oil. As for untapped easy wells being gone, are you aware of oil seeping from the ocean floor off the coast of California? Oil is pouring out of the ground, literally, but California does not allow drilling on its shores.

We have yet to run out of oil and we just get better at finding it.
Back to top
David
Sat May 22 2010, 11:18AMQuote
Registered Member #535
Joined: Sat May 22 2010, 06:14AM
Posts: 10
@ron I will only speak on a few points here:
CO2 does trap heat and the effects of this can be seen in mathematical models, it either absorbs infrared emitted from the sun or emitted from the surface, this energy is either transformed into a temperature increase, increase in the kinetic energy of the molecule or re-released as a lower energy wavelength. This emission can occur in all directions so either into space or in the direction of the surface or anywhere between. When the concentration of CO2 increases then this net of molecules able to absorb infrared becomes thicker, effectively warming up the atmosphere and the surface more. I'm not aware of any model that shows a flattening of this curve at 50-80 ppm. The models that I know that take into account only CO2, meaning no water or methane and no temperature increased release, show that while the of course the highest slope at the beginning of concentration scale is, the temperature never ceases to rise up until 100 bar and 100% CO2.
In one sense it is true, every ppm at 50ppm brings more than a ppm at 380ppm in our atmosphere, but this difference is not as large as you propagate, because the absorption re-emission of solar infrared radiation in the upper atmosphere while it does contribute to this diminishing slope, must be seen in relation to the amount of infrared and visible light being emitted by our sun. Much of this visible radiation is converted to infrared on the surface, the thicker the net the less likely that this energy will be lost into space.
Of course, you're right about CO2 being a nutrient for plants and therefore vital for all life(not all but almost all), and that higher CO2 would lead to increased growth and increased capture of CO2, but at higher temperatures this falls away as Rubisco, the CO2 capturing protein and most abundant protein on the planet, has evolved for current/past temperatures, higher temperatures lead to less capture of CO2, I know you might be thinking of jungles then, but the difference being in jungles the plants have the water to cool themselves. Warming won't necessarily bring the necessary increase in water to effectively cool the plants at the new temperatures.
Alittle note to the Gulf spill, the last undersea boring island disaster was the largest in history, it was back in the seventies, I think it was spilling less than the BP rig for a year or more before they could shut it off, you can still find oil on the beaches of Cancun. I mean you have good intentions, but you seem to be discussing things I never touched on. Sorry if I don't respond to them.
If California doesn't allow drilling of the coast then I don't know what all those platforms are doing there, and drilling undersea is anything but easy, it's not like in Pa. or Tx. where you used to be able to get oil out of the ground with a shovel.
That with idle wells in Texas is not true, it's the costs of running the electric motors on the pumps that makes the oil more expensive than the cost of buying oil on the open market that's why they are idle, and for no other reason. The U.S. used to be the largest producer of oil world-wide because of Texas, but then the oil stopped coming out of the ground with pressure and needed to be pushed out.
Cost of a barrel an oil exploration go hand in hand, while the U.S. might have more restrictive rules other countries do not. The largest reservoir discovered in the last couple of decades was in Russia, it's difficult to get at and the only reason they started drilling was because the price of oil went up from the 90's low of $20, oil sands deposits are huge, but because of the energy needed to extract it, they are first economical when the price hits $100 or more. There are deep reservoirs all over the world, but because of the price involved in drilling so deep and getting the oil to the surface they first economical at a certain barrel price some are $100 some about $200.
I don't mean to be mean, but why would a company or gov't. not pump oil when the price is high enough, they lose profits and taxes and other revenue. The BP rig in the Gulf, was a test rig, that they were going to close, so that they could get the allowance to from the gov't. for commercial operations, for that you have to know how big the well is, how much pressure, quality of oil and so on.
I never reached a conclusion leading to anything, but rather asked the question can private companies of their own wish without regulations build infrastructure. Do you think private companies would build highways for the sake of it if the gov't. wasn't spending money on it. Do you think the private sector would build a sewer system, water treatment, power lines without them either being required by law to due so or by the gov't taking over that part of the infrastructure.
The gov't. on local to federal levels is there to build infrastructure, if it didn't do you think there would be anything but dirt roads and if there was asphalt you'd have to pay tolls, do you think the company would care about laying sewer lines out to your house, when they earn so little from it, do you think a private company would treat the sewer instead of just pumping into the river when there weren't laws against it. The free market doesn't do infrastructure, because it isn't profitable and there is little growth.
I'm not talking about nationalizing anything or even socialism. Get my words straight.
Back to top
Denny
Sat May 22 2010, 01:22PMQuote
Registered Member #140
Joined: Sun May 11 2008, 12:38PM
Posts: 2178
Denny Posted: Sat May 22 2010, 03:21PM

David,

May I suggest you take the "time" to listen to Dr. Richard Lindzen presentation..His presentation is a little over an hour...A very good listen!

Denny Posted: Sat May 22 2010, 03:21PM

David,

May I suggest you take the "time" to listen to Dr. Richard Lindzen presentation..His presentation is a little over an hour...A very good listen!

Back to top
David
Sat May 22 2010, 03:26PMQuote
Registered Member #535
Joined: Sat May 22 2010, 06:14AM
Posts: 10
Although, I haven't hear this "lecture" I am sure it is quite interesting, however, I don't want to spend my time listening to a man that seems to be able to predict cloud development in a warming atmosphere. Even as Mr. Lindzen often states, there is too much uncertainty, and I'm assuming he means his models as well.
Mr. Lindzen has worked on the IPCC, has supported its conclusions, had at that time simply not supported the advice to policy makers. Through the years Mr. Lindzen has become more politized, even demonstrated his willingness to run for political office. It is at this point that one could lose respect for him, as a man of science doesn't belong in politics.
I would appreciate in the future if you would make an effort to read my posts, as in your recent posts, there seems to be no reference in your links to any theme that I spoke of, except generally in the form of global warming.
Your quoting someone here that according to Wikipedia, doesn't believe that smoking causes lung cancer. This seems to be a man that just wants to be on the other side, if he's right he'll be a hero and if he's wrong he'll already be dead before he's proven to be a nut.
Don't get me wrong some of his work was really good.
It's just his assessment of others' work not related to his research field.
He's even a person that said that humans are depleting the ozone layer.
Look I don't mind you sending me a pile of links that I can respond to but I wish you would also attempt responding to my posts.
Back to top
Denny
Sat May 22 2010, 06:31PMQuote
Registered Member #140
Joined: Sun May 11 2008, 12:38PM
Posts: 2178
David,

I'm just showing a response to what you've stated...I'm not asking for a "response".

No. 2, I would appreciate that you quit "running" your paragraphs together for it makes your statement harder to read...I thought you were going to do this...Look at the articles I post and you will see how you run an article and display it at a site...Plus, I appreciate the type being bigger for it makes the "older" generation easier to read and fun... ;-)

Anyone who uses "Wikipedia" for Climate Research is a person who is an "Alarmist" and will be recognized as such...







and a great article by James Delingpole...



Back to top
David
Mon May 24 2010, 09:36AMQuote
Registered Member #535
Joined: Sat May 22 2010, 06:14AM
Posts: 10
I am not a climatologist, and if I were I cetainly would no everyone in the field. I would know who is reputable and who hypotheses and theories are believable, based on my own knowledge. There is nothing wrong with using wikipedia to look up info on people or subjest. It is democratic, peer-reviewed and upto date. If you describe Wikipedia as being alarmist, than it simply means, that you disagree with the scientific method and peer-review.
If this is the case then I see no reason to continue this discussion as your beliefs are fundamental and could be described as religious fervour.
You simple dismiss arguments and evidence that are unconfortable for you, instead of refuting it.
So either start refuting or I see no reason that I should waste my time with someone who doesn't understand the difference between religion and science.
Back to top
Denny
Mon May 24 2010, 04:59PMQuote
Registered Member #140
Joined: Sun May 11 2008, 12:38PM
Posts: 2178
I am not a climatologist, and if I were I certainly would no everyone in the field.

Nor am I and I never claimed to be but what’s knowing “everyone” got to do with what you “perceive” , “know” and what you’ve “learned”. It’s obvious, IF you’ve taken the time to look at “both” sides of this “agenda” for that’s what this is, you would have a different opinion and conclusion. Hopefully an “open” mind…Even though it looks like I have concluded my decision it’s ONLY based on that Science is NOT “consensus” driven. Unfortunately the CAGW Issue IS “consensus driven”. True science is “never” closed in its theories. It’s always open to be proven “falsified” by any researcher that comes to conclude on different and verifiable results. This is not happening in Climate Science today and a large portion of them what to be on the “band wagon” of continuous research grants.

Even since WWII, the government has taken over our Science Institutions to their benefit and agenda…CAGW is a very good result from this conclusion.

I would know who is reputable and who hypotheses and theories are believable, based on my own knowledge.

Uhmm, based on YOUR knowledge. Very interesting considering you approve of Wikipedia in their “biased” consideration on “one sided science”. I showed you the articles where Connelly was not posting “both” sides of this issue...But you came here with “knowledge” that it isn’t. Hence, you’ve already made the decision that CAGW is correct in its nature and approve of “consensus” science...Just for what it’s worth, this Site’s Title is “Global Warming Hoax”.com I do not know what you believe in the meaning of the word “Hoax” but let’s look at the definition. In Webster’s New Dictionary the word Hoax states this:

“An act intended to trick or dupe; also: something accepted or established by fraud” unquote!

Need I say more??? This is what this site believes. Did you even go to the “about Global Warming Hoax” and see what’s stated by the owner? If you haven’t here it is:

Global Warming Hoax is about change. Mostly climate change. It should be obvious to anyone that objectively looks at the data that our planet's climate changes. It changes often, it changes dramatically, and it often changes very quickly. We all know that weather changes, we make jokes about it. Climate is simply weather over time. Ask any geologist or paleontologist about climate change and you're very likely to get a much different answer than what you'll get if you ask a modern computer model crazed climatologist. Anyone that studies the history of this planet laughs at the notion that what little climate change our planet has experienced in the past 100 years is unusual. In fact on a geological time scale the changes we've seen are quite uneventful, to the point of not even being noteworthy to a paleontologist.

GlobalWarmingHoax.com is here to give you climate change perspective. We aren't going to try to convince you that change isn't happening, it is. We aren't going to tell you the earth hasn't recently warmed, because it’s possible that it has. We aren't even going to tell you that 'climate change' is some vast left wing conspiracy, though we will point out the self-interests of many who preach it. We are going to show you climate change from a historical perspective, a common sense perspective, and above all the perspective of dissenting scientists that dare to research natural causes of climate change. We may even point out from time to time the benefits of a warmer planet (yes, there are many). In short, climate change is real; everything happening has happened many times before and above all there are natural explanations for it
. Unquote!

Yes, Natural Climate Variation does occur regularly on the hour, day, week, month, year, decade, centuries and millenniums. We are not disputing temperature has increased…but in very small increments. The issue is the “proclamation” that CO2 is the cause. Well, it isn’t. There are peer reviewed papers here at this site states this though a number of scientists. Yes, man can and does affect regional climate thru the “island heat effects” from cities and large tracks of land exposed due to farming… But I can show you a rather large list of all the proclaimed reasons CAGW is causing but you probably don’t want to see it.

There is nothing wrong with using Wikipedia to look up info on people or subjest. It is democratic, peer-reviewed and upto date. If you describe Wikipedia as being alarmist, than it simply means, that you disagree with the scientific method and peer-review.

Like I’ve stated and showed you articles where Wikipedia IS a “Biased” source in THIS field…I didn’t say others because I have, myself, used it in other fields but I carefully compare this information. Something I suspect you do not do...Yes, its peer reviewed. We have 700 peer reviewed “Realist” papers here at this site. I recommend you checking them out. Your last statement is rather “pungent” to state that I disagree with the Scientific Method. I’ll just state read the above paragraph in my response to your 2nd sentence...I’ll just make a statement by Pete Chylek. He states:

Science is the search for “truth”, the never-ending path towards finding out how things are arranged in this World so that they can work as they do. That search is “never” finished!

I could state more but I won’t since you proclaim to be proficient in Science…

If this is the case then I see no reason to continue this discussion as your beliefs are fundamental and could be described as religious fervour. You simple dismiss arguments and evidence that are unconfortable for you, instead of refuting it.

When you come here and start “talking” like you do, thru my experiences I’ve learned to be “cautious”. If you noticed how I “welcomed” you on the end of my first comment, I sensed someone who was “intelligent” and checked on your profile…uhm a Biologist. Ok, hopefully some “science” background. I was correct but just from a “different” perspective. David, you have every right to think, learn and profess what you’ve learned in your life and state such. There will be “always” someone who will refute it! You should know that…I’m just showing here another side of this so-called “fiasco” for this is what I’ve found to be thru two years of “solid” involvement.

My Specialty chosen for over thirty years is “Micro Environments”. I have learned AND applied controlled environmental Systems in residential, commercial and industrial applications. I make people FEEL good and have done it well. I’ve always kept up on Science thru most fields...I find them fascinating. And I still do with the Internet…Wish this was around when I was young. You know what they say, “Better late than Never”!

So either start refuting or I see no reason that I should waste my time with someone who doesn't understand the difference between religion and science.

Ok, since you came HERE to expose your beliefs, may I recommend that YOU propose the questions you want answered. Then either I or someone here will give you an answer. State what kind of intended answer you want! Only you can show us what you are searching for IF you are…Maybe you’ve just came here to tell us and use us for your “book” your thinking about writing. I don’t know!!! But if you don’t like our responses, then may I suggest you going to “Real Climate” where they specialize in “biased science” and “Consensus”…

I hope you have a great time trying to figure out that there IS another side to this “AGENDA”!
Back to top
ron
Fri May 28 2010, 03:42PMQuote
Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
David, mathematical models with arbitrary weighting that has no analog in the real world is not data. Really, man. It's not. And the model produces a "what if" projection, not a validated model of what is happening. In fact, none of the GCMs from the IPCC has turned out correct.
Back to top
Moderators: Admin, Kristen Byrnes, R.Danneskjöld, MMulligan

Jump:     Back to top

Begin New Thread

Quick Reply:

 

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System
Translate to: French German Italian Spanish Portuguese GTM_LAN_DUTCH Russian Chinese Arabic Korean English