Main Menu
Google Search
Google
Twitter
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

» Yawn: Robert Redford Blames Isolated Weather Events on Global Warming

» Gore Accuses Koch Brothers of Being 'Purveyors of the Dirtiest Energy on Earth'

» New York Times Shocker: Global Warming Plateaued Last 15 Years Despite Rapid CO2 Rise

» Allergies Caused By Global Warming According To Newsweek

» Delusional: Google’s Eric Schmidt Claims Media Help Climate Skeptic ‘Liars’

» WashPost Hypes Piece Declaring ‘Climate Change Is Killing Us’

» AP Coverage of Exxon Annual Meeting Contains Predictable Misleading 'Climate Change' Statements

» NBC Uses Tragedy in Oklahoma to Advance Global Warming Agenda

» 'Vice' CEO Bugged Out by Climate Change: It's a 'Gun to Our Heads!'

» Global Warming Skeptics Rebut Face the Nation Segment on Climate Change and Moore Tornado

» Christie Dismisses Climate Change Question from NBC's Lauer as 'Distraction,' 'Esoteric Theory'

» Ex-AccuWeather's Bastardi Slams 'Ambulance Chasing' by Global Warming Theory Activists

» Sen. Whitehouse Blames GOP For Okla. Tornado, Storms, Rising Seas, Etc.

» Comedy Central 'Daily Show' Creator: Oklahoma Tornado 'Ordered to Only Target Conservatives'

» MSNBC's Hayes Plugs 'Incredible Story' of Felon Who Disrupted Oil Lease Auction

» TIME's Kluger Warns Manhattan Residents Could Soon Be ‘Swimming’ Due to Global Warming

» NYT's Gillis, Writing Under False Headline, Rants Against Warming Skeptics With 'Little Scientific Credibility'

» Dennis Miller Slams 'Phony,' 'Detestable' Al Gore, 'Everybody Should Shun'

» British Journalist Melanie Phillips: Environmentalists ‘Wrench’ Evidence to Fit Climate Conclusions

» Professors Publish Picture of Them Burning Book Refuting Global Warming

***
Science and Public Policy Institute

» Effects of C02 on Nitrous Oxide Emissions

» Interactive Effects of C02 and Temperature on Woody Plant Growth

» So Far Climate Scepticism is Right

» Climatic Effects of Black Carbon

» Spinning the Climate, The Intergovernmental Pannel on Climate Change (IPCC)

» Interactive Effects of Temperature and Enhanced C02 on Agricultural Crops

» Atmospheric Methane Concentrations

» Solar Influence on Temperatures in Europe

» Solar Influence on Climate: Cosmic Rays

» Request for Correction of Serious Inaccuracy

» Cook "The Books" is Wrong to Slam Roy Spencer

» Is C02 Mitigation Cost-Effective?

» Solar Influence on Global Temperature

» Evidence of a Medieval Warm Period in Antarctica

» Analysis of US and State-by-State Carbon Dioxide Emissions & Potential "Savings" in Future Global Temperature & Global Sea Level Rise

» Storm Trends Across the North Atlantic Ocean

» Drought Trends Across the Eastern United States

» Storm Trends Across North America

» Historical Response of Heat Waves to Global Air Temperature

» Drought Trends Across the Western United States

» Drought Trends in the Northern Great Plains, USA

» Precipitation Variability in Europe

» Historical Trends of Atlantic Basin Tropical Cyclones

» Historical Flood Trends in Europe

» Precipitation Variability in Asia

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

» 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

» New Paper “Indian Ocean Warming Modulates Pacific Climate Change” By Luo Et Al 2012

***


» Briffa Condemns Mann Reconstructions

» Econometric Applications in Climatology

» Briffa 2013

» UnderCooked Statistics

» PAGES2K Online “Journal Club”

» Cook’s Survey

» More Kaufman Contamination

» Gifford Miller vs Upside-Down Kaufman

» Steig’s Bladeless “Hockey” Stick

» Non-centring in the Forest 2006 study

***
Watts Up With That?

» Forcing The Ocean To Confess

» A data review to supplement the UK Met Office ‘Disappointing Weather Meeting’

» Two years to a 1740-type event?

» The “ensemble” of models is completely meaningless, statistically

» Quite possibly the dumbest example of ‘Tabloid Climatology’ ever from Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman

» Dammed if you do, Dammed if you don’t

» On Muller et al (2013) “Decadal variations in the global atmospheric land temperatures”

» New paper by Ross McKitrick – ‘temperature data strongly affected by local population growth’

» It appears that by UN sponsored vote, the world just doesn’t care much about climate change

» ERL rejects Richard Tol’s comment on Cook et al 2013, but won’t say who rejected it

» Remember that ‘unprecedented’ Greenland ice sheet surface melt that was allegedly caused by global warming? Never mind

» Carbon sequestration driver: Spiders, why did it have to be spiders?

***
Global Warming News

» Is a Carbon Tax a Conservative Idea Whose Time Has Come? Thoughts on the R Street – Heartland Debate

» Climate Models: “Epic Failure” or “Spot on Consistent” with Observed Warming?

» Where Does America’s Oil Come From? (An Update)

» Video: CEI Senior Fellow Chris Horner Presentation on EPA FOIA Scandals

» Social Cost of Carbon: Interagency Group Predictably Predicts Climate Change Worse Than Predicted

» The Inanity of the Global Solar Panel Market

» Winning Voter Support Makes Politicians Sound Normal on Energy Policy

» ‘Unleash the Energy Export Revolution’ – Mark Mills

» Stranger than Fiction: Ethical Abomination “Richard Windsor” Wins EPA Award for Ethics

» John Christy: Climate Change Overview in Six Slides

***
Fox News - Climate Change Stories

***
Michelle Malkin - Enviro-Nitwits

» Al Gore: Keystone pipeline an ‘atrocity’

» Electric car advocate pays $16k a minute to personally ask Obama to push carbon tax

» NYC nanny-in-chief curiously un-nannylike when it comes to bicycle helmets

» Dueling headlines — ‘Is is hot in here or is Al Gore crazy?’ edition

» News flash: Al Gore still trying to get everybody to panic

***
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

» Documented: Billions Wasted On 'GIGO' Science - Climate Models Can't Predict Squat

» Evidence Refutes Natural Climate Change Deniers: Alarmist Global Warming Myths Proven Bogus

» Admitted: Consensus Grows Among Scientists That Current Climate Models Are Gargantuan Failure

» The Brutish, Anti-Science Techniques of Climate Scientists Spreads: Harvard's Own Michael Mann

» IPCC's Gold-Standard HadCRUT Confirms: CO2's Impact On Global Temps Statistically Immaterial & Insignificant

» The Continuing Collapse of Both The Anti-Science CO2/AGW Theory & The "Unequivocal" Global Warming Trend

» Latest Data Supporting Keystone Pipeline: Higher CO2 Levels Cause Significant Drop In Murder Rate

» Revealed: Michael Mann Has Twin Who Is Even Dumber - Works For Mainstream Press Outlet

» Confirmed: 68% of Recent Peer Reviewed Studies Reject Catastrophic Global Warming Disaster Predictions

» Obama Administration's View On Disappearance of Global Warming - "I Don't Know"

» Simple, Basic Factual Truths: Dangerous, Accelerating Global Warming Does Not Exist

» Global Warming: Fabrication of Misleading Temperature Data By IPCC Related Scientists Continues

» Michael Mann's Scary New Sea Level Predictions Identified As Bogus, Confirms 97% Consensus That He Fibs

» Reality Wake-Up Call: Climate "Experts" Sea Level Prediction Found To Be Wildly Wrong

» Multiple Proxy Study Confirms "Global Warming" Skeptic Views - Modern Temps Not Unprecedented, Not Global

***
CATO - Global Warming

» Nothing but Blood in Syrian Intervention for U.S.

» Tyranny of the Taxers

» North Korea: From Hyperinflation to Dollarization?

» Wasting Time in Belfast

» The Biggest Fool of All

» The Supreme Court's Tortured Reasoning Brings New Meaning to 'Sausage-Making'

» Has Mike Pence, As Governor, Forgotten He's a Fiscal Conservative?

» Welfare Shouldn't Ruin Immigration Reform

» NSA Snooping Matters, Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide'

» Intervention Temptation

» Letter to the Editor: Venezuela Hit by Fears of Hyperinflation and Recession

» Three Questions about NSA Surveillance

» Do the NSA's Phone and Internet Monitoring Programs Make Sense?

» The Deficit Is Still Bad News

» Obama Tracking Whatever You Say and Do. You're Americans?

» NSA Surveillance in Perspective

» 'It Can't Happen Here' Just Did

» How Solid Is the NSA’s Legal Footing?

» IRS Troubles Go Global

» Korean Déjà Vu

» Learn the Lessons from Iraq

» Turkey Is Different

» How to End the War on Terrorism Properly

» Killing with Kindness: How Foreign Aid Backfires

» The US-China Summit: Why Cooperation Remains Tentative

***
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

»Quite possibly the dumbest example of ‘Tabloid Climatology’ ever from Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman
»In Berlin, Obama will invoke JFK, Reagan to push climate change
»Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo: ‘How CO2 helped crops in the severe drought summer of 2012′
»Antarctic sea ice is over 12,000 Manhattans higher than the 1981-2010 mean
»Remember that ‘unprecedented’ Greenland ice sheet surface melt that was allegedly caused by global warming? Never mind
»Debunked: Hansen’s manmade ‘loaded climate dice’
»Most species originate in the tropics: ‘Tropics is where the concentration of life is maximized…the place with the highest biodiversity
»‘The pathologising of climate skepticism’: ‘The shoddy science of skeptic-bashing LOG12 attempts to turn criticism into a psychological illness’
»Warmist Media Matters Upset at CNBC: ‘The majority of CNBC’s coverage in the first half of 2013 cast doubt on whether manmade climate change exists’
»New York Times Features Climate Depot’s Morano in profile on Bill Nye: ‘In an exchange several months ago on ‘Piers Morgan Tonight’ on CNN, Mr. Morano denied that warming is occurring, and scoffed that Mr. Nye’s arguments were “the level of your daily horoscope.
Round Up of Morano and Nye’s debate on CNN:  Watch Now: CNN Climate Debate! Climate Depot’s Mo ...
»Coldest Start To The Arctic Summer On Record: ‘Looking through the DMI records going back to 1958, it appears that summer north of 80N is getting off to the coldest start on record’
»U.S. Fire Season Continues To Be The Quietest On Record


Date published: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:39:26 +0000
Details

»Who Dares to Deny Arctic Warming?
A polar bear which collapsed from heat exhaustion before it could be shot. I have in my possession a ...
»STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means
In response to those who complained in my recent post that linear trends are not a good way to compa ...
»Global Microwave SST Update for May 2013: -0.01 deg. C
The satellite-based microwave global average sea surface temperature (SST) update for May 2013 is -0 ...
»FLASH! Global warming causes record-wide tornadoes!
Just thought I’d try to be the first the make the connection between the record wide (2.6 mile ...
»EPIC FAIL: 73 Climate Models vs. Observations for Tropical Tropospheric Temperature
Courtesy of John Christy, a comparison between 73 CMIP5 models (archived at the KNMI Climate Explore ...
»UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2013: +0.07 deg. C
Our Version 5.5 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2013 is +0.07 de ...
»Diurnal Trends in Dewpoint Averaged over the U.S. Since 1973
The Integrated Surface Hourly (ISH) weather data I have described before allows one to examine how v ...
»On the Lighter Side: HAARP Tornado Vortex Clouds Attack!
I get scattered e-mails from a lot of people, but I get routine updates from someone named “Ol ...
»A Simple Experiment to Show How Cool Objects Can Keep Warm Objects Warmer Still
The standard explanation of the “greenhouse effect” is that it keeps the surface of the Earth warmer ...
»Surface Radiation Budget: Where’s the Proof?
I’ve had several requests for evidence of the hundreds of watts of downwelling infrared sky ra ...


Date published: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:26:52 +0000
Details

»Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7
I will be rolling out version 3.0 of my presentation on climate that has already been around the Int ...
»Climate De-Bait and Switch
Dealing with facile arguments that are supposedly perfect refutations of the climate skeptics ...
»Lame, Desperate Climate Alarm Logic
Via Kevin Drum: Chris Mooney reports today that there’s also a very simple reason: global warm ...
»Extrapolating From A Single Data Point: Climate and Sandy
I have a new article up at Forbes on how crazy it is to extrapolate conclusions about the speed and ...
»A Great Example of How The Climate Debate is Broken
A climate alarmist posts a “Bet” on a site called Truthmarket that she obviously believe ...
»I Was Right About Monnett
When the news first came out that Charles Monnett, observer of the famous drowned polar bear, was un ...
»Lewandowsky et al. Proves Skeptics are Reasonable and Pro-Science
I am not sure it is worth beating this dead horse any further, but I will make one final observation ...
»Worst Study Ever?
I have to agree with JoNova, the Lewandowsky study ostensibly linking climate skeptics to moon-landi ...
»I Was Reading Matt Ridley’s Lecture at the Royal Society for the Arts….
… and it was fun to see my charts in it!  The lecture is reprinted here (pdf) or here (html) o ...
»Still Toying With Security
If you hit an unexpected error, or worse, seem to have been banned, email me at the link on this pag ...


Date published: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 00:36:44 +0000
Details

»Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says
University of Waterloo press release. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming sin ...
»Hard times for the Church of Global Warming
By John Hayward In response to Hillary Clinton Does ‘Hard Hitting’ Climate Change Interv ...
»GREEN FAIL: Solar Panels Catch Fire on High School Roof – Black Plume Seen for Miles
“Hey, let’s put them on every school.” By Jim Hoft When Webster Groves High School ...
»Obama administration gives wind farms a pass on eagle deaths, prosecutes oil companies
Published May 14, 2013, Associated Press CONVERSE COUNTY, Wyo. –  The Obama  administration has neve ...
»In Defense of Carbon Dioxide
By Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer Of all of the world’s chemical compounds, none has a ...


Date published: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 03:57:43 +0000
Details

»Briffa Condemns Mann Reconstructions
Not in so many words, of course. However, Briffa et al 2013 took a position on the use of radially d ...
»Econometric Applications in Climatology
Ross McKitrick is hosting a workshop entitled “Econometric Applications in Climatology” ...
»Briffa 2013
Briffa’s new paper on Yamal is online today here, together with Supplementary Information here ...
»UnderCooked Statistics
Yet another propaganda essay masquerading as a scientific paper has been published (SI here) in the ...
»PAGES2K Online “Journal Club”
I’m listening to a presentation by PAGES2K authors sponsored by Nature: http://blogs.nature.co ...
»Cook’s Survey
John Cook, whose crush on Lewandowsky continues unabated, asked various blogs, including Climat Audi ...
»More Kaufman Contamination
Kaufman and paleo peer reviewers ought to be aware that the recent portion of varve data can be cont ...
»Gifford Miller vs Upside-Down Kaufman
Darrell Kaufman, lead PAGES2K author, has promoted varvology for Arctic temperature reconstructions. ...


Date published: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:06:52 +0000
Details

»Effects of C02 on Nitrous Oxide Emissions
In the words of Cantarel et al. (2011), nitrous oxide (N2O) is "an influential greenhouse gas," with ...
»Interactive Effects of C02 and Temperature on Woody Plant Growth
As the atmosphere's CO2 concentration continues to rise, most trees will likely exhibit increased ra ...
»So Far Climate Scepticism is Right
So far, the climate sceptics are right, the cry-babies wrong.
»Climatic Effects of Black Carbon
Writing as background for their work, Kaspari et al. (2011) state that "black carbon (BC, the absorb ...
»Spinning the Climate, The Intergovernmental Pannel on Climate Change (IPCC)
The IPCC is claimed by some to have provided evidence that the earth’s climate is harmed by changes ...
»Interactive Effects of Temperature and Enhanced C02 on Agricultural Crops
As the air's CO2 content rises, most plants exhibit increased rates of photosynthesis and biomass pr ...
»Atmospheric Methane Concentrations
Atmospheric methane's contribution to anthropogenic climate forcing is estimated to be about half th ...
»Solar Influence on Temperatures in Europe
We begin this review of the Sun's influence on European temperatures with the study of Holzhauser et ...
»Solar Influence on Climate: Cosmic Rays
The study of extraterrestrial climatic forcing factors is primarily a study of phenomena related to ...
»Request for Correction of Serious Inaccuracy
As an Expert Reviewer for the Fifth Assessment Report, 2013, and in accordance with the IPCC Protoco ...


Date published: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:14:13 +0000
Details

»Is this worthy of main National news ?
So a hand full of Army pers. are sending around obscene emails. I am shocked and amazed!! – bu ...
»Brilliant political parody of the Roy Orbison masterpiece – “It’s Over” – thanks to Jane Smith at the Michael Smith blog
This deserves to go viral, go to the song by Jane Smith – singing a tribute to our Prime Minis ...
»Campaign building for a No vote in Local Government Referendum on 14 September 2013
Just told about this site – Vote No to Canberra’s power grab. Easy to get involved & have ...
»Guinean schoolchildren in the capital Conakry who, lacking electricity in their homes, seek out lighted areas at night to study – airport, petrol stations, roundabouts.
A great contrast to Australia where children are “GreenWashed” to accept the turning off ...
»RI sunspot numbers just out for May – NASA/NOAA SWO number has been increasing more than Belgian RI count over April May
Confirming the “rabbit ears” shape for Solar Cycle 24. Interesting that the SWO minus RI ...
»Update chart monthly IEV arrivals May 2013 – another solid month for the asylum seeker industry
Following on from my June 2012 post – Great Australian open borders experiment – come on ...
»Bureau of Meteorology feeds the main-stream-media dubious warming propaganda
I was interested in this Sydney Morning Herald article with various statements about recent warm con ...
»Another Bureau of Meteorology failed three month temperature Outlook – Autumn 2013
This month the BoM announced “Seasonal Climate Outlook released today using a new model ...
»BoM forecast for Perth 31st May 2013 – “frost possible” -yet Perth central weather stations have not recorded a 0° minimum in May in over a century
An interesting call because Perth Regional Office weather station 9034 never recorded a minimum of 0 ...
»Snow in UK and downunder on 15th of May
I am sure this is not rare – the BBC reports – Snow and winds of 65mph hit Devon and Cor ...


Date published: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:29:24 +0000
Details
Latest Forum Posts
Posted by reeti
http://cureallergyasthma.com In normal cases the p[more ...]
05/15 01:49

Posted by Anonymous
We are professional in supplying Cabal Alz, Cabal [more ...]
04/23 23:47

Posted by Anonymous
Welcome to WOW Gold Online Store, Runescape 2007 G[more ...]
04/23 23:45

Posted by Anonymous
we are Cheapest Online Aion gold aion kinah store [more ...]
04/23 23:44

Posted by Anonymous
Buy cheap Dragon Nest Gold from Safe online Store [more ...]
04/23 23:41

Posted by Anonymous
Moneyb ooker and so on with fast and safe. Guild W[more ...]
04/23 23:39

Posted by Anonymous
[ REQUIRES ADMIN APPROVAL ]
04/23 23:30

Posted by Anonymous
I am interested in this topic and would like to fi[more ...]
04/20 03:38

Posted by Anonymous
I truly enjoyed reading it, you will certainly be [more ...]
04/20 03:36

Posted by Anonymous
I would like to say thank for sharing this great a[more ...]
04/20 03:34

Chat Box
You must be logged in to post comments on this site - please either log in or if you are not registered click here to signup


StopSmokingPot    [02/01 09:01]
I'm loving this Gore getting bashed by MSM for selling to "big oil", the MSM of course is worried about the CO2, but the real worry should be that the programing will just continue to attack drilling in the U.S. giving the middle east the edge and the profits and the jobs, etc. etc.


WCK    [11/25 10:52]
Scientists are try to figure out what fossil fuel was used by a 9,000 year old society that caused their city to end up 120 feet below sea level. lol ;-)


WCK    [11/25 10:48]
Here is the story of the 9,000 year old city found under 120 feet of water.




WCK    [11/25 10:46]
Scientists are try to figure out what fossil fuel was used by a 9,000 year old society that caused their city to end up 120 feet below sea level. lol ;-)


ron    [11/18 05:47]
And I am still learning how to edit after recording. I come from the good old days of a 5 inch reel-to-reel.



ron    [11/18 05:46]
I'm still having problems adapting the mic to record. I sing so loud on the high parts that the mic clips and produces that distortion that you hear.


ron    [11/18 05:43]
Hey WCK, I am playing a Spectrum acoustic with Ernie Ball Slinkies. The song is the theme song from the tv show "Sons of Anarchy."


WCK    [11/17 20:56]
Hi Ron you're a blast from the past. I really like the song and am thrilled to see you're pursuing your passion. What guitar are you using in the song and what kind of strings?


ron    [11/17 17:17]
I haven't checked in for a while. Still cooking on my charcoal grill, driving a gasoline engine. And still singing.





WCK    [10/21 11:42]
SSP - Here's another group across the pond working on the same process of making fossil fuels green. and others

CO2 is a green fuel not just for plants but for humans, who knew? Since current wind and solar require Rare Earth Elements that are as limited of a resource as fossil fuels that have to be mined from the Earth, this new technology of recycling CO2 into gasoline provides an inexhaustible supply of fuel without increasing CO2. See SSP you and I have been supporting green renewable energy all along.


StopSmokingPot    [10/16 08:55]
WOW Battery maker get 9 million in Taxpayer money and the investment goes bankrupt. Hows that happen? Govt. does not know how to invest in anything.


StopSmokingPot    [10/16 08:39]
WCK CO2 to gasoline! What's the name of that company? I know the Govt. would rather invest in bankrupt solar/wind. But that typical but I wouldn't mind investing in gasoline anything.


WCK    [10/10 16:41]
Fossil fuel can be a renewable energy with a net zero CO2 impact and the technology to make it so is being developed. An artificial tree that can absorb 1 ton of CO2/day can then transfer that CO2 to be combined with other chemicals to make gasoline. The cycle can be repeated indefinitely.




WCK    [08/11 08:35]
The climate disinformation ministry earlier this year tauted forest fires as more evidence of extreme weather caused by warming. As usual the public was lied to as fires this year are well below normal.

2012 (1/1/12 - 8/10/12) Fires: 39,445 Acres: 5,047,443
2011 (1/1/11 - 8/10/11) Fires: 47,187 Acres: 6,320,510
2010 (1/1/10 - 8/10/10) Fires: 41,614 Acres: 2,167,361
2009 (1/1/09 - 8/10/09) Fires: 59,990 Acres: 4,969,641
2008 (1/1/08 - 8/10/08) Fires: 56,778 Acres: 3,991,073
2007 (1/1/07 - 8/10/07) Fires: 59,258 Acres: 5,548,273
2006 (1/1/06 - 8/10/06) Fires: 74,045 Acres: 5,994,790
2005 (1/1/05 - 8/10/05) Fires: 41,003 Acres: 5,285,571
2004 (1/1/03 - 8/10/04) Fires: 50,774 Acres: 5,623,787
2003 (1/1/03 - 8/10/03) Fires: 39,467 Acres: 1,958,238



The latest satellite based global temperature fell in July and didn't even make the top 10 but in the USA we are told to just look out the window for proof of AGW. lol


WCK    [08/09 05:46]
Here is an article describing a scam in which money from carbon trading is not really reducing GHGs. It exists because the cost of producing the harmful GHG is much less than the profit from destroying the GHG. It allows companies to make 10s of millions in carbon credits by increasing the production of the harmful gas in one factory and then destroying it at their other factory. It's like paying an arsonist to put out fires and having the arsonist going out and starting more fires to put out. This reminds me of the instance where feed-in tarrifs for green energy were so high in Germany that people bought fossil fuel powered generators to run at night to shine light onto their solar panels which netted a handsom profit. Last year 800,000 German families couldn't afford heat last winter as energy costs were unaffordable.



StopSmokingPot    [08/08 15:59]
I think it's interesting that they are using sat images that are not the actual images of Greenland but use "computer generated images" to show that ice melted countrywide and visually make people think all the ice melted in 48 hours even though the ice is 2 miles thick. The amount of ice that melted nation wide was most likely less than a 16th of an inch melt.
Yes they have ramped up the disinformation they sound like the current administration. They just blurt out stuff even though they know our own eyes see different and if we question it they a attacked verbally today... but tomorrow?? It's feeling a bit Soviet.


WCK    [08/06 09:56]
SSP - The alarmists' have ramped up the disinformation campaign to frighten the ignorant and uninformed. They ignore the scientific fact that paleoclimate researchers have identified periods of past drought that lasted 200+ years in the last 1,000 years when CO2 was below 300PPM and then pretend that a few months of drought today is unprecedented and "proof" that global warming is the culprit for more extreme weather. However the actual scientific evidence that something is wrong with the current CO2 based models/theory continues to grow. Antarctic ice melt models have been found to be wrnong and now the Greenland models are being questioned for accuracy. What a shock! lol





StopSmokingPot    [08/02 19:06]
Hey guy's you've seen the sat images of Greenland purported to be take on the 8th full of ice then on the 12th with no Ice?? Just to let you know I flew over Greenland on the 14th and it was solid white what is known about this sat. imagery??


WCK    [07/16 21:10]
One of the key tenets of global warming is that warming amplification will occur in the form of increased water vapor feedback. Bryan Walsh of Time Magazine claimed that the heavy snow in D.C a few years ago was due to increased water vapor in the atmosphere caused by global warming. Of course Walsh never had data to back up his assumption and now there is 22 years of NASA "special project" data that shows that his assumption was wrong.

This is quite inconvenient as climate models base 2/3 of future warming on non-CO2 based feedbacks like water vapor. It also means that the models used by the IPCC are not robust and that it would be illogical to assume that future predictions are accurate when models are unable to replicate what the Earth is actually doing. Other problem areas for these models are aerosols, clouds and Stratospheric water vapor.


stopsmokingpot   [07/14 20:26]
At one time man new weather was Poetry not to be feared.

"Rain falls, clouds rise, rivers dry up, hailstorms sweep down; rays scorch, and impinging from every side on the earth in the middle of the world, they are broken and recoil and carry with them the moisture they have drunk up. Steam falls from on high and again returns on high. Empty winds sweep down, and then go back again with their plunder. So many living creatures draw their breath from the upper air; but the air strives in the opposite direction, and the earth pours back the breath to the sky as if to a vacuum. Thus as nature swings to and fro like a kind of sling, discord is kindled by the velocity of the world's motion."Pliny the Elder, from the Natural History, AD 77


stopsmokingpot   [07/14 20:23]
Date Line July 14 2012-Just flew back from London, Greenland pure white from head to toe, Southern Baffin Bay plenty of Ice flows from the spring & summer thaw as always. long way from not having Ice in the Arctic... You Crazy Moonbats.
Altitude 37,000 ft over Denver -60 degrees F and that's where all the Heat goes up and cooled and dispersed. HEAT-TRAPPED! No place but between you crazy ears Moonbats. Fires in Denver no, Rain, YES.


Thetruth   [07/13 16:02]
LINK--->


Thetruth   [07/13 16:02]
WCK is an Alien! Listen to what he's saying! This guys wicked smart because hes from outterspace and has a spaceship! GO GLOBALWARMING HOAX!!!


WCK    [07/13 10:25]
New tree ring reconstructions refute the IPCC/Michael Mann hockey stick.


Global reconstructions using better proxy methodology than tree rings, also provide growing evidence that the hockey stick is wrong, that there were warm/warmer periods such as the RWP and MWP and that they were global events. The writing is on the wall. The IPCC has lost all a scientific credibility and it is clear that the idea of consensus on global warming is mythology at best. I have provided numerous examples on this site over several years explaining climate model divergence from reality and honest scientists like James Lovelock can mo longer ignore evidence of climate model divergence and are recanting their consensus support. Without a .3 degreeC temperature rise in satellite readings by 2013, the models are falsified.


WCK    [07/13 09:49]
The Antarctic was covered with vegetation during the Miocene when CO2 levels were 280 PPM. Can any of you that believe in a consensus of unprecedented global warming explain this decoupling between global warming and CO2? Japanese sea level experts find that sea level was 2 meters higher than today just 4,000 years ago when CO2 levels were below 300PPM. This corraborates seperate studies in the Carribean that also provide evidence of sea level being higher by 1 to 2 meters earlier in the Holocene period.

Those that believe in a climate consensus are anti-science types who have not examined any paleoclimate data, satellite data, etc. and who let their lizard brain flight or flight fears overtake logic based on evidence. They are unable to realize their own confirmation bias but rely on it to ignore scientific evidence that challenges them.


Relevant Sponsors

Donations - Any Amount:




* or *


Advertise on this site
RSS Feeds
Our news can be syndicated by using these rss feeds.
rss1.0
rss2.0
rdf

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

Global Warming References
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: 2177
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...;-)



For further articles here at GWH.com archives, click "Forums" and search for your favorite topic
.


Let it Be Known to Others who Need to be Led!
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.

Biochemist with a penchant for astrobiology
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.

Biochemist with a penchant for astrobiology
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.

Biochemist with a penchant for astrobiology
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.

Biochemist with a penchant for astrobiology
Back to top
Denny
Sat May 22 2010, 01:22PMQuote

Registered Member #140
Joined: Sun May 11 2008, 12:38PM
Posts: 2177
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!





For further articles here at GWH.com archives, click "Forums" and search for your favorite topic
.


Let it Be Known to Others who Need to be Led!
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.

Biochemist with a penchant for astrobiology
Back to top
Denny
Sat May 22 2010, 06:31PMQuote

Registered Member #140
Joined: Sun May 11 2008, 12:38PM
Posts: 2177
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...







For further articles here at GWH.com archives, click "Forums" and search for your favorite topic
.


Let it Be Known to Others who Need to be Led!
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.

Biochemist with a penchant for astrobiology
Back to top
Denny
Mon May 24 2010, 04:59PMQuote

Registered Member #140
Joined: Sun May 11 2008, 12:38PM
Posts: 2177
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”!




For further articles here at GWH.com archives, click "Forums" and search for your favorite topic
.


Let it Be Known to Others who Need to be Led!
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, Joseph Herron, 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
Recent Additions
Recent Additions